Putin Preempts Pointless ‘Peace’ Powwow – Simplicius
Tue 7:08 am +00:00, 18 Jun 2024 The latest narrative on the pro-Russian side revolves around the big Swiss Peace Summit being a “total failure”. Though I understand the desire to score propaganda points against the Atlanticists, in reality, there was no real ‘failure’ per se, only because the summit itself never truly made claim to even attempting to “achieve” anything to begin with. From the get go, it was nothing more than a cheap political exercise aimed at continuing the unbroken line of morale-boosting PR for Ukraine, to keep the manufactured “unity” and “solidarity” that the European comprador apparatchiks are so desperate to signal in the public’s eye. Endless reams have already been spun about the summit’s many grotesqueries, incongruities, absurdities, et cetera, et cetera. It’s pointless to rehash them all for something that was ultimately of so little consequence, little more than a theatrical virtue signaling performance by a bunch of unelected, historically-low-approval-rated political sellouts and hacks, hated by their own people, whom they do not even serve. The more adjacently interesting development was Putin’s preemptive peace offer, a couple days before the summit took place. Naturally, the Western crowd tried to sell it as some kind of ‘weakness’ or desperate olive branch on Putin’s behalf, but in reality it was clearly Putin’s cunning undermining of the summit. By presenting a legitimate and not unreasonable offer, Putin made the cartoonish cartel’s gathering reek of a mealy hypocrisy to the attuned olfactory senses of the Global South. John Helmer again covers the angle, writing about Putin’s peace offer:
I recommend his entire article, as it goes into exquisite detail about several other important items like Putin’s negotiations play and Ukraine’s energy situation. But the best summation of Putin’s peace power play came by way of Dmitry Medvedev on his X account—read particularly the boldened sections:
Re-read in particular this portion: “This zone can extend over as much as f[ormer] Ukraine right till the borders of Poland, because this is where the continuous threat is coming from. And then what? The President has not put it directly, but obviously, these territories can become part of Russia – if the people living there wish so.” Another final analysis which underscores my point:
But in all the convolutions of ongoing back and forths, the one important thing that is lost, which I haven’t seen any other analyst cover, is the following: Everyone understands the dry points of Putin’s demands, which he has articulated over the course of months, about deNazification, keeping to current battlefield gains and ‘realities’, etc. But the single most important point which has flown completely under the radar, and which I believe is actually the very heart of Putin’s proposal, is hinted at in the earlier video where he says that mere ‘ceasefires’ are inadequate, and that he is seeking a permanent solution of some kind. He didn’t specify there, but he has before—multiple times. What Putin alludes to is that in order to end the Ukrainian war for good, Russia will take no less than a re-working of the entire European security framework. This is why he harps on Zelensky’s illegitimacy, it’s because Putin wants to build up to the fact that there must be a far larger, overriding framework of guarantors which is immutable and inviolable, rather than flimsy and ephemeral like Zelensky. What Putin is seeking is revolutionary: he wants to re-establish a whole new, modern Westphalian Peace. He wants the Ukrainian war to be the linchpin of a new global security system that plays into all the recent BRICS declarations of ‘reworking the UN’ and every other major global institution. Putin wants to reshape how the entire international system functions vis-a-vis their security relationships; in essence, it would be the first new concrete paradigm of the post-Cold War and ‘Iron Curtain’ period. So for all those people who are asking: what is the ultimate price Putin is willing to pay to give up Russia’s maximalist aims in Ukraine—would he do it for the basic terms of demilitarization, no joining NATO, and all that? Not likely: because there is no way to guarantee Ukraine’s adherence to any such agreements. The only way to end the war would be a reworking of the entire system in such a way as to give Russia credible confidence in the new system holding indefinitely. It would take, as I said, a new Westphalian framework that institutionalizes new, much broader realities of what countries can and cannot do in overreaching via provocative actions against one another. If you really listen to Putin’s speeches and statements on this issue, this is the secret he’s intimating—though not very loudly or aggressively, for now. The reason for that is likely because he knows it’s too ambitious of an opening ‘ask’, and he would prefer to first lure the parties in via basic conditions before escalating it to the logical conclusion when it comes to the issue of: how do we realistically guarantee such conditions between parties? This is why Putin is likely in no great rush to end the war: in order to effect such an ambitious world-reshaping plan, he knows the currentpolitical class has to first be waited out. That may not take long: just look at the ongoing bloodbath in European politics with virtually every globalist puppet leader on their way out. Putin likely knows that by next year or so, he could very well be parleying with a whole new assemblage of faces.
