BEN MORGAN: Trump fires the first shots in possible negotiations, is the end-game starting?
Strategically, it feels like the end game is starting President Trump opening negotiation, via social media on Sunday 8 December. In the post, he called for an immediate ceasefire, saying it is Russia’s time to act. This statement was closely followed by similar comments on NBC’s Meet The Press on Monday 9 December. Trump’s position regarding potential negotiations is currently the most important strategic factor influencing the conflict.
It appears that Trump is turning the ‘heat up’ by setting conditions for negotiation. In September, he met with Ukraine’s leader President Zelensky in New York, and again on 7 December in Paris. Two meetings that ‘bookend’ comments made by Zelensky on 30 November. During an interview on Sky News, the Ukrainian president’s comments indicated a subtle change in Ukraine’s position. A softening of territorial demands, Zelensky emphasising the importance of people rather than terrain, saying that “This war (is) for independence of the people, not of the land.”
Words that could indicate Ukraine is open to a peace settlement that is not predicated on complete Russian withdrawal from occupied territory. Zelensky appears to be positioning himself as ‘reasonable’ and committed to finding a path to peace. Zelensky seems pragmatic, aiming to work with Trump. And, as we approach Trump’s inauguration Ukraine’s forces are still holding their positions in Kursk and Pokrovsk. Likewise, Ukraine appears to be achieving their aim of attriting Russia’s forces. The UK Ministry of Defence reporting this week that Russian casualties now total more than 700,000 killed or seriously injured.
The success of Ukraine’s attrition strategy on Russia’s military was demonstrated last week in Syria. Russian forces choosing to withdraw rather than fight to support Bashar Al-Assad’s forces. Years of Russian foreign policy in Syria changed overnight when instead of miliary support, Putin offered Assad sanctuary. And, the question we should ask is – Why?
Occam’s Razor is a logical principle that can be summarised as follows; when faced with two hypotheses, the simplest is most likely to be true. In this case, political, historical, and military considerations indicate that Russia wants influence in Syria. Prior to the war in Ukraine, influence was secured by military support for Assad’s regime. Immediately, after the fall of Aleppo, Russian aircraft were at work bombing Hay’at Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) forces. Reuters reporting on 30 November that “Russia’s Defence Ministry said its air force had carried out strikes on Syrian rebels in support of the country’s army, Russian news agencies reported.” Initially at least, Russia supported Assad’s regime but over the course of the week Russian military support disappeared.
What changed? The simplest hypothesis is that Putin realised that Russia does not have the combat power to fight another conflict. This reality required a rapid change in policy that included evacuating Assad, and Russian troops withdrawing without fighting. Another aim of the withdrawal is likely to be reducing tensions with HTS, allowing for the possibility of negotiating to keep Russia’s important Syrian bases. Bloomberg reporting on 13 December that “Talks are taking place for Russian forces to remain at the naval port in Tartus and the air base at Khmeimim, according to people with knowledge of the matter in Moscow, Europe and the Middle East, asking not to be identified because the issue is sensitive” News that indicates, Putin is cutting his losses and trying to negotiate with HTS.
Syria indictates that Russia no longer has the combat power to support overseas deployments. The embarrassing withdrawal should remind NATO and US negotiators that Russia’s military capacity is stretched. Hence, Zelensky is smart to project reasonableness and the willingness to work with the Trump administration. The conflict is probably entering its endgame and Zelensky has an opportunity to ‘win the peace’ by working with rather than against the new administration. Zelensky’s battle is not about territory or lines on the map it is about creating a secure, safe, and separate Ukraine.
Security, not territory is Ukraine’s key strategic-level aim in negotiations
At this stage, it is important to remember Russia’s key objective in this war, which can be sumarised as ‘regime change.’ When Putin talks about ‘de-Nazification’ or ‘de-militarisation’ of Ukraine he means creating a new Ukraine that is able to be dominated by Russia. A vassal state cast in the model of Belarus. In the earliest days of the war he sought to achieve this objective by capturing Kyiv but as the war progressed his means to achieve this end evolved. Tempered by defeat his emphasis switched from Kyiv to controlling a ‘land bridge’ from Transnistria to Donbas. Territory that if secured would land lock and surround Ukraine allowing Russia to dominate it. After being defeated at Kherson, he was forced to revise that plan. Now his plan appears to revolve around trying to scare Ukraine’s supporters with the threat of a long, expensive war. A threat designed to encourage the US and NATO not to allow Ukraine to join NATO, or provide effective security guarantees in peace negotiations.
