“As long as it takes”

Written By: - Date published: 3:36 pm, February 13th, 2025 - 159 comments
Categories: China, defence, Disarmament, Europe, Pacific, Peace, Russia, uk politics, Ukraine, United Nations, us politics, war, Zelensky - Tags:

Well it didn’t take that long: from one SecDef to another in a matter of a month. It’s time for a rethink on Ukraine and much else.

Former US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin didn’t just say the US would support Ukraine “as long as it takes” once; he repeated it ad infinitum, including at meetings of the Ukraine Defense Contact Group at Ramstein airbase in Germany. New Zealand has been represented there along with 50 other countries.

New DefSec Pete Hegseth has just announced that the war is over. Ukraine will not join NATO, the United States will not put troops in Europe, and Europe must pay for its own defence (by buying US weaponry presumably). Trump has talked to Putin and it is time for negotiations.

It is still too early to say that the killing will stop. Putin has been clear for some time that the US and some other western countries are not negotiation-capable, and the Russians have reason to distrust western assurances with the example of the treachery involved in the Minsk agreements still very much in their mind.

If anybody ever doubted, it is now absolutely clear that the war in Ukraine was a proxy war, fought by the US to the last Ukrainian. As has been obvious for some time, it is equally clear that while Ukraine are big losers so are NATO and most countries in the European Union. Much US aid has been recirculated back home, obsolete weaponry has been blown up, and with new “gear” needed stocks of US defence companies have sky-rocketed. Countless thinktank reports have been open about how profitable the war has been for the United States.

NATO is the big loser because having provoked Russia by steady advancing east to the Russian border, its armies, weaponry, tactics and strategy have been shown to be not up to the task not only now but also into the foreseeable future. Sir Keir Starmer’s proud assertion of a century-long defence partnership with Ukraine has met the same fate as the tausend jahr Reich within a month.

As for Europe, Biden boasted with Schulz in the room that the US could stop the Nordstream2 gas pipeline if Russia invaded; they did and he did, blowing it up on his direct orders according to Seymour Hersh. The result of that is that German industry has been devastated as Europe is forced to buy US LNG at four times the price of the Russian gas.

New Zealand was quick to offer unconditional support when Russian troops crossed into Ukraine in early 2022. While the invasion was undoubtedly a breach of international law, our support was buttressed by the repeated mantra that the Russian decision was “unprovoked.”

This was never true. The NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg stated in 2022 re the Ukrainians that starting in 2014 we armed them and trained them. Repeated requests from Russia for a security assurance were rebuffed by then Secretary of State Anthony Blinken. Quite simply, the US wanted a war that it thought it could win simply by sanctioning Russia, and as President Biden stated, so “reduce the ruble to rubble.”

For New Zealand, its way overdue time to take the blinkers off. Far too much of our history has suffered from blindly following into other people’s wars, starting with the Gallipoli disaster that we take so much uncritical pride in. NATO has recently been touring our region arguing that it has a role to play in the Indo-Pacific. We should have no part of them and they should be told to lick their wounds and go home.

We have an upcoming Defence Capability Review. Judith Collins has said it will concentrate on lethality without telling us who we are going to lethalise and how we are going to do it with our tiny resource base. She is attending the Munich Security conference as I write which will not be a happy affair and from which there is nothing for us to learn, except stay out of whatever is the next bright idea. Russia has not been invited.

The subtext to the Ukraine withdrawal is the coming war with China. Drone war with China anyone?

Update: US SecDef Hegseth’s speech at the Ukraine contact Group

159 comments on ““As long as it takes” ”

  • Comments are now closed

  1. Populuxe 1
    13 February 2025 at 4:01 pm

    Frankly I find this to be the equivalent of saying Ukraine was asking for it because her skirt was too short and she smiled at Russia.

  2. Mike the Lefty 2
    13 February 2025 at 5:30 pm

    Poor Putin, a man can put up with blatant provocation only for so long before he is forced to retaliate.

  3. Dennis Frank 3
    13 February 2025 at 5:37 pm

    Trump needs to go down in history as someone who accomplished great things. He's in legacy mode now. Making peace out of war is great anytime, so let's see how quick he can secure the outcome & tick that box off. The CFR has this interview with a top specialist in geopolitics: https://www.cfr.org/podcasts/tpi/world-permanent-crisis-robert-kaplan

    Kaplan starts by pointing out that geography has been shrunk by technology. Just another example of how tech functions as a warp factor in evolution – which began with the first stone tool-making by hominids several million years back. Isolation is now past – full immersion in a chaotic world is the future. Crises wherever you look.

    So he fronts Weimar's 14 years as a model of lurching from crisis to crisis. UN failure by design of the veto is in his subtext. Civilisation needs institutions that users can rely on to provide order, whereas political decisions are usually ad hoc – driven by feelings – so he does a pivot to Shakespeare for tragedy to emerge on the global stage.

    They focus then on the current situation, framed by the triad USA/China/Russia. Kaplan surprises us by asserting that all 3 are declining! Usually geopolitics is framed by a see-saw model in which a hegemon is threatened by a would-be hegemon. The declines are gradual. The old notion `the center cannot hold' is dramatised by polarising retreat of left & right to the margins, producing existential angst scaling up into mass paranoia. "Social media favours the extremes" says Kaplan at the halfway point.

    "Hundreds of billions of dollars are fleeing China." Who knew that?? The Leninist autocracy he mentions, unable to stop that flow? Is he right? "The foreign policy elite loves the word agency. You hear it a lot." Well, I see it in books by neuroscientists frequently too, and in those about AI because those machines can now simulate agency at a high level of expertise. Control becomes more relative than absolute!

    "History has a lot of pivot points." He ends with the looming inflexion likely to be caused by the trade war Trump has launched. Biden's stance on Ukraine was stasis: Trump seems into changing that fast but Europe will make it a 4-corner slugfest unless a mutual-benefit deal emerges pronto…

  4. Psycho Milt 4
    13 February 2025 at 5:44 pm

    It ought to be an embarrassment to the left that this kind of enthusiastic support for the world's most illiberal regimes gets counted as "left-wing." Readers of this comments thread: please look up the 'horseshoe theory' of political extremism and consider how it applies to the OP.

    • Populuxe 4.1
      13 February 2025 at 11:58 pm

      Yeah, I really don't understand the mental gymnastics that turns a fascist imperialist surrounded by oligarchs like Putin into some kind of misunderstood lefty hero, just because not America. Is it some sort of sclerosis of the brain?

      • mikesh 4.1.1
        14 February 2025 at 8:52 am

        Putin has already had a couple of oligarchs assassinated. He tolerates oligarchs providing they don't get involved in politics, unlike in America where the wealthy own the government. It is not surprising that that is something Putin would want to prevent in Russia.

        The Russians have good reason to be suspicious of democracy after Yeltsin.

        • Macro 4.1.1.1
          14 February 2025 at 9:55 am

          He tolerates oligarchs providing they don't get involved in politics plan to knock him off his perch,

          FIFY

          BTW He doesn't tolerate any other opposition to his tyranny either.

          • mikesh 4.1.1.1.1
            14 February 2025 at 3:36 pm

            It's not opposition to his tyranny that does not tolerate. What he is trying to prevent is a return to the disastrous policies of the Yeltsin era.

            • Macro 4.1.1.1.1.1
              14 February 2025 at 8:55 pm

              What he is trying to prevent is a return to the disastrous policies of the Yeltsin era

              By murdering anyone who disagrees with him. Lovely man.If that’s not tyranny I don’t know what is.

        • Populuxe 4.1.1.2
          14 February 2025 at 10:32 am

          You mean he tolerates oligarchs as long as they are loyal to him and further his aims (much like Trump) and happens to be one himself with a vast personal fortune (as Trump aspires to be).

          I don't know where you get the idea that the wealthy don't own the government. Russia is the dream of US oligarchs. That's why they're currently doing to the US right now what the Russian oligarchs did to Russia in the 1990s. Trump wants to be like Putin. Putin didn't prevent it in Russia, he is the embodiment of it.

          Russians aren't suspicious of democracy – otherwise Putin wouldn't go to such great lengths to pretend Russia has one.

          • mikesh 4.1.1.2.1
            14 February 2025 at 6:53 pm

            No. I think I said that he tolerates oligarchs just as long as they don't involve themselves in politics. He does not want the same situation to arise in Russia as has arisen in America, where the poor are struggling and the president seems to be in the pockets off Wall Street and other corporate interests. And not just the president, but also the two major polical parties. In other words he is a dictator in the mould of Julius Caesar, who was eventually assassinated by the elites, who thought he was too fond of the plebs. So far he has avoided Caesar's fate, but the ides of March is exactly one month away.

            If he considers himself one of them – the oligarchs – the why is he knocking them off. And I still don't think he is rich as you say he is. He wouldn't have the same access to wealth that the oligarchs have.

      • Psycho Milt 4.1.2
        14 February 2025 at 8:35 pm

        Yeah, I really don't understand the mental gymnastics that turns a fascist imperialist surrounded by oligarchs like Putin into some kind of misunderstood lefty hero

        Me neither. The enthusiasm that alleged anti-imperialists of the left display for the only remaining European empire, the Russian one, attempting to use military force to regain its lost imperial possessions, is one of the great mysteries of the modern world.

