Open Threads

The Kyiv Independent reports on a leaked Trump Ukraine-Russia peace plan:

One idea within U.S. President-elect Donald Trump’s team for ending Russia’s war involves delaying Kyiv’s NATO membership for at least 20 years in exchange for continued arms supplies, the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) reported on Nov. 6, citing three sources close to Trump.

Trump, who won the presidential vote on Nov. 5, has repeatedly said that he would end the war within “24 hours” and get the U.S. “out” of Ukraine.

Earlier media reports and statements from Trump’s inner circle indicated this would entail freezing the war on the current front lines and creating a demilitarized zone in the east, a claim also supported by the WSJ’s sources.

Russia currently occupies roughly 20% of Ukrainian territory in the south and the east and continues steadily pushing back Ukrainian defenders, albeit at the cost of heavy losses.

It remains unclear who would police the 800-mile (1,300 kilometers) long demilitarized zone, but an undisclosed Trump’s aide told the WSJ that Washington would demand European allies to send in their troops.

This proposal is only one of the ideas circling around in Trump’s team, and the president-elect has a tendency to make major policy decisions on the spot, the sources said.

Two of Trump’s advisors, retired General Keith Kellogg and Fred Fleitz, proposed in June to cease military aid to Ukraine unless it agrees to hold peace negotiations with Russia.

At the same time, Kellogg said the plan would entail additional warnings to Russia that the U.S. would increase its military support to Ukraine if it refused the terms of the ceasefire.

Fleitz said Trump reacted positively to the plan but added, “I’m not claiming he agreed with it or agreed with every word of it.” The plan also involved taking Ukraine’s NATO accession off the table for “an extended period in exchange for a comprehensive and verifiable peace deal with security guarantees.”

Ukraine submitted a request for NATO membership in 2022 but has not received an invitation, receiving a cold response from U.S. President Joe Biden, German Chancellor Olaf Scholz, and others.

Both Kyiv and Moscow said it would not be possible to end the war within 24 hours, as Trump claims. Ukraine has been adamant about not recognizing Russian occupation of its territories but has acknowledged some may have to be liberated by diplomatic means.

In turn, Russia currently holds the upper hand on the battlefield, outnumbering and outgunning Ukrainian troops, likely having little incentive to seek a settlement.

Here’s Tatarigami’s take on what appears to be the leaked Trump Ukraine-Russia peace plan:

WSJ recently published an article outlining a proposed peace plan shared by Trump’s transition team, with details from three sources close to the president-elect. Here are a few thoughts on this plan:

The plan suggests solidifying the front line and establishing an 800-mile demilitarized zone, which both sides would agree to uphold. However, this proposal seems to be naive for a simple reason: a demilitarized zone requires an enforcing presence to ensure compliance. Without a security force on the ground, it risks being ignored or frequently violated. For instance, the Korean Demilitarized Zone has only been maintained due to a longstanding presence of troops, including U.S. forces. Given that a foreign military presence is not part of the proposal, it’s unclear who would enforce this arrangement.

Next point:

Kyiv would pledge not to join NATO for at least 20 years. This approach doesn’t significantly differ from the previous administration’s stance, which saw Ukraine’s NATO membership as a non-starter. As I’ve outlined before, this could potentially be a point of compromise for Ukraine, but only if it secures comparable security guarantees – either through agreements with other countries or a formal treaty. Without such a treaty, Ukraine would risk remaining in a vulnerable buffer zone, facing either a slow erosion of its sovereignty or a second invasion. The reason why the Ukrainian army won’t be enough to deter Russia I will explain in the next point. Without alternative security guarantees, a 20-year freeze on NATO membership is a poor deal, and it’s doubtful Ukraine could maintain its independence for two decades under those conditions.

Final Point:

In exchange for Ukraine forgoing NATO membership, the U.S. would continue providing substantial military support to deter future Russian aggression. While this is theoretically viable, it would require much higher aid levels than Ukraine currently receives. The incremental pace of Russia’s military advance shows that current support is insufficient as a deterrent. The article adds, “We can do training and other support, but the heavy lifting should be European. And we’re not paying for it. Get the Poles, Germans, British, and French to step up.” If European countries are expected to supply aid on this scale, it’s questionable whether they would agree to it. On paper, this may sound effective, but in practice, it lacks a reliable mechanism to secure consistent, large-scale support from countries like Poland. Beyond its GDP limitations, Poland has already made significant contributions from its military stocks.