A tragic aspect of Putin’s plan is that it is essentially an ‘information operation.’ He is willing to lose a thousand casualties per day to ensure Russia generates the fear of a long ‘forever war,’ if its objectives are not met. Putin believes that Ukraine’s supporters, especially the US are tiring of the war, so Russia is demonstrating both the will and the capacity to keep fighting. Even if Russian forces are only capturing farmland the ‘line on the map’ is moving, reinforcing the idea that Russia is both willing and able to fight a long war
For Putin, any negotiation will revolve around preventing Ukraine getting meaningful security guarantees, from either NATO or the US. If a negotiated peace includes Ukraine joining NATO, future Russian intervention is impossible, and Putin has lost. Therefore Russia’s current operational-level focus is driven by capturing ground to trade, and to demonstrate that Russia can keep fighting. Putin would probably like to conquer Ukraine but realises that it is far beyond his current capabilities, Russia is not winning and instead it is throwing bodies at Ukraine’s lines to demonstrate it keep fighting, regardless of US policy. A noteworthy point for the Trump administration to consider.
The situation at operational-level
On 12 December the US announced a US$ 500 million military aid package. Another large aid package of equipment and ammunition drawn directly from US war stocks, meaning it will arrive quickly. So far this month the US has provided, more than a billion dollars of material to Ukraine. It is noteworthy, that Russian casualty rates increased in the second half of this year after the flow of US aid was confirmed. Ukraine is probably confident in its logistics chain and firing more artillery, inflicting attrition according to General Syrskyi’s stated plan.
Intense fighting continues across the frontline, from Kursk to Velyka Novosilika but generally without operationally significant advances by either side. Near Kursk, Russia has made some progress towards reducing the Ukrainian salient, capturing some territory on the it’s south east flank. In the north-east near Kupyansk, Russia continues to maintain pressure and has achieved a small lodgement on the west side of the Oskil River. Further south, fierce positional fighting continues around Chasiv Yar and Toretsk.
However, the most operationally significant developments are in the east, near Pokrovsk. Russia continues to advance along the Solona River’s valley toward Shevchenko. Russia appears to concentrating its efforts south of Pokrovsk, getting ready for an assault on the town. The Russian plan appears to be, to avoid the large areas of open ground to the east of Pokrovsk and instead advance roughly north-east using complex boggy terrain, via the towns of Pischane and Zvirove. See the map below.
My assessment is still that Pokrovsk is unlikely to fall in the immediate future. Although the Russians have recently advanced significant distances, this is often related to terrain. The Ukrainians falling back relatively large distances in open country to focus their effort on defendable terrain like towns, villages or wooded country. To-date we have not seen a Ukrainian collapse, and this seems unlikely based on current reports, and because Russia’s commanders continue to dissipate effort against many different targets.
The history of this campaign tells us that when a side chooses to defend a town or village, the other side needs to prepare for a tough fight. This has not changed, for instance Toretsk and Chasiv Yar are both still be contested months after being assaulted. The Ukrainians are holding towns like Chasiv Yar, Toretsk and Kurakhove, using their strongly built Soviet-era apartment blocks to create deathtraps for Russian forces. Eventually, Russian firepower can reduce the defences but each battle like this inflicts more attrition on Russia, weakening its forces and preventing them developing the momentum they need to transition into operationally significant manoeuvre.
Essentially, the Ukrainians are fighting a delaying attritional battle and the key questions are:
- Can Ukraine sustain the losses they are inevitably taking? Or will Russia force a section of the front to collapse?
- If Ukraine can sustain the battle, do they have the reserves to transition to an offensive? Could Ukraine launch a surprise offensive to influence negotiations?
- How long can Russia maintain its ‘full court press?’
Questions that should be answered early next year when the Trump administration’s policy starts to coalesce, and both protagonists hare a clearer appreciation of the strategic situation.
Summary
Currently, the war is likely to enter a period of negotiation, an end game. Both sides are exhausted, but keen to demonstrate they can keep fighting in order to influence peace negotiations. Ukraine to confirm it is not a lost cause, Russia aiming to scare Ukraine’s supporters with the threat of long war.