  5. Sanctuary 5
    13 February 2025 at 6:08 pm

    [deleted]

    [don’t attack authors (you can see how people in the thread have argued against the post instead). Take a few days off – weka]

    • Res Publica 5.1
      13 February 2025 at 10:32 pm

      The Stalinist Corollary to Godwin’s Law: As a leftist foreign policy discussion progresses, the probability of someone excusing authoritarianism in the name of ‘anti-imperialism’ approaches 1.

    • weka 5.2
      14 February 2025 at 10:14 am

      mod note

  6. tWig 6
    13 February 2025 at 9:00 pm

    Trump has never thought that Putin was wrong to try to annexe Ukraine. And he has big annexation ideas himself.

    Putin's plan ran into the snag of China's Winter Olympics. Xi and Putin met a few weeks before, and Xi clearly must have told Putin not to upstage his Games. So Putin's tanks got mired in an early thaw. Otherwise, it would have been a fait accompli.

    • mikesh 6.1
      14 February 2025 at 9:08 am

      Yes. I think Putin waited too long before launching the invasion, probably relying too much apon the Minsk agreements. But, as Angela Merkel remarked, that gave Ukraine time to arm and train their military.

  7. Res Publica 7
    13 February 2025 at 10:28 pm

    This "analysis" (if we're being generous) exemplifies the worst kind of tankie wishcasting: an obsession with reducing every geopolitical event to a simplistic anti-Western narrative, even at the expense of reality.

    The claim that the war is now over simply because the Trump administration has forced negotiations is pure fantasy. Ukraine has fought fiercely for its survival, not because Washington told it to, but because it refuses to be absorbed into a revanchist Russian empire. Dismissing this as a "proxy war fought to the last Ukrainian" robs Ukrainians of their agency and reduces them to mere pawns—ironically, the exact same dehumanization that Western imperialists have historically applied to colonized peoples.

    The assertion that NATO is the "big loser" because of supposed military incompetence is a strange conclusion, given that Russia has suffered catastrophic battlefield losses, exposed the limits of its military strength, decisively proven the superiority of NATO doctrine and equipment, and driven formerly neutral countries into the alliance's ranks. The idea that NATO provoked this war by "advancing east" ignores the basic fact that countries like Ukraine and the Baltics sought NATO membership precisely because of the threat posed by Russian aggression: things like invading their neighbours.

    Furthermore, the piece repeats the debunked claim that the Nord Stream pipeline was blown up on direct orders from the US, citing Seymour Hersh’s widely criticized reporting as fact. Serious leftist analysis requires evidence, not uncritically repeating any claim that casts America as the ultimate villain.

    New Zealand’s role is worth discussing critically, but using Gallipoli as a lazy rhetorical crutch instead of engaging with the specifics of modern strategic policy is unhelpful. Yes, New Zealand should be wary of being drawn into great-power conflicts. But reflexively opposing NATO while ignoring Russia’s (and China's) expansionist ambitions is not an anti-imperialist stance—it’s just stupid, lazy analysis.

    And what's more it makes things so much harder for those of us on the left that are wanting to discuss serious foreign policy: the more of this kind of drivel that gets published, the harder it is for us to be taken seriously.

    • Scud 7.1
      13 February 2025 at 11:38 pm

      Well said Sir/ Madam,

      I had to bite my tongue when I read this post during Breakfast & had to reframe from posting a reply as I wouldn't be diplomatic, more like a bank of M18A1 Claymore's going off in Ambush LoL.

      I can't believe that anyone on the left let alone the Muppets on the Right would blatantly support outright aggression in violating the UN Charter that we haven't seen since the 3 Amigos invaded Iraq & then deagretate Ukraine's sovereignty by refusing to acknowledge it's right to Self Defence under the Article 51 of the UN Charter is bloody disgusting! Let the alone the US & UK's Security Guarantees under Lisbon Protocols & Budapest Memorandum when Ukraine surrendered its Strategic WPN's!

      Even my late NZ Grandmother, who was Life Member of the NZLP, would be bloody fucking disgusted at this post from a Former Labour Party President!

      Lucky the The Standard Blog isn't using the old Argus Masthead, as I would be even more disgusted as my Great Grandfather was the managing director of the Argus Newspaper in Greymouth and he knew when he saw a dictator be it Stalin or Hitler! And Tsar Poots & old mate from China let alone Trump are Fascist dictator's in the vein of Stalin & Hitler!

    • Darien Fenton 7.2
      14 February 2025 at 7:01 am

      I have to agree Res Publica.

    • mikesh 7.3
      14 February 2025 at 9:44 am

      Ukraine has fought fiercely for its survival, not because Washington told it to, but because it refuses to be absorbed into a revanchist empire.

      Calling the Ukrainians "pawns", which clearly they were, does not deny their heroism or patriotism, only their gullability. The term "revanchist" seems unnecessarily pejoritive.

      The assertion that NATO is the "big loser" because of supposed military incompetence is a strange conclusion, given that Russia has suffered catastrophic battlefield losses, exposed the limits of its military strength, decisively proven the superiority of NATO doctrine and equipment, and driven formerly neutral countries into the alliance's ranks. The idea that NATO provoked this war by "advancing east" ignores the basic fact that countries like Ukraine and the Baltics sought NATO membership precisely because of the threat posed by Russian aggression: things like invading their neighbours.

      Not "military" incompetence, but a cowardly unwillingness to put boots on the ground in Ukraine, and it sure cost the Americans a lot of dollars. And what do you make of the promise made to Gorbachev that NATO would not advance eastward after he allowed the dismantling of the Berlin wall and the disolution of the Warsaw pact.NATO is an anachronism anyway; Russia is no threat to Western Europe. This is a belief cultivated by the Yanks because they need to have someone they can call “an enemy”.

      Furthermore, the piece repeats the debunked claim that the Nord Stream pipeline was blown up on direct orders from the US, citing Seymour Hersh’s widely criticized reporting as fact.

      We cannot be 100% sure who was reponsible for that, but there seems to be an overwhelming probability that the yanks had a hand in it.

      • SPC 7.3.1
        14 February 2025 at 10:09 am

        You say Russia is no threat to Western Europe.

        I would agree that Russia has no territorial designs there, but they will increase military spending because of Russian actions in Ukraine – as Russia under Putin is not trustworthy.

        The EU will defend every member of the EU from Russia, via their NATO commitment to each other at first, and then post NATO (because the USA, is not an ally – neither under Trump, nor the GOP, NATO has no future).

        • Populuxe 7.3.1.1
          14 February 2025 at 10:34 am

          He might not have designs on Western Europe, but he definitely has them on Eastern and Central Europe.

      • Populuxe 7.3.2
        14 February 2025 at 10:24 am

        Calling the Ukrainians "pawns", which clearly they were, does not deny their heroism or patriotism, only their gullability. The term "revanchist" seems unnecessarily pejoritive.

        Um, yeah, it literally does. Calling them "pawns" completely denies them agency and implies that any local popular movement, whether it got funding from the US or not, wasn't intrinsic or indigenous.

        Russia has shared borders with NATO states for decades without any issue. Ukraine was denuclearised. A request to join NATO isn't even a guarantee of acceptance. Ditto the EU.

        • mikesh 7.3.2.1
          14 February 2025 at 12:18 pm

          There was a local movement (though I don't know whether it was particularly popular prior to 1922). I didn't actually deny that.

          As for other NATO states there were only the Baltic states, and these were too small to worry about. In Ukraine however there was already a civil war going on between the Russia leaning eastern oblasts and the Ukrainian government.

          Incidentally, the EU accepted Ukraine as an associate member, and Yanukovic was about to sign the agreement but changed his mind at the last minute when Putin pointed out the difficulties that it would cause due the intertwinement of the Ukrainian and Russian economies.

          Prior to 2014 Ukrainian governance was shambolic and some Ukrainians thought that things would improve if they joined the EU. I think they were deluded: even they did so governance would still have remained shambolic.

          • SPC 7.3.2.1.1
            14 February 2025 at 12:39 pm

            Meeting the conditions required to join the EU would help with governance.

            If Russia supported Ukraine joining the EU, as part of a EU-Russian trade and security agreement, they would have achieved more.

            The decision to choose otherwise and end the economic relationship the Germans offered, has led to a re-think in Germany – one that will be regretted in Moscow by Putin's successors.

            1.Russia chose to be more powerful by taking stuff off Ukraine (rare earth minerals they would supply to the EU for car manufacture).
            2.Germany has chosen to return to being a military power and being more selfish with it. And as ally of Poland, the Baltic states, Sweden and Finland.

            • mikesh 7.3.2.1.1.1
              14 February 2025 at 3:17 pm

              Meeting the conditions required to join the EU would help with governance.

              That's a matter of opinion.

              If Russia supported Ukraine joining the EU, as part of a EU-Russian trade and security agreement, they would have achieved more.

              Probably that would have attempted to exclude Russia, which would have been to Ukraine's detriment. In any case Ukraine could sell lithium to the Europeans without having a formal association with the EU. On the other hand a formal association was likely to be a prelude to their joinng NATO, and there was no way that Russia was going to stand by and see them do that.

              It is easy for us to speculate on these matters now, but Yanukovic was the person best placed at the time to make the decision not to join.

              • SPC …
                14 February 2025 at 3:29 pm

                Any security agreement with Russia would have covered that.

                Ireland, Sweden and Finland demonstrated that nations could maintain historic neutrality within the EU.