In essence, the plan reads as follows: Ukraine won’t join NATO, but we’ll provide arms – if European nations agree to foot the bill. And if they don’t, well, too bad. This sounds like a veiled attempt to abandon Ukraine, while looking victorious, a significantly weaker stance than Jake Sullivan’s approach.

And certainly, this won’t bring an end to the war in 24 hours.

And his follow on:

President-elect Donald Trump holds more leverage over Russia than they realize, despite some propagandists already rushing to dismiss potential deals other than surrender. The U.S. has the upper hand: aid volume, oil prices, and tighter sanctions that could ruin Russia’s economy

You only have leverage if you’re willing to use it. The President-elect’s first term made it clear he wasn’t.

Here is Tymofiy Mylavonov’s, the head of the Kyiv School of Economics, take on the leaked proposal:

Only Trump’s second day as president-elect, and his reported plan to “freeze” the conflict in Ukraine is already facing pushback from Moscow. Signals from Putin’s circle suggest outright rejection—a clear sign of how difficult Trump’s dealings with Putin will be 1/

So, what is Trump’s plan? Nobody knows! But the Wall Street Journal reports on multiple versions of different advisors. All proposals will freeze the war. But some are more damaging to Ukraine than others 2/

https://www.wsj.com/world/trump-presidency-ukraine-russia-war-plans-008655c0

One proposal is to commit Ukraine to abandon NATO for 20 years, in exchange for the U.S. pumping Ukraine full of weapons to deter a future Russian attack.

Is it realistic? I don’t think so. Can the US commit to give enough weapons? Can Zelensky violate Ukraine’s Constitution?3/ 

WSJ: Under that plan, the front line would lock [including Kursk?] and both sides would agree to an 800-mile demilitarized zone. Who would police that territory? Unclear, but not the US or UN.

So, this plan is more of a fantasy … than a realistic proposal 4/ 

Another plan is to withhold weapons from Ukraine until Kyiv agrees to peace talks with Russia. Ukraine could still try to regain lost territory, but would have to do so through diplomatic negotiations.

How would it work? Why would Russia agree to stop the war? Nobody knows! 5/ 

Dmitriy Trenin, a former direct of Carnegie – Moscow, gives a pretty clear response from Russia to these proposals:

This is not good enough! Russia will reject them and demand control over UA govt, military capabilities and security alliances 6/

What does it mean? At this point it is nothing more than rhetoric. Russians are arguing for more. The Trump administration people, though, might be attempting to push Europe to step up Ukraine support now in fear of Trump abandoning Ukraine next January. Which is smart 7X 

The Kyiv Independent is reporting that the Biden administration is going to try to push everything they can to Ukraine before the end of the calendar year:

The U.S. will send Ukraine the full $6 billion in outstanding military aid before President-elect Donald Trump is inaugurated on Jan. 20, Deputy Pentagon Press Secretary Sabrina Singh said at a briefing on Nov. 7.

Previously, Politico reported that U.S. President Joe Biden was rushing to deliver the remaining $6 billion by the end of his term out of fear that a Trump administration might halt weapons shipments to Ukraine.

Ukraine will receive $4 billion under the Presidential Drawdown Authority (PDA), which pulls weapons from U.S. stocks, and $2 billion from the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative (USAI), Singh told reporters.

When asked if the U.S. had enough weapons stockpiled to get shipments to Ukraine before Trump’s inauguration, Singh said Washington was “confident” it could keep its commitments to Kyiv.

“So we’re always constantly backfilling and restocking our shelves. … (W)e’re committed to providing Ukraine what it needs and that includes that $4 billion in authority,” she said.

Singh also pointed out that Ukraine has many supporters both within the U.S. government and around the world.

“(I)t’s not just the United States that’s supporting Ukraine and that will continue to support Ukraine,” she said, emphasizing that Ukraine Defense Contact Group (UDCG) includes “over 50 countries.”

“And on top of that, Ukraine has bicameral and bipartisan support in Congress. So there is an administration change that’s going to happen in January, but support for Ukraine remains strong.”

Trump’s Nov. 5 electoral victory triggered fears that U.S. aid to Ukraine might soon draw to a close. Trump’s comments on Ukraine have emphasized speedy results over long-term support, and he has refrained from saying he wants Ukraine to prevail over Russia.

Anxiety over the possible withdrawal of U.S. aid comes as Ukraine braces itself for another grueling winter of Russian infrastructure attacks. Meanwhile, North Korean troops have been deployed to Russia to aid Moscow’s full-scale invasion.