Strategically, Russia is weaker and has survived to-date because it inherited enormous stocks of equipment from the Soviet Union and by being willing to accept enormous casualties. However, its war chest is nearly empty, it faces labour shortages and a looming economic crisis so its ability to sustain the war long-term is questionable. Recent events, including requesting help from North Korea and the withdrawal in Syria demonstrate that Russian military power is waning.
Further, European leaders attitudes are hardening towards Russia and even Putin’s supporters China and India are concerned about his nuclear rhetoric. Essentially, it feels like Putin has over-extended himself militarily and diplomatically. Russia’s ‘red lines’ are consistently broken, and his military is demonstrably ineffective. Further, I think that Putin may have over-estimated his relationship with Trump, who I would speculate realises he has little to gain from allowing Russia to win. And, the new president holds the ‘trump’ card because he controls US support to Ukraine. Therefore, my predication is that we are entering the end game with the possibility of a peace deal being negotiated next year. Therefore, expect to see plenty of activity in the next few weeks as both sides throw everything they can at securing the best possible deal.
Ben Morgan is a bored Gen Xer, a former Officer in NZDF and TDBs Military Blogger – his work is on substack
Thanks Ben. A good assessment.
The big picture is that Putin and Russia have failed:
>Their technological capability remains somewhere in the previous century. They have no electronics industry, and little in the way of a manufacturing industry. There is no Russian civilian aircraft industry. They can’t even maintain their own oil & gas industry without outside help.
> Most of their conventional hardware is scattered in pieces across the fields of Ukraine. Their weapons stockpile is exhausted, and they lack the financial capacity to rebuild it.
> Their weapons have been shown to be inferior. So, their revenue from arms exports will dry up. Former clients like India will be looking elsewhere in future.
> From a demographic perspective this was Russia’s last chance to use its army to win a war. They’ve squandered about 700,000 young men and driven as many again out of the country. Their birthrate is only around 1.4 per couple and unlike the West no immigrants are trying to settle there. Russia is sick, old and dying.
I admire Ben’s ability to always see the bright side of life.
But seriously, this war has killed and maimed hundreds of thousands on both sides, it has destroyed cities, towns and villages, wrecked infrastructure and will leave behind decades of grief and bitterness. In the end, Ukraine will come out with a shattered nation and reduced territory, all for nothing. The dispute with Russia would have been peacefully and honorably resolved five years ago if it had not been for the meddling of the collective west, including New Zealand.
Will Ben Morgan, Jacinda Ardern and Christopher Luxon ever apologise for the suffering they have inflicted upon the Ukrainian people? Do they feel remorse? I doubt it. They will just go on to promote new wars somewhere else, wars which they will not personally have to fight and which will present no direct threat to their own wealth and privilege. When things go badly, they will walk away, forgetting all their promises of enduring solidarity. When things go “well” for them they will commit genocide, indiscriminately bombing and starving men, women and children till there is no longer any resistance, or no life remaining at all.
This is what the Realm of New Zealand gives to the world. Exactly what it has given to our own people over two centuries of colonialist rule. It is an evil which must be denounced, denied and destroyed.
Well said.
Will Putin ever apologise for the death and destruction he has rained on the Ukrainian people? Not likely.
Think again you old Bolshevik Mr Fischer!
No, I don’t believe he will. Neither do I expect that he will apologise to the Russian people. If you want to claim moral equivalence between the ex-KGB leader of an oligarchic capitalist state and New Zealand’s colonialist regime, then I would not argue with you. There is a difference though. Putin’s actions are designed to serve the interests of the Russian state. Ardern and Hipkins, and Luxon, Seymour and Peters are concerned with furthering the interests of the UK and US to the exclusion of the New Zealand national interest.
No! Putin is acting in the interests of Putin! Only him! Russia can go down the gurgler as long as he stays in power. You misread the situation Mr Fischer.
100% correct, but the other way around. Putin took a basket case country and made something of it again. It was supposed to stay down the gurgler, he was supposed to primarily serve Western interests, like the puppet – Yeltsin – before him but he went against this script and flipped things around. He sold out the West, thus becoming the evil hollywood character the West paints him out to be today.
Not surprising to see Ben cheering on ISIS terrorists and their zionist masters destroying Syria.
The key to containing Russian expansionism and imperialism has entered the next stage with the overthrow of Assad in Syria. Not just put Russia on the back foot but also Iran.