                • mikesh …
                  14 February 2025 at 11:33 pm

                  The inefectuality of the Minsk agreements showed that security agreements were unlikely to be worth the paper they were written on

                • mikesh …
                  14 February 2025 at 11:37 pm

                  Ireland, Sweden and Finland demonstrated that nations could maintain historic neutrality within the EU.

                  Buit presumably not within NATO.

      • Res Publica 7.3.3
        14 February 2025 at 4:03 pm

        And what do you make of the promise made to Gorbachev that NATO would not advance eastward after he allowed the dismantling of the Berlin wall and the disolution of the Warsaw pact.

        I think the term "allowed" is giving Gorbachev a little bit too much credit.

        While his constraint in 1989 was commendable, this was less a farsighted choice and more an unavoidable reality.

        The Soviet Union was economically crippled, its military overstretched, and any attempt to hold onto Eastern Europe by force would have led to a catastrophic, unwinnable conflict. Intervention risked fierce resistance, Western retaliation, and internal revolts that could have accelerated the USSR’s collapse. In the end, his hands were tied. Force wasn’t just unwise: it was impossible.

        As for NATO expansion, while Russia claims it was betrayed, there was no formal agreement preventing NATO from growing.

        Given Russia’s actions in recent decades, it’s difficult to argue that NATO is unnecessary. Its expansion was driven by real security concerns from independent countries that sought to join of their own free will; out of fear that Russia aimed to pull them back into Moscow’s orbit by force.

        This was not merely an American ploy to manufacture an enemy, but a response to legitimate regional threats.

        The term "revanchist" seems unnecessarily pejoritive.

        If revanchism doesn’t describe a country calling its neighbor a “fake state,” annexing its territory, and then invading to install a puppet regime and seize even more land, then what does?

        Russia’s actions in Ukraine are a textbook case of trying to reverse historical losses by force.

    • Macro 7.4
      14 February 2025 at 9:46 am

      Well said RP. I think a good many would agree.

    • calltoaccount 7.5
      14 February 2025 at 2:18 pm

      Excellent rebuttal Res Publica to a deeply flawed article.

      Mike, remember the Bucha massacre, look at the pictures and tell me how Putin will be prevented in all of this from doing anything like that again.

      Answer this question directly please and without deflecting blame to your usual enemies.

      • calltoaccount 7.5.1
        14 February 2025 at 10:44 pm

        Mike…. Answer please, increasingly ex door knocking party worker asking here down in the South Island.

  8. Joe90 8
    13 February 2025 at 10:44 pm

    Selling Ukrainians to murderous fascism. Nice.

    And the thing repulsive cowards like the author will never admit is that they're cheerleaders for the systemised eradication of a nation's history and culture, torture, rape, child abduction, mass civilian casualties and the deliberate destruction of civil infrastructure.

    /

    [you can also take a few days off. Critique of the post is fine, calling authors repulsive cowards is not. We protect authors for a reason, see if you can figure out what it is – weka]

    • mikesh 8.1
      14 February 2025 at 8:44 am

      Selling Ukrainians to murderous fascism. Nice.

      I think you will find that the fascists are all on the Ukranian side.

      • Populuxe 8.1.1
        14 February 2025 at 10:35 am

        I think you will find that while there are fascist elements in Ukraine that latch on to understandable nationalist sentiment, unlike Russia they are not actually in charge of the government.

        • mikesh 8.1.1.1
          14 February 2025 at 10:43 am

          I think they are in charge in Ukraine, and have been since the fascist takeover in 2014. Russia is authoritarian but not fascist.

          • Populuxe 8.1.1.1.1
            14 February 2025 at 10:54 am

            I'd be perfectly happy to run them both through any checklist of fascism you'd care to name and we'll see who scores the highest on the fascism purity scale.

            • mikesh 8.1.1.1.1.1
              14 February 2025 at 12:31 pm

              Fascism is a dictatorship set up for the purpose of keeping the common people "in their place". ie Ukraine.

              Authoritarianism is a dictatorship designed to protect the common people from the elites. ie Russia

              • Populuxe …
                14 February 2025 at 12:45 pm

                Zelenskyy was elected in a general election shortly before Russia invaded. A total of 2,344 international observers from 17 countries and 19 organizations were there to officially monitor the elections.

                Putin is the elite, worth an estimated $200 billion dollars, largely made by gutting national assets, stolen from the "common people".

                • mikesh …
                  14 February 2025 at 2:56 pm

                  The link you have provided is paywalled, but the headline merely asks whether he is worth that amount, so I would assume the the assertion is questionable. In my opinion it's not true.

                  It is actually the oligarchs who are the wealthy elete in Russia and Putin has followed a policy of keeping them under control. He probably can't do anything legally to deprive them of their ill gotten gains and to nationalize their concerns would probably be tantamount to taking Russia back to to the days of centrally planned socialism. I understand at least two oligarchs have been assassinated after involving theselves in politics.

                  • Populuxe …
                    14 February 2025 at 3:13 pm

                    Sure, the man who regularly imprisons journalists and political opposition on trumped up charges can't reign in some oligarchs, despite there being a long list of oligarchs who have met various ends only when they have become liabilities.

                    Would you like to buy a bridge?

                    • mikesh …
                      14 February 2025 at 5:56 pm

                      despite there being a long list of oligarchs who have met various ends only when they have become liabilities.

                      Where would I find this "long list"' or is it news that is just as fake as the bridge you are trying to sell me.

                    • mikesh …
                      14 February 2025 at 6:24 pm

                      Putin lived through the near extinction of the Russian state under Yeltsin, but seems to have been reponsible for bringing Russia back from the brink – first as Yeltsin's PM and then as his successor. It's no wonder he is popular; and I think most Russians still think of Ukraine as part of Russia anyway so would approve of what he is doing there.

                • mikesh …
                  14 February 2025 at 6:13 pm

                  I didn't claim that Zelensky was a fascist, but I did question whether Zelensky was really the person in charge in Ukraine. After all, he campaigned originally on a "peace" platform, achieving an overwhelming majority, and then followed up with a complete about face on the question of peace with the eastern oblasts. One wonders if that about face was entirely voluntary.

    • weka 8.2
      14 February 2025 at 3:37 pm

      mod note.

  9. adam 9
    13 February 2025 at 11:20 pm

    I'm glad it's over.

    I just hope the anti-war supporters stop getting the doxing palaver and abused for the next war.

    Will there be a Ukraine people in 40 years? With that many dead.

    Be interesting to see if the trump gives Odessa to the Zionists – seeing as it's the spiritual home and all that.

    • mikesh 9.1
      14 February 2025 at 9:51 am

      It would be better if he "gave Odessa" to the Russians.

    • mikesh 9.2
      14 February 2025 at 10:50 am

      It may not be over. Zelensky may sign an agreement to end the conflict but it remains to be seen whether the army will support him. I can't be sure but I have long suspected that Zelensky is little more than a spokesman and figurehead for in the Ukrainian government.

      • tWig 9.2.1
        14 February 2025 at 2:52 pm

        Surely that is part of Zeleskyy's job description in a democracy?!

        • mikesh 9.2.1.1
          14 February 2025 at 5:36 pm

          Which doesn't mean that he is not under the thumb of the military. One cannot be sure of course. It's just an impression, and it may be a reason why an agreement may not bring the war to a conclusion.

      • Res Publica 9.2.2
        14 February 2025 at 4:08 pm

        If the proposed peace deal simply hands Russia everything it wants without guarantees for Ukraine’s future security, it’s hard to see Ukrainians accepting it.

        After two years of brutal war, occupation, and war crimes, most Ukrainians aren’t fighting just because Zelensky tells them to. They’re fighting because they see no viable alternative.

        Even if a deal were signed under pressure, it’s questionable whether the Ukrainian military or public would truly accept it. Zelensky himself has shown no indication that he’s ready to surrender, and given the stakes, he and his people will almost certainly keep fighting.

        • mikesh 9.2.2.1
          16 February 2025 at 8:47 pm

          Thomas Knap gives reasons why Putin should not be negotiating with Trump:

          [The third reason, however, is the biggest: The war in Ukraine is not and never has been the US regime’s business.

          The war might well have been averted if the US hadn’t fomented a coup in Ukraine in 2014, leading to the secessions of Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk, followed by eight years of US-Russia proxy war in the latter two areas and the US throwing gasoline on the fake fire of Ukraine as a prospective NATO member state.

          The following full-on war might well have ended quickly — with only those seceded areas in Russian hands — if the US and its NATO lackeys hadn’t simultaneously armed/funded the Ukrainian forces, while leaning on Ukraine to refuse further negotiations after the Russian rejection of an early ceasefire draft.

          Donald Trump negotiating with Vladimir Putin on behalf of Ukraine can’t plausibly produce an agreement which either side — let alone the Ukrainian side — considers itself bound by.

          The best course for the US, for Ukraine, and arguably for Russia, is for Trump to tell Ukrainian president Volodomyr Zelenskyy that US involvement in the war — arms, funding, and supposed mediation assistance — is drawing to a close.

          That would free Zelenskyy to drive the best deal he can and Putin to declare victory, settle for what he has, and pull Russia’s teat out of the Ukraine wringer.]

          https://www.counterpunch.org/2025/02/14/why-trump-shouldnt-negotiate-with-putin-on-ukraine/

          • Res Publica 9.2.2.1.1
            17 February 2025 at 12:31 pm

            Taking foreign policy advice from a libertarian sci-fi writer with no expertise in the field is about as useful as asking my 18-month-old daughter for geopolitical strategy.

