Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Strategies & Market Trends : World Outlook -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Les H who wrote (47442)	9/4/2025 1:54:46 PM
From: Les H	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 49083

The ugly truth is Ukraine would be better off trading land for peace Mark Brolin, Geopolitical strategist and the author of ’Healing Broken Democracies: All You Need to Know About Populism’ Wed 3 September 2025 at 3:22 pm GMT-4 Given that neither Washington nor Europe is willing to provide the force needed for an immediate Ukrainian battlefield triumph, realism demands an alternative. The least-bad option now looks like a managed freeze that preserves Ukraine’s legal claims while buying the time Kyiv needs to outlast and outcompete Moscow. Call it a “Korean” freeze with a “German” endgame – a pause that rejects de jure recognition of stolen territory, locks in robust security guarantees now, and invests in Ukraine’s capacity to eventually undo the occupation. This would not be a surrender but strategic time-buying. That judgment is grim but practical. Winning time is likely to benefit Ukraine for three reasons. First: Russia’s economy is teetering. The kleptocratic structure, sanctions, capital flight, military overreach and war distortions are all eroding Russian capabilities. Interest rates and inflation reek of banana republic mismanagement. Second: Washington. Domestic politics in the United States impose real limits on what the White House can credibly commit to long-term: American public opinion and sharp partisan splits make open-ended escalation politically fraught. From now on, the US will continue to see Russia as primarily a European problem. However, Donald Trump is likely to be the last US president beholden to the outdated Cold War reflex, under which even the slightest rebuke of the Russian bear is feared to be the prelude to global conflict. This is the likely root cause of the argument that neighbouring states simply need to suck it up and accept vassal status, despite the fact that the “bear” is seriously moth-eaten and that most previous Soviet states have already successfully managed to break free. Third: Europe is waking up. Disarmament and dependence on Russian energy were embarrassingly naive decisions but that course is being corrected. As Europe steps up, the relics in Moscow will no doubt continue to orchestrate the relative decline of Russia. Every year for decades, freed former Soviet states have continued to widen the GDP per capita gap with their former oppressor. A managed freeze would not be an abdication of principle if it is accompanied by ironclad, verifiable conditions. The essentials are simple and enforceable: no legal recognition of territorial change; multilayered security guarantees for Ukraine, including air defences, munitions, rotational training and secure spare-parts pipelines; automatic, reversible sanctions-triggers for any material breach by Russia; and an investment programme to accelerate the gulf in living standards between free and occupied zones. Telegraph UK The difference with Germany is that both East and West were German-speaking peoples; Eastern Ukraine was as opposed to joining the EU as the Western two-thirds were in favor. And the continuing presence of Nazism in Western Ukraine doesn't bode well for unity.