Worth a look; https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UB2wY0mGsy0
William Spaniel is one of the better analysts. Interestingly it required Israel to destroy Hamas and Hezbollah for the Assad defeat to occur. Deep state involvement? Israel “wins” with a buffer zone and land acquisition in the Golan Heights.
Russia has the problem that it will no longer receive massive income from African regimes they supported in the past. Being unable to distribute “aid” and support to these regimes via their bases in Syria. More civil wars in Africa?
The key to ending the Ukrainian conflict lies in Belarus. Deep state looking at ending Putin’s last European supporter regime? Loosing influence in Belarus guarantees Russia looses Kalininggrad. The only warm water port left to Russia bar those only outlet through a potential hostile Black and Mediterranean Seas.
Not least off Russian problems is Georgia unrest, Monrovia looking westwards after their recent elections, Caucasus unrest and a belligerent idiot in Chechnya that can switch in an instant if it suits him better.
NATO is under treat to split into two factions. One side are the appeasers (Germany, France, Benelux, Greece, – Trump USA? – and those without direct contact zones (sea or land) with Russia. The other side such as Poland, Finland, Sweden, Baltic States, and Bulgaria who are directly in conflict with Russia should Ukraine fall under Putin influence.
The other concern for Russia is a developing undercurrent of dissent (especially amongst young people – which prevents another round of conscription) and the rural folks who are asking why inflation is affecting their lives plus an even more fundamental concern – why cant we get gas for heating and cooking – why is all our gas being exported at cheaper prices than us peasants can afford. Older Russian look at price increasing but no pension increase to compensate – not happy campers.
We are indeed entering the final stage but I don’t think the land bridge via Kherson / Odessa westwards is going to be in Putin’s final land grab position. He thus will never get enough water to make agriculture commercially possible in Crimea.
NATO will be looking at some sort of Russian arms reduction program so that another Russian control freak like Putin can ever expand westwards ever again. This would suit NATO as well.
Gerrit, you forget a third faction in NATO – the Putin supporters – Hungary and Slovakia. Both have irredentist ambitions to slice off bits of Ukraine that they believe are theirs.
I can’t imagine Russia conceding Kaliningrad/Königsberg even if Belarus goes democratic. Even a Putinless Russia would not contemplate that.
Georgia is a big problem for Russia at the moment. If Putin is not careful there could be another Maidan on his watch – a Rose Revolution mk. 2.
Problem for Russia is access to Kaliningrad. Only a narrow rail corridor through NATO aligned Lithuania and a potential westward looking Belarus. With Sweden and Finland now in NATO the Baltic Sea is no longer a neutral access way for Russian shipping from both St Petersburg (in Summer) and Kaliningrad (year round). Poland is keen to retake it and would have little difficulty as Russia cannot defend the oblast. Even a Putin free Russia cannot count on retaining the territory.
I take your point on Hungary and Slovakia and see them splitting from the EU and NATO. What the EU and NATO will do if Hugary and Slovakia militarily try and reclaim land in Ukraine has to be considered and it may well trigger a more unified EU and NATO response. Drawing the “appeaser” nations into a more militant NATO (with or without the USA).
Turkey must be considered in the same camp, Not sure if they consider themselves part of Europe or Asia and no doubt question if they even should be in NATO. I see Turkey more focussed on local (Iran, Syria, Armenia,etc.
Georgia has another problem in that it is a Christian country surrounded by Muslim states. Russia sort of kept the peace there in the past but that “policeman peacekeeper” role is more and more difficult the longer the war in Ukraine keeps draining Russian resources. The whole of the Caucasus region could become very unstable.
A change of government in Slovakia is more likely. Most Slovakians are pro EU and NATO.
Hungary is more problematic. It has a big chip on its shoulder with claims on Hungarian minorities in Ukraine, Croatia, Romania, Serbia – and Slovakia. Orban will be difficult to remove.
Slovakia is on the border of Ukraine and wishes to slice bits off of Ukraine? When did Slovakia move its borders?
Slovakia has always bordered Ukraine (well since 1945 anyway).
https://littlebigslovakia.com/slovakia-borders/
Gist of the argument is that European borders have always been flexible and at the whim of occupation or conquest. From warring Germanic tribes to expansionist Romans through the Napoleonic French expansionism, Hungarian Empire growth, Ottoman Empire imperialism, to modern day (relatively) French German border alignment after 1918 and modern Czech Republic and Slovakia going their own ways.
