Although not as prominent as Davos, Bilderberg or the UN General
Assembly, the three-day annual GLOBSEC (Global Security) Conference is
the world’s leading platform for strategic dialogue on global security
and transatlantic cooperation. On its 20th anniversary, 1,500 leaders,
policymakers, and experts from more than 70 countries met in June to
discuss, among other topics, the ongoing war in Ukraine.
...What emerged is the elephant that had
always been there but obscured by circular language – victory or
something else?... Ukrainians and their supporters insisted on a “victory”; i.e.,
withdrawal of occupying forces, reparations, return of POWs, civilians,
and children, and prosecution of war crimes. Others, including US
participants, thought that a “ceasefire and frozen conflict” was the
“best scenario” because “all the others were worse.” The consensus on
frozen conflict proposals was notably damning, as it would not bring
lasting peace.
Ukrainians responded that if they received the weapons, air
defenses, and frozen Russian assets they needed, and if the West were to
impose tougher sanctions to starve Russian President Vladimir Putin’s
military and economy, “victory” would be entirely achievable.
The “frozen conflict” supporters countered with tiresome admonitions of
“escalation” and “nuclear war,” to which Ukrainians responded that the
West may have fallen victim to an information trap known as “reflexive
control.” A Soviet mathematician developed “reflexive control” in the
1960s to trick opponents into making self-defeating decisions in
response to fictitious threats by Soviet leaders, who were aware of the
threats’ implausibility because they risked not only their own survival
but certain defeat.
At every one of the dozen red lines that Ukrainians and the West
crossed, Putin or his proxies (such as Deputy Chairman of the Security
Council of Russia, Dmitry Medvedev) threw out nuclear threats that
landed like deflated balloons. The very fact that Ukraine survived 42
months of war and Russia sustained catastrophic losses, contrary to the
expectations of most GLOBSEC participants, should have provided some
immunity to “reflexive control.” Instead, it appears that many have internalized Russia’s nuclear blackmail despite all evidence to the contrary.
How is this done? Consider the frequency and variety of references to
World War III, nuclear war, Russian claims of technological advances,
Red Square parades of monstrous ICBMs, nuclear “training exercises” near
NATO borders, cryptic communications via “doomsday” channels, satellite
“killers,” maps depicting obliterated UK cities, and artists’ rendition
of futuristic Russian weapons.
Among Putin’s heavily touted cruise and ballistic “house of horrors” –
the Sarmat ICBM, “Skyfall” cruise missile, Poseidon underwater drone,
Kinzhal hypersonic missile, and Avangard hypersonic glide vehicle – all
have been hyped by Moscow. But behind the bravado, all face technical
hurdles, budget constraints, and exaggerated, unverified, capabilities.
Nevertheless, they serve their purpose of dissuading the West from
“provocations” and “escalations.”
The mere emotive and unjustified terror of nuclear war is the only
reason for denials, delays, and restrictions of critical weapons Ukraine
needs for a “victory.” Former US President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s
famous statement – “the only thing we have to fear is fear itself” – was
never more true.
This point, the internalization of Moscow’s
manipulated nuclear blackmail, was brought home in a published interview
with Ambassador Kurt Volker, a senior and highly respected conference
participant. His belief that a “frozen conflict” is the “best case
scenario” caught my attention. He explained that a direct confrontation
between Russia and the West would “become a nuclear war… and annihilate
everybody.” Although he did not doubt that a frozen conflict would enable Russia to
rearm and attack again, that could be made “so painful” as to deter
Russia, perhaps indefinitely...
Another conference participant, Kacper Rekawek, from the
International Centre of Counter Terrorism, was more direct: “We chose
not to win. We, the West. Maybe we’re unable to because we have grown
too lazy, too fat, too comfortable.” He noted that the outcome of that
decision is paradoxical in that Europe’s leaders speak of “preparing for
war by 2030 while refusing to use existing resources to prevent it.”
According
to Olena Halushka, Ukraine’s conference participant, “the elephant in
the room is that the best way to deter Russian aggression from
expanding… is to help Ukraine win.” She then warned of the danger for
Europe and the world if the West fails to support Ukraine’s winning
option.
Russia, she said, “can add into its constitution (by annexation)
whatever territory they claim as ‘theirs’” – Suwalki, Narva, Svalbard,
Dresden, Transnistria, and even Alaska. This “constitutional annexation
strategy” represents the ultimate weaponization of nuclear blackmail –
allowing Russia to claim any territory simply by adding it to their
domestic law, then threatening global war if the world does not comply.
Ukrainian officials at the conference left the question open: Does it
make sense, in exchange for a year or two of peace, to reward Putin with
20 percent of Ukraine’s territory, thereby abandoning a country that
has contributed the most to the safety of the West and remains Europe’s
largest, most effective, and experienced military power. Or would it
better serve the interest of all Western parties (in the words of
Ambassador Volker) to make the war so costly and painful for Putin that
he is unlikely to try again?"
