Negotiations surrounding the Russia-Ukraine war should focus on allowing Russia to save face in order to reach a peaceful resolution, as Russia is not the global power it once was and has suffered significant losses in the conflict.Well, this is about fairness. It's about power.I think the most important thing is that unlike the Cold War, where American and NATO forces faced Russian forces right on the border to each other, okay?That would be a very difficult thing for both countries to do.So, I think what emerges from this is that the area remains in Russian control, but is in a way a neutral zone, a buffer between the two countries, and possibly they wind up collaborating with each other.So, as I mentioned in Vietnam, we do a lot of business.So, when you look at wars, that's how they end, and I suspect that that will be the final outcome.Because the Russian forces constantly facing the Ukrainian forces half a mile apart is a very dangerous thing on both sides. So, I think a settlement can be reached on these regions by agreeing that they are part of the Russian nation at the same time a demilitarized zone and business being done on both sides. I suppose, uh, what the Ukrainians would say is that that how do they trust Russia for if there was a demilitarized zone, you know, that so that Donbass was demilitarized, but then with no troops there, Russia could rush troops in and and occupy it and make it militarized if they felt like it. And I suppose that's that's their concern. I mean, what would be the solution to that? It would be like two years later, US invading in Vietnam again, start the war. What makes the Russians think that haven't had their butts kicked on this war, they're going to do it again.There is a vast overestimation of Russian power, Russian skill, and Russian duplicity.The reality on the ground is that the Russians failed to defeat the Ukrainians. The idea that, oh, well, that means that in a few years they'll do it again, means that they're going to dramatically change the reality.Ukrainians will be arming and so on and so forth.Yes.It also assumes that he believes that if he's just got some time, he'd be able to rebuild his forces.His forces are badly hurt, badly wounded.The country is the same position now. So, this would be the idea, and I think there's a vast misunderstanding of how much the Russians lost.So, they're saying, if we give this, they will give they'll have greater incentive to invade in other areas. They lost the war. They said by not winning it.So, the the idea is to understand, well, they lost the war, why? Their military was not capable of defeating the other side.So, the idea that suddenly a successful military will emerge in two or three years and they'll try it again, underestimates how much repair there has to be in the Russian army. But again, I go to the Vietnam example. The Vietnamese could have said, we're not going to reach agreement with you. We want to defeat you because if you we just let you leave, then you'll write attack us again.That was the last thing the US armies, navies, Air Force would want to do and was going to do. So, I think the idea that if they make a peace, they set up the next round for the Russians, underestimates how much the Russians lost in terms of manpower, capabilities and credibility in this war.They 20 years go try it again maybe for some reason or other.But you don't recover from this kind of stalemate that they reached very easily.So, the idea that Russia, having failed to take Ukraine, is suddenly going to invade all over the place if you let him keep this territory, simply does not look at military reality. And I mean, let's let's put the Russian perspective to one side for a moment. Let's look at at the perspective of of the West and and let's I mean, the US and the rest of Europe are sort of different beasts in this, but let's start with Europe. I mean, sitting here in London, for example, let's say in five years time, Russia attacks Ukraine again and the UK is called in to honor its guarantees.I do wonder, you know, Poland is one situation one one case, maybe the Baltic countries and some of the Central and Eastern European countries are are one case. the UK has a significant army or military in the context of Europe.France as well, they're obviously not advocating for this position, but but I wonder, you know, how likely it would be for these countries to say, all right, yep, let's go to war with Russia.So, when we start to talk about the Europeans, we really have to talk about different Europeans.The Poles are there on the immediate front. They've now their economy is now the G20. They're among the 20 most largest economies in the world.Their military is substantial.There are US forces there in Ukraine in Poland. And in addition, the relationship economic, militarily, particularly and economically with the United States in Poland is pretty deep.It's continuing under the regime. So, the question that the Russians will ask is not what will the British do? Not what the French will do. What will the Poles do? And the fact is the Poles are a very dangerous force at this point.They've not been battle tested, so we don't know, but neither have the Russians.So, rather than talk about Europe, talk about the evolution of Poland, also bordering on Ukraine.And that if they decided to take a shot at the Baltics, they'd have the Ukrainian army on their flanks, plus several thousand American troops already there in Poland. So, without the question of US intervention in Ukraine, we already have troops at risk in Poland.They follow.So, you look at the map and you look at consideration, forget Europe, okay?Think about Poland.The Germans themselves have deployed a brigade of armor to Lithuania.That's not enough to stop very much. The brigade is not a major is not a decisive force.But even they've gotten a little bit involved, okay?The idea that after the Vietnam war, we would after two years jump into another guerrilla war somewhere in the world was extremely unlikely. The same way the idea that they're going to wait a couple of years and recover and attack again is unlikely.And remember, it takes a long time for recovering from war like this.Both inside the country politically and also militarily.To rebuild the military takes a long time.But more than that, it's as if we had gone in Vietnam, signed the treaty, a year later, two years later, invaded Vietnam again.There's no one is going to do that. No new president.Nixon was elected and he stopped the war and they were not going to go into Vietnam.So, that that's there are many people who make much more of Russia than it is. This war proved that at least after Soviet Union fell, Russia is not a global power.It does not have a reach into the into the Pacific and Atlantic against China and the United States.It is a regional power. And as a regional power, it established power against Ukraine.So, we have to put into context what happened here.Russia is not a major global economy. Russia could not win a regional war against a much smaller less populated country.Let's stop thinking about what right the Russians will do. What the Russians will do is try to reconstruct their country and over a generation build a new army.It really took a long while for us to recover from Vietnam.And the Russians have taken much more losses and much closer to home.With George final question, let's go back to the negotiations themselves.Could the US walk away if a deal can't be reached and what would cause it to walk away? Well, we're already not there, so we have nothing to walk away from.Well, from its interest in in helping the negotiations along. The United States is helping the negotiations along. We cannot make the Russians negotiate or the Ukrainians negotiate.We will try to facilitate it.If the Russian if the war goes on, it will be Russians that are dying and Ukrainians that are dying.Now, for whole years, Russians died and didn't get what they wanted.So, really is a question, how do we make it appear that we didn't humiliate the Russians in this peace so they can make the peace. And one of the ways to do it is to treat them with respect, which Trump is being done and he's kind of seen by some of the traitor by trying to. But you've got to give the Russians some runway to make this peace.I think that's what Trump is trying to do.It's sort of a capitulation. It's if you if you make it as a terrible surrender that he does, then Putin can't do it.So, I think what's going on in these talks is two things.One, the war is over and suddenly you can discuss this.Two, we don't want to get involved, okay?Three, how can we end this war with Russia having won something?So, to say it's this. And that's what the small areas, it's an valuable area, but it's small area. It's giving him that that allows him to make the peace.And this is fair. Well, geopolitics is about fairness. It's about power.Click the link in the description below to gain access to our full 2026 forecast reanchoring the world, complete with geopolitical predictions, maps and graphics from our global team of analysts.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Judicial Conundrum in India