Borders have fluctuated and land disputed since time began (even Greece once occupied Crimea) and no doubt will continue for ever more especially in continental Europe and the Caucuses (think Armenia and Azerbaijan) through to the far east. Heck even China is getting in the act in the far east to claim Siberia and Kurdestan with suitcase occupation.
Borders are lines on a map and like African and Middle Eastern borders not representative of past borders based on tribal occupation after conquest.
There will never be peace as long as there are border disputes. Luckily we don’t have that problem in New Zealand.
South America also had expansion and contraction of borders. Brazil successfully conquered the Chiquitis in 1825 for example.
When it split off from Czechia – which was a bad move. It became a police state under Mečíř as I can testify being deported for not having a transit pass in 1994.
Anyone that doesn’t want to see this war come to an end are monsters imo. The idea we need to keep it going as a new **forever war** because “we can’t let Putin win”, despite that this might cost many more millions more people pointlessly dying (or even escalate to a nuclear exchange where everyone dies) are bigger psychopaths than those that started it.
Russia will end this calamity on their terms now, the West have proven too untrustworthy to properly negotiate with. As for Syria, with the West ginning up trouble in Georgia, Romania and one other country nearby, Russia chose the prudent albeit unfortunate decision to abandon Syria to the head hunting hoards as they once were known as, rebel forces their new name today. Russia were wary of being bogged down by a hotchpotch of Western/Turkish/Israeli backed forces. Sad for Syria, we can only hope that the birthplace of Christianity doesn’t go the same way as Libya.
The birthplace of Christianity is Syria?!
What cult are you in AO? You have a weird worldview!
Just prove me wrong, that’s all you have to do
Possibly someone who assigns the term “rebel forces” to jihadists would not have heard of Judea?
One of the key events in the rise of Christianity took place on the road to Damascus…
I don’t know about ‘jihadists’ but I do know that when you work for the West, you are no longer a terrorist (HTS being a rebranded version of Al-Qaeda) or a Nazi for that matter, you are a ‘rebel force’ in this instance. Otherwise, “Syria the birthplace of Christianity” is just an internet search away.
Since when was Bethlehem in Syria?!
No doubt you have an answer based on some weird theory.
And what does Bethlehem have to do with where Christians were first called Christians?
It is in Judea which is the birthplace of Christianity.
The first disciples to be called Christians came from Syria, hence the name – birthplace of Christianity. This happened in Antioch, Syria (now Turkey I believe). Acts 11:19-30
Mere hair splitting. As Christ was born in Bethlehem,Judea this was the birthplace of Christianity.
Antioch is no more than a red herring – a triviality and it’s now in Turkey anyway.
And like Syria, no longer Christian.
I like the fact that you call this hair-splitting, given your initial response to this. This just shows that if people wish to refer to Syria being the ‘birthplace of Christianity’ then they certainly have grounds to do so.
There’s a lot of wishful thinking on this column.
Russia has just fought nearly three years of war against the entire West.They have thrived economically despite sanctions, produce armaments at a rate the West can’t imagine and have destroyed the Ukrainian army. This has come at a cost.The wishful thinking is that the Russian people will accept any settlement on Western terms. I doubt they will settle for any less than all Novorussia, complete Ukrainian disarmament and a withdrawal of NATO back to 1992 boundaries.
Of course I doubt that will be acceptable to the West so this will drag on. I’m sure China won’t mind keeping the US focus on Ukraine and Israel.
Here’s a very good read from the Royal United Services Institute written in March. It is an analysis of how attrition warfare is performed. It anticipates the successful Russian approach to this conflict.
https://rusi.org/explore-our-research/publications/commentary/attritional-art-war-lessons-russian-war-ukraine
WOW, Only 9 months (Mar-24) out of date that information. Unfortunately they have not done any more “research” since and there is no comment on The Kursk offensive (Aug-24) and its effect on Russian capabilities. Any links to more up to date information from that UK based Russian “Think Tank”?
But you believe all Russian propaganda so naturally this “research” is proven gospel and must be true. There is an interesting channel for you to follow. Right up your alley https://www.youtube.com/@russianmediamonitor
You dirty zionists are going to pay.
I love it when you talk tough. it gets me all sweaty
Nick J is deluded and is far more pro Kremlin than most Russians. But he doesn’t have to live there!