On that note: Le Pen did state today that she would not call for Macron’s resignation should his party get obliterated in the early snap elections he announced, but will rather ‘respect tradition’ by operating as a majority ‘cohabitator of power’—according to her. But we’ll see what happens. More and more, pundits and commentators—Mercouris among them—are suggesting that Macron is in fact looking for a ‘way out’ himself, just as Rishi Sunak when he called his own early elections. Putin knows if he can wait a little longer, he may have a retinue of European leaders in front of him who are actually seriously interested in a new just and fair security framework for all of Europe. Only this could prematurely end the war, and at the earliest, such a setup is likely a year or more away. As a final point: would Putin really end the conflict prematurely, even without capturing Odessa and potentially Kharkov, if the West agreed to such a revolutionary compromise? Firstly: the chances of the West being allowed to agree to such a thing by their masters in the ‘cabal’ is very low, even when the new class of leaders takes over. But let’s say, hypothetically, they do—the common question then usually is: “Wouldn’t Russia basically be signaling the loss of the war, and weren’t we told that if such a thing happened Russia would collapse and Putin would be overthrown?” Let’s get real: if Putin ended the war literally today, right now, no one would be overthrown and nothing would collapse. Would most of us be angry? Of course. But keep in mind nearly half of Russian citizens actually support the cessation of hostilities and a peace deal. The fact of the matter is: even if Russia were to walk away from the war with its current gains, it would have been more than worth it, and Russia would have still won an inordinate prize. Crimea, the entire Donbass region and its vast riches, millions upon millions of new citizens, a land corridor to Crimea and control over the Azov Sea, etc. I’m not saying the war will end, far from it—but simply dispelling the notion that if it did, it would result in some ‘catastrophic dissolution’ of Russia, or something like that. Quite the contrary, it would result in Russia being far richer and more powerful than it ever was before the war. Too many people have trouble with absolutes—they can only think of things in extremes and are incapable of processing trade offs. Not to mention they’ve tied their ego into this chauvinistic ideal of Russia “winning” and would feel betrayed and hurt if Russia didn’t go all the way to Lvov. One more point connected to the above: Many people have decried the BRICS as a mostly loose and wayward organization, without any real concrete terms or global directions. And certainly, we know the BRICS was not designed with the same uniformity and obedience in mind as most of the Western institutions, which are mostly aimed to create coercive losses of sovereignty over their vassal nations—i.e. the EU, G7, NATO, etc. However, tying it into the idea of a new Westphalian global architecture, Putin has now for the first time hinted that BRICS will in fact form a more rigorous framework of global leadership in the form of regulatory control of its members. Here he states openly that: “The BRICS potential will allow it to eventually become [one] of the key regulating institutions of the multipolar world order.” What does that mean? That Putin’s vision is clear: to slowly expand the BRICS to the point where it creates a true counterbalance to the decaying Western Atlanticist cartel in both the global monetary sphere and even, eventually, security architecture. The Ukraine war could be the first key turning point, the seed in the ground, from which this system necessarily sprouts. Things remain slow on the front, so for now some ancillary updates. Belousov visited the ground forces joint command center, and was given a tour: Firstly, what was fascinating is the MOD literally has a live feed of their top armor production floors: The importance of Russia’s tank and armor production and the smooth operation of the facilities cannot be understated if the MOD generals themselves watch the factory floors from their HQ all day long. On the top left is footage from Uralvagonzavod BMPT Terminator production line, as well as Atamanovsky Armored Repair Plant 103 with the refurbishment of T-62s, VPK Plant making 6×6 MRAPs, Remdiezel engine plant, and more. In light of this, four more Defense Minister Deputies were fired: And replaced, quite promisingly, by less geriatric and much more physiognomically sound candidates: One sardonic commentator had this to say about Tsalikov in particular:
More significantly:
In short, all the stale, soggy old Sovoks who got too comfortable in their positions and were too inflexible to keep up with the times are being replaced by young hungry tech-fluent ministers eager to actually whip the armed forces into shape. In fact, this is a deliberate campaign, as Putin noted in his recent speech:
It seems the new sheriff in town, Belousov, is a real hard-nosed, no nonsense cattle driver. Here’s an anecdotal description of his latest meeting:
As for who the new ministers are, journalist Sasha Kots gives a brief overview:
— I reported last time how Europe’s touted appropriation of Russian funds was not quite what it was billed to be. Now Janet Yellen has corroborated:
Well, actually, now that she mentions it—I’m not exactly sure which method is more slimey—outright theft, or forced freezing where the money’s accruing interest profits are milked and bilked. —
— Two drone related updates:
And:
— A strange episode: Russian criminal court opened a case against a Ukrainian AD missile commander—of a unit reportedly tied specifically to the Patriot missile battery—who ordered the shoot down of a Russian ‘patrol craft’ on February 23, which is precisely the date that an A-50U AWACs was said to have been shot down over Krasnodar:
A couple caveats: firstly the Russian criminal report does not specify it was an A-50 specifically, but that is being inferred. But just for the sake of due diligence, there is no real evidence to this date that an actual A-50 was shot down though it does appear likely according to this. Also, that was the incident where a Russian Buk/S-300/400 system was seen on video firing in the direction of the landing plane, which was shooting out flares. This led us to conclude it was a friendly fire incident on either an A-50 or Il-76 at the time. However, the new revelations clearly dispel this. Thus, the only other logical explanation is the Russian S-400s detected the alleged Patriot missile incoming toward the plane and attempted to shoot it down to no avail. Either that, or the whole thing is a coverup and face-saving exercise of an embarrassing friendly fire incident. However, if it’s true the Patriot shot the plane down, we can say two things, one negative, one positive: 1. NATO clearly caught Russia sleeping with some unforeseen new capability given that the range of nearly 300km to the shootdown location of Trudovaya Armenia is beyond the capabilities of all known Patriot missiles. Unless of course the report about Patriots is wrong and it was some other legacy Soviet system, like the long-suspected S-200, some variants of which can in fact reach that range. 2. The positive is that, if this does unequivocally prove that Ukraine shot down the plane, it puts to rest the concerns that Russia has no functioning IFF (Identify Friend Foe) systems, which to be honest, would be a far more concerning issue. The reason is, a slight oversight with Ukrainian capabilities can easily be fixed—and apparently has—but a critical flaw in your IFF is a far more serious problem that can endanger your entire airfleet during the course of the war. Sure, the AFU may have caught Russia sleeping and ambushed them a few times with unknown capabilities, but it means IFF is intact which would be a gigantic relief and further validates Putin’s long ago statement that “our AD systems cannot shoot their own planes down.” Also, one other small thing: the fact that an A-50 can be shot down from nearly 300km away by potentially long outdated systems is actually bearish for Ukraine, not Russia. Ukraine is putting a lot of stock in their next wunderwaffe of the Swedish AWACs they’re slated to receive, if you’ll recall. This merely proves that AWACS are sitting ducks in modern war, and Russia’s capabilities for shooting such large planes down far exceeds that of Ukraine. And lastly: not related to the above, several days ago Fighterbomber had posted a photo of a pair of Russian A-50s somewhere on the line: With the caption:
— Another Western ammo dump goes up in flames—last week it was a Polish arms plant, now Czechia: — Last item: Two back to back exchanges of bodies were carried out between the Russian forces and AFU on May 31st and June 14th:
As can be seen, the total of Russian 200s handed over by Ukraine was 77, and the total of dead AFU handed over by Russia was 466. The above is a 6:1 ratio in favor of Russia. The recent POW ratio revealed by Putin was 1,348 to 6,465, a ratio of 4.7. And Putin pinned the kill ratio to 5:1, if you’ll recall. What further evidence does one need? Every piece of data we’ve gotten suggests a minimum of roughly ~5:1 ratio for every loss category. Your support is invaluable. If you enjoyed the read, I would greatly appreciate if you subscribed to a monthly/yearly pledge to support my work, so that I may continue providing you with detailed, incisive reports like this one. Alternatively, you can tip here: buymeacoffee.com/Simplicius |