Diplomatic Agreement or Double Deception? | Is Putin Deceived Once More, or Are Putin and Trump Deceiving Their Respective Publics?
Russia-Ukraine Peace Deal: Potential Deception or Diplomatic Strategy?
A peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, as proposed by U.S. special envoy Steve Witkoff, appears to align with a previous report in the Financial Times, according to economist and political analyst Paul Craig Roberts. However, Roberts' analysis suggests that the agreement may bypass the central issue at hand and serve a broader geopolitical strategy.
Key elements of the proposed deal include Russia's withdrawal from its claimed territories still under Ukrainian occupation, in exchange for de facto and de jure recognition of territories like Crimea and the Donetsk and Luhansk People's Republics. Moscow will also see an end to sanctions and the prospect of economic cooperation, although this could potentially expose Russia's economy to foreign exploitation.
However, the agreement avoids addressing Putin's demands for Ukraine's demilitarization and denazification, and Ukraine may continue to claim its territorial gains, as it can withhold de jure recognition. Furthermore, Zelensky has declared that he will not concede any territory to Russia. Additionally, Ukraine and Europe are reportedly working on a different agreement that could lead to similar security guarantees as NATO’s Article 5, effectively making Ukraine a de facto NATO member. This discrepancy could potentially lead to a rift between the U.S. and NATO.
Journalist John Helmer, in an analysis for Dancing with Bears, proposes an alternative interpretation. He contends that the peace deal is a tactical move to allow the U.S. to proceed with its war against China, sequencing one conflict at a time while leveraging Russia's perceived weakness. This strategy, Helmer suggests, is based on the neoconservative doctrine of U.S. hegemony and was outlined in an article in Foreign Affairs by West Mitchell, a former high-ranking U.S. diplomat.
Roberts, citing Helmer's analysis, questions whether the peace agreement is a genuine attempt to resolve the conflict or if it amounts to another deception aimed at undermining Russia. The ambiguity surrounding the deal and the broader geopolitical dynamics at play underscore the complexity of the Russia-Ukraine conflict and the potential involvement of other powers.
- The peace deal, if genuine, raises questions about its underlying intentions, as it may align with a broader U.S. policy-and-legislation strategy in war-and-conflicts on a global scale, such as the neoconservative doctrine of U.S. hegemony.
- The articles on the proposed peace deal highlight a potential bypassing of truth in the agreement, as it avoids directly addressing key issues like Ukraine's demilitarization and denazification, an issue that could impact the general-news landscape of war-and-conflicts and diplomatic relations.
- The proposed peace deal, with its omissions and potential consequences, spotlights the intricate interplay of politics, policy-and-legislation, and geopolitical strategy in the Russia-Ukraine conflict, a conflict where truth can be difficult to discern amidst the Articles of agreements and counter-arguments.