The inflation rate is above 20%, interest rates are sky high and rationing is about to be introduced. Russia is an economic basket case. Get real Nick J!
Gerrit, it predates Kursk by which you are referring to the desperate adventure that has eaten 40,000 troops and countless invaluable arms. Very glorious, magnificent and pointless.
Gerrit, you are stuck so far into Western fantasy and make believe that you wouldn’t recognize truth if it hit you. I don’t find it in Russian propaganda, what idiot would take either side a face value?
On the article I noted it’s age in respect to how prescient it was. Especially given that it comes from a source very biased to the West.
Ah yes, the old “truth” will set you free. If one is west leaning one must be deluded and in fantasy land. Bit like Russian sympathisers believing the magic hyper sonic missiles are going to be the salvation. Sounds like the magic of the V weapons in 1944/45. Far to little and too late for Putin. All he has left is dragging the Russian people down with him. Putin best be mindful that he is not to be the target of a parked scooter!!
I can feel your rage from here Gerrit, reality isn’t conforming to your wishes.
Awhhhh, you feel the rage do you? How very dull and totally erroneous your ESP is……
You are so clouded in your absolutely enamored love for the Kremlin dictator, your vision has narrowed so much you cannot see the wider, bigger picture.
Your only defense is name calling, derision and perceived knowledge of how, unknown to you, people feel. God bless you are so perceptive. Putin loves slavish and indoctrinated people like you. Hey, he is looking for volunteers for front line duty. You can get to Russia via India. Sign up bonus is just short of $2M rubles.
Just for you written in your preferred language;
https://www.svoboda.org/a/sobyanin-podpisal-ukaz-o-vyplate-1-9-mln-podpisavshim-kontrakt-s-armiey-/33048059.html
Cia founded Radio Free Europe …oh come on!
I just love the way you ascribe positions to me with no thought or evidence Gerrit. All they do is confirm your prejudices. If I reverse your claims to reflect your views what excrescences would I expect? I will leave that for others to judge.
I just love the way you ascribe positions to me with no thought or evidence Nick J. All they do is confirm your prejudices. WHEN I reverse your claims to reflect your views what excrescences would I expect? I will leave that for others to judge.
Am just revering your projections back to you. Warts and all.
Gerrit is correct!
I am watching Vladimir Solovyov on Rossiya 1 with a verbose valedictory on General Kirillov and is blaming MI6! These Kremlin supporters are bonkers!
Here’s a very good summary of the history ( of deceit) showing how western neo-cons set the trap and put Ukraine of the sacrificial alter for the destruction and slaughter that idiots or NATO stooges call “supporting Ukraine”…….. To the last Ukrainian no less.
RED LINES, REGIME CHANGE, PROVOCATIONS, AND PARDONS https://youtu.be/-KFGshQvKFU
Good riddance to bad rubbish is a fair judgement towards the Dem’s, and the Ukraine violence/destruction was their illegitimate baby…
Donald Trump is more of a Chow & Muzzy hater ,,, that’s most likely where the republican idiots will put their efforts.
The above comment should read …. “western neo-cons set the trap and put Ukraine ON the sacrificial alter for the destruction and slaughter that idiots or NATO stooges call “supporting Ukraine”…….. To the last Ukrainian no less.
While Russia is slowly chipping away at Ukraine’s south and east, the United States is making equally impressive gains in the rest of the country. “over nine million hectares — exceeding 28 percent of Ukraine’s arable land” has gone to “a mix of Ukrainian oligarchs and foreign interests — mostly European and North American as well as the sovereign fund of Saudi Arabia. Prominent US pension funds, foundations, and university endowments are invested through NCH Capital, a US-based private equity fund. Several agribusinesses, still largely controlled by oligarchs, have opened up to Western banks and investment funds — including prominent ones such as Kopernik, BNP, or Vanguard — who now control part of their shares. Most of the large landholders are substantially indebted to Western funds and institutions, notably the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development and the World Bank” (Oakland Institute). Of course debts to global capital are the first steps towards alienation of assets as New Zealanders well know.
New Zealand has only made a paltry contribution to the war, but still, would it not be entitled to at least a small share of the booty? By rights it would, but it will not get it. As I suggested in a previous TDB post, the fruits of defeat in Ukraine will be taken by the US and UK. Their minions will get nothing.
Can anyone tell me why after several mobilisations and very few casualties, Ukraine has a critical shortage of front line troops?