Here’s an excellent assessment of what the President-elect actually did in regard to Ukraine during first term and what that signals for his second by Ruth Deyermond of King’s College London’s Department of War Studies:

I’ve seen several people argue that Trump might not be as bad on Ukraine as some suggest and cited his administration’s supply of arms to Kyiv as evidence for this. I understand why people are keen to find positives for Ukraine, but I think this is wrong. 

On arms: the claim is often that Trump supplied them after Obama blocked them. This is only partly true. The Obama administration allowed the commercial export of weapons to Ukraine, but did not supply them directly. 

The Trump administration did, but only after Trump was persuaded to change his mind on the grounds that it would be good for US business. 

Trump then, infamously, suspended almost $400 million of Congressionally mandated military aid after he was reportedly persuaded to do so by Rudy Giuliani and others. Trump wrongly claimed that the Ukrainian government had acted to undermine him and to protect Joe Biden. 

According to John Bolton, Trump declared that “Ukraine tried to take me down. I’m not fucking interested in helping them”. The “quid pro quo” call with Zelensky – restoration of aid in return for political favours – was the subject of Trump’s 1st impeachment. 

The idea that Trump is more open to helping Ukraine than he appears is not correct, though as on many other things, his position wasn’t fixed because he was easily influenced by those who knew how to talk to him. 

(This is one of many reasons 1st term Trump foreign policy was so incoherent – in the absence of knowledge or understanding of even the big picture of foreign policy, policy depended on who had his ear at any given moment.) 

Trump is now surrounded by better organised people who are not likely to try to persuade him that continuing to arm Ukraine is good for US business. In any case, given his apparent decline since he last held office, it is not clear how involved he’d be in this kind of decision. 

For whatever reason, one of the few absolutely consistent Trump positions since before his first election is the desire to have good relations with Russia – by which he seems to mean Putin. 

Trump has refused to blame Putin for anything, ever, appears deferential to him, and behaved in a number of ways that raised serious questions about the extent of Putin’s influence over him. 

Since his 1st term, he’s moved more strongly in this direction and is now closely aligned with Kremlin positions on Ukraine. Whatever the claims about getting both Russia and Ukraine to the table, it seems likely that he’ll just try to coerce Ukraine to accept Russian demands. 

However flawed the Biden admin approach has been – very – it is as good as Ukraine is likely to get from the US until at least 2029. Things are likely to get a lot worse very fast. 

That has implications not just (though most importantly) for Ukraine, but for European security and for the global standing of the US. Europe needs to urgently address how it de-couples from Trump policy on Ukraine and on Russia – it’s security depends on it. 

Whatever the spin that his admin will push (and much of the US media will probably accept) about Trump as dealmaker, deferring to Russia on Ukraine will make the US look weak – and for good reason. That’s obviously very dangerous for the US in an unstable global environment. 

One last thing for now: though predictions are always risky, if Republicans control the House, I expect that Trump will lift some/all of the sanctions against Russia. 

He was blocked from trying this by CAATSA (Countering America’s Adversaries Through Sanctions Act) in 2017, much to his displeasure. But the check provided by Congress won’t apply if a Trump-shaped GOP controls both Houses. 

Kharkiv:

Video from the Ukrainian MOD at the link:

Assault from a first-person perspective The Artan unit released a video of an attack on enemy positions in the Kharkiv direction.

Kate from Kharkiv has reported that the Russians have targeted another civilian residential building in Kharkiv:

A 12-story residential building in Kharkiv’s Saltivka district was struck by a russian guided aerial bomb‼️ The attack resulted in significant damage, with multiple floors destroyed and people trapped beneath the rubble. A fire has also broken out at the site. Rescue teams are currently on the scene to search for survivors and extinguish the blaze. The exact number of casualties remains unknown at this time- Kharkiv mayor reported

Zaporizhzhia:

Russian strike on Zaporizhzhia kills 4, injures 33, damages hospital; Ukraine may have targeted Iranian weapon supply routes in Dagestan strike, media suggests; and more.

[image or embed]

— The Kyiv Independent (@kyivindependent.com) November 7, 2024 at 4:25 PM

From The Kyiv Post:

Editor’s note: The story is being updated.

Russian forces attacked the city of Zaporizhzhia on Nov. 7, killing four people and injuring at least 40 others, local authorities reported.

Russia struck Zaporizhzhia five times using guided aerial bombs. The attack partially destroyed an apartment building, houses and damaged a cancer hospital, according to the statement.

