The Peace Process Is a Ruse

The Peace Process Is a Ruse

Paul Craig Roberts 

I appreciate John Helmer’s truth-telling in his program with Nima, Tuesday, August 19 ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=__g35vguwzw )

Also, I am pleased that Helmer’s detailed analysis supports my general conclusions on Nima’s podcast the previous day. ( https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2025/08/19/nima-and-i-discuss-the-nonsense-that-is-emerging-from-the-so-called-trump-putin-zelensky-european-ukrainian-peace-process/ )  We are both equally contemptuous of the scam underway.  Helmer’s very direct language was appropriate. I thank him for it.

Like John Helmer, I am waiting to see if Putin’s need for time to prepare for wider war causes him to accept Ukraine’s remilitarization as a “peace agreement” and  whether Putin succumbs to a land swap instead of completing the conquest of the areas that are already reincorporated into Russia. Putin said some years ago that “Russia will never again fight a war on its own territory,” but Putin has been doing so for 3.5 years. The question before us is whether Putin is capable of maintaining Russian sovereignty, or is sovereignty an insufficient goal for the Westernized Russian business/intellectual class.

Witkoff reported that Putin had agreed to a land swap and NATO’s protection of Ukraine, which amount to Putin’s surrender.  That is why I said Witkoff said that Putin had surrendered to Trump.  In effect, it would be a surrender of Putin’s long held position.

What I do not understand is why Putin allowed himself to be put in such a situation.  This is why I don’t believe any proper preparation for the meeting was done. Indeed, it could not have been done in one week. It is always a mistake for a leader to put himself in the position that Putin did by going to the meeting with Trump on hope alone.  As Helmer correctly said, by the peace agreement we now mean remilitarization and long-range war.

My impression is that Helmer regards Witkoff’s statements that Putin agreed to a land swap and NATO protection for Ukraine as lies.  As I don’t know why Putin would abandon his position, Witkoff’s statements must be lies.  But what is their purpose?  How does it help Putin at home and the cause of peace by putting Putin on the spot with the Russian military and Russian nationalists as a weak reed  who was knuckled under by Trump?

I would also like to have Helmer’s assessment of Kirill Dmitrive.  He strikes me as only nominally Russian, a person lobbying for the Westernized Russian business/intellectual class interested in making money for which Russian sovereignty can be sacrificed. Helmer pointed out that the Trump family and European politicians are enriching themselves with remilitarization disguised as a peace agreement, so it is reasonable to wonder if there are similar situations in Russia.

If Putin hasn’t accepted NATO’s protection of Ukraine and a land swap that would leave a number of Russians to the mercy of Ukrainians, what happens when this comes clear and the peace process blows up?  As Helmer emphasizes for Trump winning is the agenda.

It seems to me that the only way Putin could survive the military and Russian nationalists by agreeing to a land swap and NATO’s protection of Ukraine would be to explain that it is just a ruse to gain time by ending an unimportant conflict in order to prepare for a much larger one.

I agree with Helmer that Americans and European policymakers have limited vision, but how can they not see that Russia and her allies are likely to be prepared for wider war long before the West is?

The Western World seems incapable of asking the obvious question:  “Why are US hegemony and the profits of the US military/security complex more important than life on earth?”