            Cute, but not exactly credible.

            But it's Monday, I've had my coffee, so I'll humour both him (and you) with a reply.

            1. The US Had No Role in "Fomenting a Coup" in 2014

            Knap’s claim that the US "fomented a coup" in Ukraine in 2014 is a common but misleading narrative. The 2014 Maidan Revolution was a popular uprising against corruption and authoritarianism under then-President Viktor Yanukovych, who had reneged on closer ties with the EU. While Western governments supported pro-democracy movements, there is no credible evidence that the US orchestrated a coup.

            The vast majority of Ukrainians supported Yanukovych's removal, as seen in subsequent elections.

            2. Secession vs. Russian Aggression

            Knap frames Crimea, Luhansk, and Donetsk as having “seceded,” omitting that these moves were driven by Russian military intervention and disinformation. Crimea was occupied by Russian troops with no insignia before the illegal referendum, and the so-called "separatists" in Luhansk and Donetsk were heavily backed by Russian forces and intelligence services. This wasn’t organic self-determination but an externally driven conflict.

            3. The "Proxy War" Narrative Ignores Ukraine’s Agency

            Describing the war as a US-Russia proxy conflict disregards the fact that Ukraine is an independent nation with its own government, which made sovereign decisions to defend itself. The US and NATO provided support, but that doesn't equate to puppeteering Kyiv. The notion that Ukraine is a mere pawn in Western hands is a disservice to its people, who overwhelmingly oppose Russian aggression.

            4. The 2022 Peace Negotiations Were Stalled by Russian Actions

            Knap implies that the US and NATO pressured Ukraine to abandon peace talks in early 2022. In reality, those negotiations stalled because Russia insisted on unacceptable terms, including Ukrainian neutrality and territorial concessions. Reports suggest Russia was unwilling to withdraw from occupied areas, making an equitable deal impossible. Blaming Ukraine or the West ignores Russia’s role in prolonging the war.

            5. A US Withdrawal Wouldn’t End the War, It Would Reward Aggression

            Knap argues that Trump pulling US support would "free Zelenskyy" to negotiate. In reality, it would drastically weaken Ukraine’s bargaining position, likely leading to greater Russian territorial gains. This would set a dangerous precedent that aggression pays off, encouraging future land grabs by authoritarian regimes.

            Knap also assumes that if the US stops supporting Ukraine, Putin will take what he has and stop.

            However, Putin’s rhetoric and historical behavior suggest he sees Ukraine as part of Russia and has broader ambitions. A forced Ukrainian surrender might embolden further expansionist moves, not end the conflict.

            • mikesh 9.2.2.1.1.1
              17 February 2025 at 5:20 pm

              The US Had No Role in "Fomenting a Coup" in 2014

              That's a matter of opinio. What we know is that Joe Biden, Victoria Nuland and John McCain were in Ukraine around 2014, stirring the pot.

              Secession vs. Russian Aggression

              The eastern states originally wanted greater autonomy, within Ukraine, to speak Russian and to practise their Russian culture. Apparently the Poroschenko government didn't agree, so a civil war broke out, with Russia unofficially supporting the easterners. Crimea was annexed after a referendum that a majority wanted to join Russia. Some might say that the referendum wsas illegal, but how can a referendum be illegal.

              The "Proxy War" Narrative Ignores Ukraine’s Agency

              I have already pointed out elsewhere that "proxy war" doe not deny Ukrainian agency.

              The 2022 Peace Negotiations Were Stalled by Russian Actions

              Boris Johnson apparently visited Kyiv after they heard about the proposed peace talks and told Zelensky "he must not "negotiate".

              A US Withdrawal Wouldn’t End the War, It Would Reward Aggression

              We don't know whether it would end the war. It my or it may not. Saying it would reward aggression is not necessarily to criticise agression.

    • Populuxe 9.3
      14 February 2025 at 11:01 am

      Unless you actually have skin in the game, I doubt either side gives a tuppeny-damn whether you are glad it's "over" (it almost certainly isn't) or not.

      Will there be a Ukraine people in 40 years? Within the Russian Empire 2.0 after the inevitable linguistic and cultural re-education, and maybe another Holodomor to put them in their place?

      Be interesting to see if the trump gives Odessa to the Zionists – seeing as it's the spiritual home and all that.

      Couldn't let an opportunity for an antisemitic trope pass by, could you.

      • adam 9.3.1
        14 February 2025 at 12:07 pm

        Does beg the question – Do you watch drone footage just to get hard? Is it the only way you come these days, by watching people getting killed?

        As for seeing antisemitic statement everywhere – how stupid are you?

        [1 month ban for flaming and because you have form – weka]

        • Populuxe 9.3.1.1
          14 February 2025 at 12:33 pm

          Gee, that sounds like a rational, reasonable response.
          The old saw about Ashkenazi Jews all originally coming from Odessa in order to delegitimise their relationship with Israel, quite irrespective of where one stands on modern Israel, is an antisemitic trope. It's right up there with saying there aren't any true Māori or Moriori left. It's trite. It's entirely irrelevant to the subject. Deal with it.

          • adam 9.3.1.1.1
            14 February 2025 at 2:01 pm

            ahhh did the poor wee thing get offended I went off topic, and slagged off trump and his collection of foolish ideas.

            The key here was trump – but sure make it so you can be offended.

            How about you grow up and stop being offended on others behalf.

            tiresome – but warmongers are what warmongers do.

        • weka 9.3.1.2
          14 February 2025 at 3:23 pm

          mod note

  10. Sanctuary 10
    14 February 2025 at 8:02 am

    The US has also just told Europe they are effectively abandoning NATO, and they are throwing Ukraine under the bus.

    Insofar as Trump has a foreign policy, it appears to be an imperial strategy of making common cause with other dictators and dividing up the world into zones of interest – Russia can have as much of Europe as it can grab, Taiwan can be destroyed fighting for it's freedom all the better to remove competition for semi-conductors, the United States will have a free hand to engage in imperialist land grabs in Greenland and Canada in their sphere, all accompanied by a scarely believable level of corruption where Trump and his henchmen convert the United States in a giant mafia state. Putin must be laughing.

    Any "deal" between the US and Russia that excludes Ukraine from the process – like some sort of 19th century division of Africa occuring in London or Paris – will fail. The Ukrainians will simply fight on and Putin's army cannot control the whole country. The most likely outcome of not allowing the Ukrainians to defeat the Russians is simpy a wider war as neighbouring countries intervene to stop the collapse of the Ukrainian army.

    I watched a DW interview with a German general and my jaw dropped when he said completely straight that Germany is preparing for war with Russia in five years. Yes, he named the enemy. A surge in reservist recruitment is occuring in Germany where patriotism and a desire to defend the fatherland, as one 18 year old put it is now becoming fashionable again. Every Swede and Finn I've spoken to, from mild mannered super liberal health workers to backpacking students, say without hesitation they'd fight Russia to the death rather than submit.

    All of this raises serious questions about our defense. We clearly cannot rely on the United States, which seems to be on a slide to an anti-democratic Christian nationalist/fascist dictatorship. In fact, we may even need to start considering how we'd defend our islands against a rampantly aggressive United States. Australia's position is undermined – Trump may or may not be bothered regarding Australia as a key ally if he wants to abandon Asia to China.

    Worst of all, Ukraine gave up nuclear weapons in return for security guarantees from the US. The US abandonment of allies it has given security guarantees to and it's refusal to honour treaties it is a signatory to means the ultimate guarantor of sovereignty is now the possession of nuclear weapons for every state that is threatened by an aggressive great power. Japan, Australia, South Korea, Germany, Ukraine, Poland etc etc should rationally all be rapidly developing a plan to acquire an independent nuclear deterrent.

    • mikesh 10.1
      14 February 2025 at 10:30 am

      Insofar as Trump has a foreign policy, it appears to be an imperial strategy of making common cause with other dictators and dividing up the world into zones of interest – Russia can have as much of Europe as it can grab, Taiwan can be destroyed fighting for it's freedom all the better to remove competition for semi-conductors, the United States will have a free hand to engage in imperialist land grabs in Greenland and Canada in their sphere,

      I don't think either Putin or Xi Jinping would agree to such a carveup. Europe would not wish to give up Greenland and, who knows, Europe and Russia may join forces in the defence of Greenland. It may be a means of finally uniting the Northern continent, something which is long overdue.

      I watched a DW interview with a German general and my jaw dropped when he said completely straight that Germany is preparing for war with Russia

      Strange, considering that the destruction of Nordstream 2 has devastated Germany economically; and Russia is unlikely to have destroyed its own pipeline given that it probably need the income that it provided, in order to help finance the war in Ukrine.

      Every Swede and Finn I've spoken to, from mild mannered super liberal health workers to backpacking students, say without hesitation they'd fight Russia to the death rather than submit.

      Strange, since Russia has never threatened Sweden or Finland, although they annexed a small amount of Finnish territory during WWII after the latter had turned down their offer to lease it from them. They apparently needed to control that territory in order hold off Hitler's lot.