A four-month-old girl and three boys aged one, five and 15 are among the injured, Governor Ivan Fedorov said. The number of casualties can increase as the search and rescue operation is ongoing.

Following the attack, President Volodymyr Zelensky urged Kyiv’s partners to provide Ukraine with more air defense systems and to lift restrictions on strikes with Western long-range weapons on targets inside Russia.

“Each such Russian strike not only kills people and destroys lives, but also destroys the meaning of any words about the lack of conversations with Russia, phone calls to the Kremlin,” he added.

Zaporizhzhia, the regional center of the partially occupied Zaporizhzhia Oblast, is a common target of Russian attacks. Some 710,000 residents lived in the city before the outbreak of the full-scale invasion in 2022.

A Russian strike against Zaporizhzhia on Nov. 5 killed six and injured 23 people.

Odesa Oblast has just been attacked!

Editor’s Note: This is a developing story and is being updated.

Russian forces launched mass drone attack on southern Odesa Oblast overnight on Nov. 8, damaging several residential buildings and a school in the city of Odesa, according to local authorities.

At least two people are injured as of 1 a.m. local time, Odesa Oblast Governor Oleh Kiper said on Telegram. The blast wave reportedly shattered windows in one of the Odesa city schools while shrapnel damage led to the depressurization and ignition of two gas pipes in other district of Odesa.

Russia has ramped up attacks against the southern Odesa Oblast, targeting port infrastructure and damaging several civilian vessels.

One such strike against the Odesa district took place on Oct. 14, hitting Odesa’s port infrastructure, killing one person and injuring at least eight. The attack damaged two civilian vessels — NS Moon flying the flag of Belize and the Palau-flagged Optima.

Krasnogorivka, Donetsk Oblast:

Special Kherson Cat is reporting that the Ukrainians took out a Russian two star:

Russian Major General Klimenko was killed as a result of FPV drone strike while he was riding a motorcycle along with his subordinates:

“06.11.2024, at 22:00, the commander of the 5th separate motorized rifle brigade (military unit 41698, Makeyevka) Major General Klimenko Pavel Yuryevich died from mine and explosive injuries.

Earlier, General Klimenko and his subordinates, while riding motorcycles, were exposed to enemy FPV attack. Klimenko received multiple injuries, as a result of which he later died in the intensive care unit of the “Republican Traumatology Center” in Donetsk.

The incident occurred near the settlement of Krasnogorivka, Donetsk region.”
t.me/dosye_shpiona/617

Images at the link.

The Kyiv Independent has more on the Ukrainian drone attack in Dagestan, Russia:

Ukrainian forces may have targeted routes in Dagestan used by Iran to supply weapons to Russia, the War Zone media outlet said on Nov. 6.

Dagestan authorities reported intercepting a drone attack over Kaspiysk, a port city at the Caspian Sea around 1,000 kilometers from the front line (600 miles), on the morning of Nov. 6. Ukraine’s military intelligence was behind the attack, a source in the agency told the Kyiv Independent.

In the first Ukrainian attack against a naval base in Dagestan, at least two vessels — missile ships Tatarstan and Dagestan — were damaged in the attack, and possibly also several small Project 21631 ships, according to the source. The Kyiv Independent could not immediately verify the claims.

Although the precise consequences of the Ukrainian attack are difficult to establish, the recent strike is still “significant in several ways,” the War Zone‘s experts said.

The port in Dagestan is not only a base for the Russian Caspian Flotilla and several military units of the Russian Armed Forces but is also located along the routes used by Iran to deliver weapons to Russia.

Until the recent Ukrainian attack, this route was considered safe for transportation due to being supposedly out of the range of Ukrainian weapons.

While Russian authorities claimed to have intercepted a single drone in the skies, a video shared on social media appears to show another drone hitting its target, resulting in a large explosion.

The incident took place roughly 15 kilometers (10 miles) from a local airport, the Mash news channel claimed, identifying the drone as a Ukrainian A-22 Flying Fox drone.

The nearby Makhachkala airport has suspended operations for an indefinite period due to the incident, local authorities said.

That’s enough for tonight.

Your daily Patron!

A new video from Patron’s official TikTok!

@patron__dsns

Як і обіцяв, показую! Скільки качок нарахували?🤭🦆 #песпатрон

♬ оригинальный звук – 🎲

Here’s the machine translation of the caption:

As promised, I’m showing you! How many ducks did you count? 🤭🦆 #песпатрон