"Russian Offensive Campaign Assessment, July 9, 2025
Russian forces conducted the largest combined drone and missile
strike of the war so far on the night of July 8 to 9 with 741 total
drones and missiles — an about 34 percent increase from the previous
record high of 550 Russian drones and missiles launched on the night of
July 3 to 4.[1]... The Ukrainian Air Force reported that Russian strikes primarily targeted
Lutsk, Volyn Oblast, and Ukrainian officials reported that the strikes
damaged a warehouse, private enterprise, and civilian areas in Lutsk.[3]
Ukrainian officials reported that the strikes also hit residential
areas, an enterprise, and civilian infrastructure in Kharkiv, Kyiv,
Dnipropetrovsk, Kirovohrad, Mykolaiv, Sumy, Khmelnytskyi, Cherkasy,
Chernihiv, and Zhytomyr oblasts.[4]...
The continued increase in the size of strike packages is likely
intended to support Russian efforts to degrade Ukrainian morale in the
face of constant Russian aggression. Ukrainian Air Force
Spokesperson Colonel Yuriy Ihnat reported that Russian forces used over
400 decoy drones in this strike package in order to overwhelm Ukrainian
air defense.[10]
Russian forces have equipped their decoy long-range drones with warheads
and have also modified their strike drones with warheads designed to
inflict a wide spread of damage, indicating that Russian forces aim to
maximize damage against areas in Ukraine writ large — which
disproportionately affects civilian areas.[11] Ukrainian Ground Forces Spokesperson Colonel Vitaly Sarantsev stated in an interview with the Washington Post on
July 9 that recent Russian strikes against Ukrainian military
registration and enlistment offices seek to disrupt Ukrainian force
generation efforts.[12]
Sarantsev stated that Russia aims to sow fear among Ukrainians and
create the perception that it is dangerous to go to recruitment and
enlistment offices. ISW assessed in previous years that Russia has used
strike packages targeting civilian areas to generate a morale effect in
Ukraine, as seems to be the case with the most recent strikes.[13]"
Looking at the graph, Trump's peace efforts do not look very productive, do they?
"Trump Tells Americans
What Putin Wants Them to Hear
By
Bloomberg News
Donald Trump’s Russia policy has
been sounding very familiar to the Kremlin.
Since Trump’s phone call with Vladimir
Putin on Feb. 12, their first direct contact since Trump’s return to office,
there’s been a shift in US rhetoric that has seen the president begin to echo
specific Russian talking points on the war in Ukraine, according to a Bloomberg
analysis of his public comments.
Bloomberg used a Large Language
Model to scan more than 300 of Trump’s public comments between August 2024 and
mid-March as well as more than 3,000 social media posts from the president and
members of his administration since the start of 2025. The technique allows for
comparing meaning across large volumes of text, even if the specific wording
differs.
The results, which were reviewed
by reporters, showed a correlation between Trump administration contacts with
Putin and subsequent comments that echoed the Russian leader’s own positions on
subjects including the occupation, Kyiv’s goal of joining NATO and Ukrainian
President Volodymyr Zelenskiy’s political legitimacy...
“Trump parrots Putin,” said Fiona
Hill, who served as the top Russia adviser on the US National Security Council
in the president’s first term. “He wants to get close to Putin.”
Trump is seeking to unlock tens of billions of dollars in potential
business deals by remaking the economic relationship between the US and Russia.
And to do that he needs to resolve the war in Ukraine.
As a consequence, the US has made
concession after concession to Putin, even offering to recognize Crimea as part of Russia, a
Kremlin demand since it occupied the Black Sea peninsula in 2014 that
successive administrations — including in Trump’s first term — have rejected...
Feb. 12, 2025 The First Phone Call
...A few days after Trump was sworn into office in January, Putin told a
Russian state TV interviewer: “I cannot but agree with him that if he had been
president, if his victory had not been stolen from him in 2020, then maybe
there would not have been the Ukraine crisis that broke out in 2022.”...
“The media seemingly is
advocating more death and more destruction in this unnecessary war that
wouldn’t have started if President Trump was in office,” Hughes, the NSC
spokesman, said. “Russia didn’t dare invade a neighbor during President Trump’s
first term yet did so under Biden and Obama. President Trump is taking action
to clean up their mistakes.”...
Trump and Putin spoke by phone for about 90 minutes on
Feb. 12. The following day, Trump ruled out NATO membership for Ukraine and
said that Kyiv’s aspirations to join the alliance had caused the war.
Feb. 13, 2025 Trump on NATO and Ukraine
Remarks
After Meeting with Narendra Modi
“They’ve said they cannot have Ukraine be in NATO. They said that very
strongly. I actually think that that was the thing that caused the start of the
war.”
...Putin’s demand that Ukraine never join NATO has been a central aim of
his February 2022 invasion...
Feb. 18, 2025 Saudi Arabia Meeting
Witkoff, National
Security Advisor Mike Waltz, and Secretary of State Marco Rubio meet Russian
officials to discuss how to end the war.
Feb. 18, 2025 Trump on Martial Law
Remarks
After Executive Order Signing
“We have a situation where we haven’t had elections in Ukraine. Well, we have martial law, essentially martial law in Ukraine, where
the leader in Ukraine, I mean, I hate to say it, but he’s down at four percent
approval rating.”
Putin’s Position
“The Kiev regime does not allow
the very idea of cessation of hostilities because in this case the pretext for
extending martial law disappears. And if the martial law
has to be cancelled, it means that the elections, which were not held on time,
will have to be held.”
...While Putin has repeatedly denied
Zelenskiy’s legitimacy since the Ukrainian president’s term formally expired in
May 2024, the analysis shows that Trump only began raising the issue after he’d
spoken to the Russian leader.