      • tWig 10.1.1
        14 February 2025 at 3:07 pm

        Have to disagree with you about the reliance of Germany on Norstrom. As a country, it has been switching to renewables and decentralised power for decades. In fact, it's continued in swtching off its nuclear power plants, even since Nordstrom was hit.

        "In March 2024, [Germany's power] was 60% renewable, 24% coal, and 16% gas. And in 2019 "ordinary citizens…owned fully 40% of Germany’s total installed renewable power generation capacity, whether through community wind energy cooperatives, farm-based biogas installations, or household rooftop solar."

        • mikesh 10.1.1.1
          14 February 2025 at 11:26 pm

          “Have to disagree with you about the reliance of Germany on Norstrom”

          The gas they now get from America now costs about four times as much as the Nordstream2 gas used to cost; which is probably enough to price them out of certain markets.

      • Res Publica 10.1.2
        14 February 2025 at 4:24 pm

        Strange, since Russia has never threatened Sweden or Finland, although they annexed a small amount of Finnish territory during WWII after the latter had turned down their offer to lease it from them. They apparently needed to control that territory in order hold off Hitler's lot.

        Are you just trolling or are you really that historically illiterate?

        Russia has invaded Finland three times – in 1918-19 to try imposing a communist regime and snuff out the nascent Finnish state, in 1939 during the Winter War, and in 1941-44 during the Continuation War. The claim that Russia has "never threatened" Finland or Sweden ignores not only these invasions but also centuries of Russian imperial ambitions in the region. Sweden itself fought multiple wars against Russia, ultimately losing Finland in 1809.

        More recently, Moscow’s threats over Finland and Sweden joining NATO only reinforced the exact security concerns that led them to apply.
        Dismissing this history as minor or justified plays directly into the kind of revisionist narratives that excuse aggression.

        Russia didn’t just "annex a small amount of Finnish territory"—it launched an unprovoked invasion and faced far fiercer resistance than expected, which is why Finland remained independent at all. If anything, the historical record strongly supports why Finland and Sweden were right to finally abandon neutrality and seek NATO protection.

        • mikesh 10.1.2.1
          14 February 2025 at 5:19 pm

          Russia didn’t just "annex a small amount of Finnish territory"—it launched an unprovoked invasion and faced far fiercer resistance than expected, which is why Finland remained independent at all. If anything, the historical record strongly supports why Finland and Sweden were right to finally abandon neutrality and seek NATO protection.

          This seems to have been part of WWII where Finland seems to have sided with Germany, in parfticular by allowing German troops passage through Finland, and purchasing weapons from Germany. Finland had a problem at the time since it didn't know which side was going to win, and didn't want to be seen backing the losing side.

          PS: I wasn't thinking of tsarist times, but only events since 1917.

          • Res Publica 10.1.2.1.1
            14 February 2025 at 5:56 pm

            Hoo boy. I wonder what made the Finns side with the Germans in 1941…

            Could it have maybe been the unprovoked Soviet invasion a couple of years earlier?

            Nah, must have been something else.

            • Allan 10.1.2.1.1.1
              14 February 2025 at 6:42 pm

              During the Continuation War Finland retook the land that had been taken in the Winter War.

              Despite German insistence they never went further than the original border.

        • mikesh 10.1.2.2
          14 February 2025 at 5:28 pm

          More recently, Moscow’s threats over Finland and Sweden joining NATO only reinforced the exact security concerns that led them to apply.
          Dismissing this history as minor or justified plays directly into the kind of revisionist narratives that excuse aggression.

          The Finns have lived at peace with Russia since WWII. I doubt whether events from 1918-1919, or from the late forties have anything to do with their recent application to join NATO. They may have been spooked by the Ukrainian invasion, but this should not give them a reason to think that they may be next.

          • Res Publica 10.1.2.2.1
            14 February 2025 at 5:45 pm

            I don't think Russia is giving them many reasons to think they won't be.

            And frankly, I'm impressed by your ability to maintain a patently absurd position that completely ignores historical facts and simply writes off the foreign policies of other democracies when they don't align with your views.

            The world you are debating foreign policy in must be a great deal simpler and more peaceful than ours.

            Pity it isn't real.

            • mikesh 10.1.2.2.1.1
              14 February 2025 at 11:14 pm

              I don't think Russia is giving them many reasons to think they won't be.

              Joining NATO would seem to increase the odds that they will be.I am unwilling to resile from my opinion that Finland had no reason to fear an invasion from Russia, at least until they joined NATO.

              I don't think that scepticism of the "conventional wisdom" is an absurd position.

              • Res Publica …
                14 February 2025 at 11:38 pm

                Ah yes, "conventional wisdom" in scare quotes, implying that the idea Russia might invade its neighbors is just some trendy groupthink rather than, you know, observable fact.

                Skepticism of reality? That’s not just absurd, it’s willful ignorance.

                • mikesh …
                  17 February 2025 at 5:35 pm

                  75 – 80 years of peaceful co-existance; is that real enough for you?

                  For the Finns to believe that Russia's invading Ukraine means that they must be next is clearly absurd. Still, it is up to them I suppose. Russia will probably have to give them a good finger wagging when she is finished with Ukraine.

      • Law 10.1.3
        20 February 2025 at 1:37 am

        Really …golly that disagreement in the 30s looked like a war ,,,those history books must have been wrong…or your full of something ….hmm…

    • SPC 10.2
      14 February 2025 at 10:39 am

      The USA GOP has adopted a religious narrative whereby national or world governance by secular society is their enemy. That means replacing the March 4 1789 Republic with their Project 2025 Christian Dominionism executive dictatorship (which required GOP nomination of a cartel of Catholics to have control of SCOTUS).

      It has determined on placating Israeli nationalism alone of nations, that to demonstrate GOP power on earth as that of God's new world Christian nation. And threatening to punish any nation that stands against Israel maintaining permanent occupation of the WB.

      So we have a psychopath in leadership of some crazed end time identity nationalism. And his fan boy Vance waiting to take over.

      He will end NATO, because no other nation in it can trust the USA anymore. And it calls into question why the world would base the UN in New York, when the biggest threat to its functioning is the USA.

      Trump wants to control both organisations, to undermine them (while they continue to exist). And would not mind the end of the USA place in either – a threat used to control them, for now.

      • tWig 10.2.1
        14 February 2025 at 3:21 pm

        Don't blame conservative white US evangelical nationalism on US Catholics, although there are some high-profile Trad Catholic members.

        "While two-thirds of white evangelical Protestants nationally support Christian nationalism, according to PRRI’s American Values Atlas, only 30% of white Catholics do. And of these, only 8% of white Catholics are considered Christian nationalism "adherents" (who express the greatest support for Christian nationalist ideas) compared to 30% of white evangelical Protestants." The latino community, 20% of the US population, for example, has a predominantly Catholic background.

        • SPC 10.2.1.1
          14 February 2025 at 3:38 pm

          Your although is compelling.

          And 60% support for the GOP is an historic high, the more right wing Christian identity the GOP goes, the higher it rises.

          Every GOP appointee to SCOTUS was an infant baptised Catholic – all later supported POTUS being above the law when acting as POTUS.

          All stated otherwise when at Senate confirmation.

          Recent appointees stated no agenda to end Roe v Wade – which is what they all did as soon as there was a case before them.

          You seem to have no idea whom Alito associates with Germany.

          https://www.google.com/search?client=firefox-b-d&q=Sam+Alito%27s+right+wing+German+associations

          https://edition.cnn.com/2024/06/11/politics/supreme-court-recordings-alito-wife-roberts/index.html

          Back in the 1930’s, the German dictatorship required votes from the Centre party to become established.

          Only “enemies” on the secular left?

          • tWig 10.2.1.1.1
            14 February 2025 at 3:59 pm

            Those US TradCatholics you mention do not represent the views of most US Catholics is my point.

            And the Pope has been highly critical of Trump's deportation policy as inhumane. Vance has been dancing Catholic theology to justify Trump's position, but the Pope disagreed forcefully.

            'what's new about this current moment is Vance's choice to directly use Roman Catholic theology to push the White House's agenda. What may have once been a political conflict, has escalated into a theological one.'

            • SPC 10.2.1.1.1.1
              14 February 2025 at 4:31 pm

              The impetus for the Moral Majority was the struggle for control of an American conservative Christian advocacy group known as Christian Voice during 1978.

              Robert Grant, Christian Voice's president, said in a news conference that the religious right was a "sham… controlled by three Catholics and a Jew." Following this, Paul Weyrich, Terry Dolan, Richard Viguerie (the Catholics)* and Howard Phillip** left Christian Voice.

              During a 1979 meeting, they urged televangelist Jerry Falwell Sr. to found the Moral Majority (a phrase coined by Weyrich

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_Majority

              *Paul Michael Weyrich was an American conservative political activist and commentator associated with the New Right. He co-founded The Heritage Foundation, …After the Second Vatican Council, Weyrich transferred from the Latin Church of the Catholic Church to the Melkite Greek Catholic Church and was ordained as a deacon for the Melkite Greek Catholic Eparchy of Newton.

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Paul_Weyrich

              Vatican 2, too liberal?

              Richard Viguerie

              https://theaapc.org/recognition-awards/hall-of-fame/richard-a-viguerie/

              Terry Dolan (ahem).

              **Howard Phillip, actually an evangelical Christian.

              The Moral Majority alliance with Falwell was based on supporting the southern strategy adopted by the GOP at that time. It was an attempt to get the Baptist Church, the second largest in the USA, to support Christian nationalism in government.