Recently one fire incident in the official resident of Justice Yashwanta Varma led to recovery of crores of burnt notes not only  shocking but also shook people's confidence in higher Judiciary as an infallible institution .One store room of justice Yashwanta Sinha was caught fire while he was not in his resident,and fire brigade came to extinguish fire and crores of burnt notes were recovered.Justice Varma was not in Delhi for any kind of comments at that time.Once he was a contacted ,he immediately denied his involvement in that incident rather he alleged that it was a conspiracy to tarnish his image.The Chief Justice Of India constituted a high powered committe ,consisting of two Chief Justices of High Courts and one sitting judge of a High Court.to enquire the alleged recovery of money.The Supreme Court Collegium recommended his immediate  transfer to Allahabad High Court ,which triggered a hugh protest initiated by Allahabad Bar Association against that transfer,that Alla...
Read more

Hungarian revolution of 1956Is Revolution was also known as the Hungarian uprising, an attempted Rebellion against the communist government , that came into existence after the World War II. Hungry was an axis ally of Nazi Germany. The USSR occupied Hungary and April 28 government was established. Hungary became a satellite state of USSR. Soviet government was actually a totalitarian government. Hungarian people are descendants of Slavic and Huns. In disrespect remember the cruel rule Attila the Hun. The Hungerian revolution of lasted for l 15 days, until it was crushed by Soviet tanks. Several thousands hungarians lost their lives m several hundred Russians also lost their lives.On 23rd of October 1956, some University students appealed to the civilian population to protest against Russian authoritarian rule the domination of USSR in its geopolitical interest. At that time, Hungary was ruled by a Stalinist government. The students demanded reform on 16 points, but all the students were detained by security guards. The Hungarian people rose against the Communist Party and the secret police of Hungary. And the local communists and secret policemen were executed. A new government was formed under Imrey Negi, who was the liberal man. Under his leadership hungry had withdrawn from Warshaw pact. The new government agreed to hold new election, hungry was heading towards democracy.Initially the USSR agreed negotiate with the new government and accordingly delete Army withdrew. Russians apprehended Hungary embrace the Western block live by USA would be a big threat two dog communist block. So the Russians betrayed the hungarians and hungry was invaded by several Russian divisions. The Hungarian Army was no match before the might of Russian army and after Fierce resistance the hungarians were defeated. The free hungarians were expecting Western help but that did not come. Finally the new government was rendered useless the leaders were arrested and executive latter. The communist government again was installed in Hungary and hungry again became is satellite state of USSR . The Communist rule finally collapse in 1989 after destruction of Berlin Wall. Now Hungary is a Democratic state.

