>>/54274/
cont.
As promised here's the quote from the book about negotiation:
the only alternative to current policy is to reduce the number of U.S. troops. Ideally, this would not be done until the client’s capabilities had been built up; to gain time for that to happen, negotiations would have to be undertaken with the enemy. In principle, the client should also be a party to these talks but as it is likely to see them as an American betrayal, the U.S. will probably to take over entirely the task of negotiations. (A consequence is that, when an agreement is reached, the U.S. has to apply great pressure to the client for it to be accepted, going so far as to contemplate a coup d’état against the country’s president.)
I see some relevance to the Ukrainian "peace negotiations", how Trump started to handle it, and how they pressured Ukraine to agree.
As for Ukraine the US does intervention there in the form of:
1. economic aid;
2. military aid via weapon transfers and advisers these advisers and "advisers" - like HIMARS crews -, advice and "advice" - like guiding rockets to targets
How much role they had in setting up the AFU as a "proxy force", I dunno, but it is a legit view to consider the conflict as a proxy war.
How I see it the war is in the phase of "Political support: drawdown and negotiate" because Washington fears a "Military defeat" situation.
This quote really hits home:
> the U.S. will probably to take over entirely the task of negotiations
...when we consider one of Trump's latest: that this won't end until him and Putin don't sit down and discuss it together.