              This lead to the Christian Coalition of Pat Robertson, then the Promise Keeper movement to bring in evangelicals and pentecostals.

              It was a generational programme leading to the Heritage Foundations Project 2025 – a jubilee year.

        • SPC 10.2.1.2
          14 February 2025 at 3:57 pm

          An example, this taskforce.

          https://www.ncronline.org/news/given-christianitys-dominance-us-trump-raises-eyebrows-anti-christian-bias-initiative

          The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops welcomed the creation of the task force

          This is not some Latin mass exile group. It is a group of conservatives that are allies of Christian nationalists in a culture war between the GOP as one for a Christian Republic and the other as one of a secular democracy.

          One of them stated Pelosi was going to hell for having the politics of Biden, note that they do not speak to males of the laity in that way. For mine, this speaks to the character of that patriarchy order.

          • tWig 10.2.1.2.1
            14 February 2025 at 4:09 pm

            Again, don't tar all US Catholics with the Trad Catholic brush. The Pope has called overly conservative US catholics out before now.

            • SPC 10.2.1.2.1.1
              14 February 2025 at 4:11 pm

              The U.S. Conference of Catholic Bishops itself ignore him and their laity note it.

              • tWig …
                14 February 2025 at 4:54 pm

                I don't disagree with your historical roots for the start of the US christian nationalist right, or that a portion of US catholic bishops strongly disagree with the Pope's views on the oil industry, for example.

                Catholics are 20% of the US, and only 56% voted for Trump in 2024. That's hardly an overwhelming mandate, eh? Whereas 'More than eight-in-ten White evangelical Protestant voters who attend religious services frequently (85%) voted for Trump in the most recent election, as did 81% of those who attend less frequently.'

                It's not the Catholic cabal you seem to be pushing, again my point. It IS a cabal of white christian nationalists, though, including a portion of ultra-religiously conservative US catholics.

            • Res Publica 10.2.1.2.1.2
              14 February 2025 at 4:25 pm

              And don't tar all Catholics with the same brush either.

              I'm one and am as radically and passionately Socialist as they come. And have precious little time for white nationalist buffoonery and regressive culture wars.

  11. Ad 11
    14 February 2025 at 8:46 am

    Pretty weird that Mike Smith has the same active global disengagement as Trump.

    That's not my Labour Party.

    In the last 2 weeks our closest Realm allies in Tokelau and the Cook Islands have functionally said goodbye to New Zealand and joined up with China.

    So we have no choice as a country but to reassess what is happening to us and to other small states across the world.

    I loathe war. But I would most certainly fight for my country if it's attacked and I don't mind spending my taxes on sufficient armaments to be a reasonable partner in a larger force.

    I'm a leftie who is proud of a history of relatives organising and fighting against oppressors in Ireland, fascism in Spain, and tyranny across the entire world. At minimum I would like my Labour Party to form a position with the Australian Labor Party that we will together build a respectable defensive force in all fields of defense.

    At maximum I want New Zealand and Australia to actively reunite weak and feckless Pacific Islands states into being more than craven foolish aid recipients who are bought out by China or indeed the United States.

    A statesman like Clark would be calling for a defence Summit of the Pacific Islands Forum.

    • SPC 11.1
      14 February 2025 at 9:41 am

      She was well versed in foreign affairs matters and knew our internationalist history well. And with the discernment to know, when to be actively involved in common cause and when not to.

      • Populuxe 11.1.1
        14 February 2025 at 10:43 am

        "Was" being the operative word. She seems to be trying to run her own independent foreign policy on social media these days, rather stuck on a 1990s worldview that the Pacific is benign and Xi is just a big cuddly panda who only wants trade partners.

        • SPC 11.1.1.1
          14 February 2025 at 11:10 am

          Maybe, maybe not.

          A Cold War in the Pacific is not in our interest, so is to be avoided if possible.

          Diplomacy towards China 2049, where Taiwan is self-governing within China should be our goal.

          This need not go as in Hong Kong (which had no history of self-governance and had only a temporary autonomy – where its course was disrupted by American advocacy of a democracy there).

          I initially disagreed with her on AUKUS Pillar 2, but see two other options being better.

          1.Where the agreement is not part of AUKUS.

          2.It does not include the USA.

          As for the South Pacific we need the EU, Japan, South Korea and the UK to provide more aid to make up for the US move to perfidy.

          • Populuxe 11.1.1.1.1
            14 February 2025 at 11:27 am

            This need not go as in Hong Kong (which had no history of self-governance and had only a temporary autonomy – where its course was disrupted by American advocacy of a democracy there).

            I think that does a breathtaking disservice to HK democracy advocates and shows a dreadful ignorance of HK history. The movement for a democratic HK was already very active under British rule, and gaining traction since 1984, but continually stifled by Beijing and entrenched HK business interests. In 1987, many surveys indicated that there was more than 60% popular support for direct elections.

            To be fair, I don't think Taiwan gives a flying f*ck what you think about the direction of their future.

            • SPC 11.1.1.1.1.1
              14 February 2025 at 11:39 am

              The fact is, the 1997 deal between the UK and China did not provide for democracy in Hong Kong – only for a period of transition to being part of China by 2047.

              Thus international support for democracy in Hong Kong would/could achieve nothing – it had no basis in international law.

              Another fact, is no one recognises that Taiwan is an independent nation state. The nationalists there ruled without elections to the 1990's on the basis it was not one. And to this day their party contesting elections for governance over the island does not claim it is anything but part of China.

              If you want an ideology imposed, outside of international law, then you are contributing to the lawlessness of the Xi Putin and Trump era.

              • Populuxe …
                14 February 2025 at 11:47 am

                If you want an ideology imposed, outside of international law, then you are contributing to the lawlessness of the Xi Putin and Trump era.

                By capitulating to imperialist hegemonies? Appeasement?
                It seems to me that you're saying that populations with a long history of being failed, betrayed and/or dictated to by imperialist hegemonies, should continue to be failed, betrayed and/or dictated to by imperialist hegemonies for their own good.

                • SPC …
                  14 February 2025 at 12:11 pm

                  The UK acquired territory off China for a time only. The American fleet action in 1949 was interference in another nations affairs.

                  These are areas of China, in international law.

                  Regional independence, requires the consent of the nation state governing authority.

                  Thus issues as per the Donbass and Crimea (Ukraine), or Abkhazia and South Ossetia (Georgia). Regardless of what those locals wanted.

                  And for those in Catalonia, Scotland and Kurds in 4 different nations.

                • SPC …
                  14 February 2025 at 12:13 pm

                  Do you want to me to cite western support for Israel's continued occupation of the West Bank? Now Israel is led by a post Oslo Accord regime?

                  • Populuxe …
                    14 February 2025 at 12:35 pm

                    Only if you want me to cite Iran's support for Hamas.
                    Anyway, by your logic, Gaza would be better off as part of Israel or a US territory.

                    • SPC …
                      14 February 2025 at 12:51 pm

                      So you do not mind western hypocrisy? Just camp, west vs them …

                      Anyway, by your logic, Gaza would be better off as part of Israel or a US territory.

                      There was no evidence that logic formed any part of you writing that incoherent nonsense.

                      Gaza is a place, area.

    • Drowsy M. Kram 11.2
      14 February 2025 at 10:08 am

      At maximum I want New Zealand and Australia to actively reunite weak and feckless Pacific Islands states into being more than craven foolish aid recipients who are bought out by China or indeed the United States.

      I’d prefer that China’s influence in ‘our’ region doesn’t increase too much, but "China or indeed the US" are not the largest aid donors to Pacific Island states.

      https://pacificaidmap.lowyinstitute.org/

      What chance that (diplomatic?) efforts to actively reunite "weak and feckless Pacific Islands states" that are little more than "craven foolish aid recipients" will succeed?

      If 'friends' characterised me as "weak", "feckless", "craven" and "foolish", then looking for new friends might become an attractive option – a priority even.

      Pacific Island countries are not just aid recipients. They are also aid donors [22 Nov 2024]
      In this context, intra-regional development financing – aid originating from the region to the region – offers a valuable opportunity for Pacific Island countries (PICs) to assert their independence and promote the “Pacific way” – that is, doing things in a manner that is mutually respectful, inclusive, consultative, consensual, flexible and allows for compromise.

    • tWig 11.3
      14 February 2025 at 3:33 pm

      RNZ The Detail had a bit more of a balanced take on this the other day.

      'But the US reputation in the Pacific is already poor, says Ratuva, [head of the Pacific Studies Institute at UCant].

      "Biden was able to engage in a significant way… but of course the money that was promised – $800 million for 10 years – hasn't come in and now of course they can forget about it. So all these false promises have given the United States a very, very bad name in the Pacific.

      "China does the opposite. It promises and it delivers."

      ‘With these shifting dynamics, New Zealand's spot in the region is also likely to change. "New Zealand will have to work very hard in order to be able to maintain its significance in the Pacific," says Ratuva.’

      It seems Nanaia Mahuta did a good job of connecting NZ with South Pacific nations, going round and building trust with leaders. Peters, in contrast, is seen as bullying, and still with a colonial mindset.

      • Ad 11.3.1
        14 February 2025 at 3:37 pm

        Yeah agree on Mahuta she really had something re Foreign Affairs.

