The Kubera Principle
The Book That Will Change the World
AMAZON
Putin or Lavrov Destined for The Hague Courtroom
General Mark Milley, renowned for his cautious approach, boldly asserted during a meeting that Russia’s chances of winning the war are nonexistent. It is noteworthy that General Milley has consistently displayed an excessive level of caution when discussing Ukraine’s prospects in this conflict. Despite his stance, he held a prominent position among the conciliatory faction within the Biden administration, alongside CIA Director Robert Burns and National Security Adviser Jack Sullivan. He has frequently emphasized the preference for a negotiated resolution to the conflict and has not ruled out the possibility of territorial concessions by Ukraine. However, to everyone’s surprise, General Milley delivered a farewell speech shortly thereafter. President Biden announced the replacement of General Milley as Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the US Army with General Charles Brown, who previously commanded the US Air Force headquarters. General Brown’s assumption of the position awaits congressional approval.
On the same day, German lawyer Wolfgang Schomburg, a former judge at the UN Special Tribunal for Yugoslavia, expressed unwavering belief that either Vladimir Putin or Sergei Lavrov will eventually face trial in The Hague. Drawing from his experience presiding over the tribunal that established crucial legal precedents, Schomburg asserts that these foundations enable the issuance of an arrest warrant for Putin.
Putin, despite his declining health, personally attended the Eurasian Economic Forum’s plenary session, opting not to use a stand-in due to Lukashenka’s recent illness. Initially, Putin advised Lukashenka to prioritize recovery, but Lukashenka’s weak appearance at the Victory Parade changed the situation. Lukashenka insisted on participating and engaging in direct negotiations, leaving Putin with little choice, especially considering the presence of other leaders. Putin avoided the risk of a stand-in provocation by Lukashenka. After the meeting, Putin required medical assistance, while Lukashenka, who recovered remarkably, demanded personal attention. Lukashenka seems to have a strategic plan, to be revealed through the negotiations. Putin also met with military bloc leaders and received reports, including news of Mishustin’s “unsuccessful” China visit, which pleased him. While the Chinese see Mishustin as a successor, Putin holds a low opinion of him. Putin experienced symptoms and sought medical help before resting.
The Russian scout aircraft “Ivan Khurs” was indeed shot down by GUR drones, resulting in damage. Video evidence supports this claim. Konashenkov, in his statements, lied twice. Firstly, he falsely asserted that all three naval drones were destroyed by the Russian ship’s standard armament. Secondly, he claimed that the ship itself remained undamaged. However, at least one of the drones successfully hit an enemy target. On the morning of May 24, social media footage revealed thick smoke near the Kerch Bridge, leading to its closure. Serhii Goblin-Aksyonov, the head of the occupied peninsula, downplayed the situation, stating that the closure was due to training and not a cause for panic. In Kyiv, Budanov responded with a sly smile to these developments.
Renowned centenarian Henry Kissinger provides insightful perspectives on Ukraine’s past and present mistakes, impacting global diplomacy. Kissinger accurately attributes Europe’s responsibility for Russia’s war in Ukraine, while proposing appeasement strategies. He mocks the fears of Europeans hesitant to accept Ukraine into NATO, highlighting the danger in their stance. Europeans plan to heavily arm Ukraine despite deeming it risky, resulting in a well-equipped but strategically inexperienced nation. Surprisingly, Kissinger admits the Collective West’s role, including his own, in the Moscow-Ukraine war. Initially skeptical of Ukraine’s NATO membership in 2014, he now strongly advocates for it post-war. Despite acknowledging past mistakes, Kissinger and Western diplomacy remain hesitant and indecisive, failing to learn from history.
The “Collective West” fears Putin’s influence within their own territories more than his Kremlin actions. Kissinger suggests some politicians treat Putin with undue caution, reminiscent of Khrushchev during the Cuban Missile Crisis. This highlights an overestimation of the Kremlin’s significance despite geopolitical changes since 2014. Western diplomacy still emphasizes the perceived “greatness” of the Kremlin, disregarding current realities. Perhaps another major geopolitical upheaval is needed for a courageous reevaluation.