Read more

[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan v The State(1950,S.C.R.88) was a momentous case in the Constitutional history of India.Any discussion/ lecture on the Constitutional law is incomplete without first examining this case, whether critically or analytically.This case was decided at a time When the Country got independence from British rule and The Constitution of India had come into force,and more than it , for the first timea chapter on Fundamental Rights had been incorporated in the Constitution .The Supreme Court got a golden opportunity to interpret the Article 19,21 and 22 expansively against Executive or legislative power of the state.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Brief Fact of the case-A K Gopalan,a radical leftist of the Madras Province was detained under the Preventive Detention Act ,1950,and in fact he was detained for several times under the Act.Under Entry 9 of Union list ,the Parliament has the power to enact law on Preventive Detention.Though Preventive Detention is an anathema in modern time,it was justified as a necessary evil to protect the unity and integrity of the state.Even in Britain and America it was used only during the war time ,that too against suspected enemy aliens[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: A K Gopalan filed a habeas Corpus writ petition under Article 32 of the Constitution and challenged the detention ordering a wide ground that the Detention Act ,under which he was detained was void for violating Articles 19 and 21 and also on a narrow ground that it did comply with the requirements of Article 22.Article 22 prescribes certain procedural safeguards against it.Learned Counsel M K Nambiyar on behalf of Gopalan contended that the Detention Act 1959 violated Article 21 and was void on following grounds1.Personal liberty included the freedoms conferred by Article 19(1)(a) to (e) and (g) and the impunged act ( detention act) did not satisfy the test of Article 19(2) to (6).2.The Preventive Detention Act directly violated Gopalans right to move freely , because the freedom of movement is of essence of personal liberty.3.Article 19 (1) and 21 should be read together because Article 19 dealt with substantive rights and Article 21 dealt with procedural rights.4.The reference in Article 21 to Procedure established by law meant due process of law and the Act did not satisfy the requirements of due process of law.5.The word law in Article 21 meant not the state made law but jus naturale ,of the principles of natural justice.The law did not comply with the requirements of Natural justice[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: It will be seen that from 1 to 5 that the proposition that Article 21 applied to the Preventive Detention ,was the foundation of all the reasons,and learned Attorney General M C Seetlevad countered by contending that Article 22 was a complete code and Article 21 didnot apply to Preventive Detention law.All the questions raised some points of immense Constitutional importance and a Six Judge Bench comprising CJI H L J Kania ,Justices P .Shastri ,M C Mahajan,B K Mukherjee ,SS Das and Fazl Ali S was constituted to hear the matters .All the six judges delivered separate judgments after a lengthy hearings .Five learned judges( Fazl Ali dissenting) held that Article 19 did not apply to Preventive Detention thought the freedoms as a result of detention freedoms may be curtailed.Fazl Ali dissented and held that Preventive Detention was a direct infringement of Article 19 and was subject to Judicial review even it was narrowly construed The majority judges did not hold that Article 22 was a complete code ,so they disagreed with learned Attorney General contention and only M C Mahajan alone held Article 22 was a complete code on Preventive Detention.Fazl Ali dissented by holding that " No calamitous or untoward result would follow even if the Provisions of Penal code became justiciable".CJI Kania, and Justices Shastri, Mukherjee and SS Das held the concept of right to move freely throughout the territory of India was entirely different from the Concept of the right to personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: Except Justice M C Mahajan who held that Article 22 was a complete code, majority held that Articles 19 (1) and Article 21 did not operate in the same field, because Article 18 conferred rights only one citizens, article 21 conferred rights on all persons. Again if article 21 conferred only procedural rights then the most precious right the Right to life was nowhere found in our Constitution. Therefore the majority held that Article 21 also conferred substanrive rights also. It may be observed that far from holding that fundamental rights were mutually exclusive, Mukherjee held that a substantive law authorizing the deprivation of life must conform to the requirements of Article 20.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: CJI Kania, Justices Mukherjee and SR Das held that law in Article 21 had been used in the sense of State made law and not in the embodying the Principle of Natural Justice, and Procedure established by law meant a law made by Union Parliament or by State legislatures. Justice Shastri held that the law meant Positive or state made law and did not mean jus naturale, but the procedure meant well established criminal procedure. Justice Fazl Ali dissented by holding that whatever Procedure established by law may mean, and must include 1 . Notice 2.opportunity to be heard 3.impartial tribunal 4.orderly procedure. So according to fazl Ali a positive law must include jus naturale.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: The majority judges held that the Procedure established by law didnot mean due process of law as understood in United States of America. The report of Drafting Committe showed that the words Procedure established by law were substituted for the words without due process of law. Our founding fathers were well aware of its abuse by American judges during the New Deal period.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: So in this case, different views were expressed by different judges, so no common points emerged on the correlation of articles 19 to 20,21 and 22 or the meaning of the expression personal liberty.[10/10/2024, 8:51 PM] Sisir Kumar Gogoi: But Justice Fazl Ali dissenting points are regarded as one of the greatest dissents of all time. Justice R Nariman paid a rich tribute to Fazl Ali foresight by saying "simply takes our breath away".

Read more