        Real shame she was truly over-worked by Ardern across both Local Government and Foreign Affairs.

    • SPC 11.4
      14 February 2025 at 4:09 pm

      A statesman like Clark would be calling for a defence Summit of the Pacific Islands Forum.

      On the grounds of USAID funding cuts maybe.

      Otherwise as per the Cook Islands, one would presume one based on legal nicety.

      What might be required of the Cook Islands.

      1.transparency in any arrangements relations with China, as per the defence and security of the realm of New Zealand.

      2.any action in breach thereof not being legal for a self governing part of that realm, requiring first that the Cook Islands to become independent – and that requiring a referenda of the citizens.

      3.informing China that its actions, not respecting the place of the Cook Islands within the orbit of New Zealand sovereignty, is one of hypocrisy (as per their Taiwan claim).

      The Cook Islands PM

      has said his state visit to Beijing, starting this weekend, would focus on renewable energy and agriculture but that it would also touch on maritime issues and shipping and seabed minerals development, areas New Zealand, Australia, the US and others have been particularly concerned about.

      The Chinese reassurance (accept or else) and warning in one sentence.

      "The relationship between China and the Cook Islands is not directed against any third party and should not be subject to or disrupted by any third party," Chinese Foreign Ministry spokesperson Guo Jiakun said today.

      https://www.1news.co.nz/2025/02/11/china-says-cook-islands-pm-visit-isnt-meant-to-antagonise/

      China wants the fishing and mineral resources of the South Pacific, no less than those of the South China Sea – a form of imperial hegemon.

  12. Stephen D 12
    14 February 2025 at 9:46 am

    Every time I think of the problems we're supposed to have with China, I think of this.

    https://youtu.be/sgspkxfkS4k?si=IbH1r2vAy7Fved1m

    • Tiger Mountain 12.1
      14 February 2025 at 10:31 am

      yes

    • Subliminal 12.2
      14 February 2025 at 12:51 pm

      Thank you for a wee bit of sanity

    • Ad 12.3
      14 February 2025 at 3:41 pm

      Pretty tired trope.

      China has managed to have the will and planning to diversify away from reliance on USA trade during Biden.

      Australia has been well warned to diversify trade away from China.

      So have we.

      China is the most serious threat Australia and New Zealand has. It is also where we get most of our wealth. The German poet Holderlin who phrased it like this:

      "Where the danger lies, there the saving power also grows."

      • Subliminal 12.3.1
        14 February 2025 at 7:22 pm

        Trade requires open seas. Attempts at closing them, of course, in the name of "containment", by Aukus are as ridiculous as the video makes plain.

        China's policy of trade is what drove the world economy through the GFC. Refusing to trade with them and blockading their and our ability to do so is suicidal unless you dream of a time before David Lange.

        As for

        China is the most serious threat Australia and New Zealand has.

        If thats true then what a relief. At least Aukus will now be put to sleep for 4 years after which it will be difficult to resucitate

  13. tsmithfield 13
    14 February 2025 at 12:00 pm

    The article above spouts out a lot of the same old tired, misinformed rhetoric.

    Also, the assumption that Trump can negotiate an end to the war is fundamentally flawed. That is because it is based on the assumption that Ukraine will collapse if US aid is removed. But, that is not at all clear.

    For example, Ukraine now locally produces a around one third of its defence requirements. That, and along with European aid might be enough for it to stay in the fight for quite awhile yet. And it is questionable whether Russia will be able to stay in the fight indefinitely.

  14. Mike Smith 14
    14 February 2025 at 12:07 pm

    Thanks everyone for all the comments. The point of my post was to say that it is now absolutely clear that the call for the defeat of Russia, including by Hipkins a couple of years ago, was always a mirage. The main sufferers were the Ukrainians dragged off the streets to be thrown into the meat grinder. In my view it is high time for a rethink.

    I've posted enough on the background in the past and while that view may not be popular in this forum, the comments only make me more convinced that this is true. All the more so as we are now increasingly being subsumed into the Trumpian world view. I expect to have more to say as events unfold.

    • weston 14.1
      14 February 2025 at 1:27 pm

      Cheers Mike thanks for taking the trouble .Anyone who is actually keeping up with events in Ukraine knows that every word you have written is factual and correct .

      Thanks also for your graciousness in ignoring all the ignorance very prevalent in much of the commenting imo.

    • Res Publica 14.2
      14 February 2025 at 4:18 pm

      Hi Mike

      As a very strong critic of your views, thank you for having the courage to share them.

      I for one don’t see Ukrainians being "thrown into a meat grinder." I see an actual, functioning democracy fighting for its very existence against the worst kind of oligarchic autocracy, while some in the West shake their heads, tut, and ask why they don’t just surrender.

      The idea that Ukraine’s resistance was always futile ignores both their will to fight and the material reality of the battlefield.

      It also glosses over the consequences of rewarding aggression. what happens to Ukraine, and by extension the entire international order, if we establish that invading your neighbor, committing mass atrocities, and waiting for the world to lose interest actually works?

      If this war has proven anything, it’s that Ukraine was never going to collapse in a matter of days, as so many assumed in 2022. And yet, rather than acknowledging that miscalculation, some, like you, pivot to saying they should just give up and accept whatever Russia dictates.

      But, despite your protestations, this is not a "realist" take

      It’s little more than a failure to grasp that Ukrainians are fighting because they choose to. Because the alternative is subjugation under a regime that openly denies their right to exist.

      If we in the West are being "subsumed into the Trumpian worldview," it’s not because of support for Ukraine, but because too many are embracing cynical, transactional politics where principles are abandoned the moment things become difficult.

      I expect we’ll continue to disagree, but I do appreciate your willingness to debate the issue openly.

      • aj 14.2.1
        14 February 2025 at 8:36 pm

        But, despite your protestations, this is not a "realist" take

        The leading geopolitical realist John Mearsheimer would beg to differ.

        https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mearsheimer+leading+realist

        https://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=mearsheimer+on+ukraine

        • Res Publica 14.2.1.1
          14 February 2025 at 10:45 pm

          Calling Mearsheimer the leading geopolitical realist ignores that his offensive realism is more structural determinism than traditional realism.

          His argument that NATO expansion forced Russia to invade Ukraine downplays ideology, leadership, and Ukraine’s agency: reducing the war as an inevitable great-power clash rather than a strategic decision by Putin. While influential, his perspective is far from the only realist take on the conflict.

          A classical realist approach, rooted in thinkers like Hans Morgenthau, would reject both idealistic moralizing (democracy vs. autocracy) and structural determinism (NATO left Russia no choice). Instead, it would focus on power, interests, and diplomacy. Unlike Mearsheimer, classical realism would argue that Putin’s invasion was a calculated choice, not an unavoidable reaction.

          NATO expansion may have created a security dilemma, but Russia had alternatives. Ukraine, too, has agency, acting in its own interests rather than merely as a Western proxy.

          The war will ultimately be decided by military realities and strategic negotiations, not moral narratives. Flowing from that fact,Western support for Ukraine should be based on cold strategic calculus: weakening Russia where possible, but avoiding reckless escalation

          Although I am firm believer in practicing realpolitik in foreign policy, the socialist in me has not forgotten that sometimes we must ocassionally put aside the cynical demands of the moment and act in accordance with our fundamental values: Including a full-throated defence of democracy against autocracy at every turn.

          • mikesh 14.2.1.1.1
            15 February 2025 at 4:23 pm

            His argument that NATO expansion forced Russia to invade Ukraine downplays ideology, leadership, and Ukraine’s agency: reducing the war as an inevitable great-power clash rather than a strategic decision by Putin. While influential, his perspective is far from the only realist take on the conflict.

            Denying the war to have been an inevitable great power clash does not mean that it was not a great power clash. And to admit the latter does not downplay Ukrainian agency. But America supplied the weapons, and alruism is not part of Uncle Sam's DNA.

            NATO expansion may have created a security dilemma, but Russia had alternatives. Ukraine, too, has agency, acting in its own interests rather than merely as a Western proxy.

            The only alternative stratey for Russia, as far I can see, would have been to attempt to pursue her interests through diplomacy. However, common sense suggests that would have been a losing strategy since all the players in the game seemed to hav e had their knives out for Russia. One only has to look at the fates of the Minsk agreements to see how ineffectual such a strategy would have been.

            Although I am firm believer in practicing realpolitik in foreign policy,

            It should be noted that that archrealpolitikist, the late Henry Kissinger, suggested in an address to a Davos conference, that Unkraine needed to negotiate a settlement with Russia, even if meant giving up territory which they believed was theirs.

    • tWig 14.3
      14 February 2025 at 4:29 pm

      Interesting choice of 'meatgrinder', where this has been used primarily to describe Russian battle tactics in deploying their troops, not those of the Ukranian military. Untrained and poorly-equipped troops are sent in as a first sacrificial line (eg, as at Stalingrad).

      'The “meat grinder” is a collective battlefield approach that values high troop density and intensity to overwhelm the enemy.'

      While the quote below comes from Ukraine media, it is surprisingly honest in the evaluation. Kyiv has been struggling to fill the ranks.

      ' "It costs nothing to Moscow to kill 150 people to take a patch of trees, but we count every soldier," Kurt said. "We're grateful for international aid, but it's not enough to win." '

  15. Darien Fenton 15
    14 February 2025 at 5:01 pm

    Me, I just cry for the people of Ukraine. A friend from Kyiv messaged me this morning saying :

    "Perhaps the fact that we all now are in the same information field and it makes possible to see “how the flap of a butterfly’s wings leads to a typhoon on the other side of the universe…. and at the same time, we understand the fragility and value of life, when after a night of ballistic attacks, children go to school, the city is saturated with the smell of coffee because no one got enough sleep, and ordinary people post not photos of ruins but of the dawn they are lucky to see again."

    Sometimes in these intellectual discussions, we forget the real people and the consequences.

    • Mike Smith 15.1
      14 February 2025 at 7:03 pm

      @ ResPublica There is a lot of history rewriting that is about to go on now that defeat is finally in the air. Just to take a couple of things: Ukraine is not an actual functioning democracy. Their Parliament is prorogued and elections deferred indefinitely. As for atrocities, the whitewashing of the ongoing activities of the Banderite nationalists is a disgrace.

      @ Darien Fenton Pretty well everything I have posted on this tragedy has called for the killing to stop. But it is important to be accurate about agency, and to see the whole picture. This war is just the latest in what the long march of history shows is another failed attempt to plunder the resources of Russia, at huge cost to innocent (and not so innocent) loss of life.Trump has to be satisfied with whats available in Ukraine.

      • tWig 15.1.1
        14 February 2025 at 7:16 pm

        Oh 'prorogued parliament': kinda like NZ postponed.our elections by 2 years in WW2? And the UK postponed theirs, even local body ones, until 1945?

      • tWig 15.1.2
        14 February 2025 at 7:36 pm

        Had to look up 'Banderite', as I haven't heard the term before. At wiki:

        "In propaganda the term has been used by Soviets after 1942 as a pejorative term for Ukrainians, especially western Ukrainians,[10][11] or Ukrainian speakers;[12] under Vladimir Putin-ruled Russia the term was used by state media as a pejorative for Euromaidan activists[13] and Ukrainians who support sovereignty from Russia.[10]"

      • SPC 15.1.3
        14 February 2025 at 8:58 pm

        1.De-legitimising a nation state by claiming that it is not a democracy? Does this apply to China? Or the PA, after no elections for near 20 years.

        2.An attempt to plunder the resources of Russia? By whom? Claiming that Russia is the one under threat after occupying territory beyond its borders. Your opinion on the WB and Gaza is what again?

      • Res Publica 15.1.4
        14 February 2025 at 10:56 pm

        I think you're missing the biggest part of history you're trying to rewrite here: Russia invaded Ukraine, not the other way around.

        Ukraine’s Parliament has postponed elections because it’s fighting for survival. But let’s not pretend this makes it a dictatorship. In 2019, Zelensky won a free and fair election, certified by international observers, with over 73% of the vote. That’s a level of legitimacy Putin has never come close to: even when he’s rigging the results.

        As for ‘Banderite nationalists,’ dragging out WWII-era talking points doesn’t justify the mass murder, abductions, and ethnic cleansing Russia is committing today. War is always terrible, but only one side is deliberately committing war crimes as a matter of policy.

        The war isn’t rewriting history. It’s simply exposing who was always willing to excuse imperialism and autocracy. Unfortunately for millions of brave Ukrainians, that now includes the incumbent U.S. administration.

        My sincerest wish is that when the history of this war is finally written, Trump, the Republican Party, and the billionaire class that empowered them are forever burdened with the opprobrium and charges of moral cowardice they so richly deserve.

        • mikesh 15.1.4.1
          15 February 2025 at 3:05 pm

          It's not really "imperialism" but an attempt to prevent that bad guy, NATO, from advancing to th Russian border. NATO is an anachronism which, these days, serves as a cloak to hide the nefarious activities of the USA, Russia's sworn enemy.

          • Populuxe 15.1.4.1.1
            15 February 2025 at 11:02 pm

            Um, NATO is already on Russia's border. It has been for quite some time. Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland and Norway all border Russia. And even if that was a legitimate argument, all the Ukraine invasion has resulted in on that front is panicking Finland into joining NATO and opening up yet another huge NATO-Russia border.
            If Ukraine was such an anachronism, Russia wouldn't be worried about it.

            • mikesh 15.1.4.1.1.1
              16 February 2025 at 4:25 pm

              The three Baltic states are a bit too small for Russia to worry about (just yet). Poland doesn't have a border with Russia, and I don't think Norway has, though Sweden has one up in the frozen north somewhere. Poland may acquire a southern border with Russia shortly.

              What makes you think Ukraine is an “anachronism”.

              • Populuxe …
                17 February 2025 at 12:11 pm

                For someone so confident that they know what they're talking about, you seem to have forgotten about Kaliningrad.
                You have failed to address Finland.
                I meant to say NATO rather than Ukraine, and I don't think either are anachronisms. Given how careful Russia is being around NATO borders I would say Russia clearly doesn't think it's an anachronism.

                • mikesh …
                  17 February 2025 at 3:54 pm

                  Kaliningrad is part of Russia, albeit that it is separated from Russia.

                  I was refering to those countries which bordered Russia and were members of NATO in 2022 when the invasion started. That did not include Finland.

                  However I was wrong about one thing: it is Norway that has a border with Russia in the north of the country, not Sweden. Norway, I think, is a member of NATO. Sweden was not a member of NATO in 2022.

                  I didn't say that Putin considered NATO an anachronism: I did, and I am still of that opinion. However, I don't think Putin's opinion on the question of whether or not NATO is an anachonism would have had any bearing on his decision to launch the invasion.

                  • Populuxe …
                    18 February 2025 at 12:47 pm

                    Poland borders Kaliningrad and was a NATO member long before 2022.

                    • mikesh …
                      18 February 2025 at 2:36 pm

                      Yes. You're technically correct. Kaliningrad, while not part of Russia geographically, is still part of Russia politically, so any country bordering Kaliningrad, in a sense, borders Russia. Though I think Putin would not be thinking of invading Poland on that account.

      • Populuxe 15.1.5
        15 February 2025 at 11:19 pm

        Ukraine is not an actual functioning democracy.

        No shit, they're currently fighting against invasion and occupation by a foreign superpower. Nothing puts a damper on functioning democracy like having your cities bombed.

        Their Parliament is prorogued and elections deferred indefinitely.

        As tends to be fairly standard when at war. The UK and NZ did it. The US was notable in that it didn't suspend elections during WW2, but then it wasn't at any risk of attack on its mainland. Ukraine proroguing the Verkhovna Rada is consistent with their constitution.

        As for atrocities, the whitewashing of the ongoing activities of the Banderite nationalists is a disgrace.

        Trotting out an old Soviet propaganda term like "Banderite" speaks volumes. Although I understand it has made a bit of a comeback with the SVR.

        This war is just the latest in what the long march of history shows is another failed attempt to plunder the resources of Russia, at huge cost to innocent (and not so innocent) loss of life.

        Putin seems to be managing that quite efficiently on his own. Ukraine is sovereign, its resources are its own and suggesting that they belong to Russia is pandering to Russian neoimperialist revanchism. Also, rather saliently, Russia has a nuclear arsenal, painting it as some sort of defenseless victim is absurdity of the highest order.

  16. Stephen D 16
    14 February 2025 at 5:40 pm

    If I was a Moldovan, Georgian, and to a lesser extent Belarusian, I’d be fucking terrified.

  17. aj 17
    15 February 2025 at 7:56 pm

    Powell has laid out a scenario how this sea-change may play out. The last paragraph I've quoted is the most relevant, in particular how successful will the Russiaphobes in the USA be in attempting to derail this process?

    We are still in very dangerous times, Anne Jacobsens book 'Nuclear War: A Scenario should be compulsory reading for every human on this planet.

    Powell bio: https://www.chinausfocus.com/author/20972/warwick-powell.html

    https://warwickpowell.substack.com/p/muddling-our-way-to-indivisible-security?r=1p62fw&utm_medium=ios&triedRedirect=true

    Muddling our way to indivisible security?

    The European Odyssey in the aftermath of defeat in Ukraine

    Peace won’t be fast-coming as Russia has made clear its approach to indivisible security. This must be taken seriously, and that will be neither easy to swallow as the pills are bitter for the west, nor quick to digest.

    The reactions to U.S. President Donald Trump’s phone call with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin, and the remarks from US Secretary of Defence Peter Hegseth in relation to American perspectives on the state of the Ukraine war and its resolution, have been largely predictable. Some are implacably horrified and opposed, to a point of feeling betrayed. Others are jubilant and expectant. The latter are almost euphoric in their expectations or hopes that peace will come quickly. The former look to be gearing up to play spoiler.

    For what it’s worth, my own sense is that while reality is clearly starting to sink in, there’s a long way to go between a phone call and a viable peace settlement. As they say, many a slip ‘twixt the cup and the lip'

  18. mikesh 18
    16 February 2025 at 7:14 pm

    I see that Zelensky is advocating the formation of a European army, though probably for the wrong reasons. What is needed is an army to defend the whole northern continent, and it should include contributions from Russia and China, as well as the European countries. It is probably more important to worry about defending, for example, Greenland from the USA, should it become necessary, than to worry about Ukraine. It is time that Europeans put aside "iron curtain" paranoia and realised that they share a continent in common, and started to co-operate. Russia and China have a lot to contribute.