Another Monday Message Board. Post comments on any topic. Civil discussion and no coarse language please. Side discussions and idees fixes to the sandpits, please.
I’m now using Substack as a blogging platform, and for my monthly email newsletter. For the moment, I’ll post both at this blog and on Substack. You can also follow me on Mastodon here.
John Quiggin 
The European counterproposal on Ukraine
You know about the disgraceful and comically botched peace “plan” for Ukraine cooked up by Witkoff and Dmitriev, a pair of seedy businessmen, and its rapid collapse. Timothy Snyder eviscerates it here: https://snyder.substack.com/p/russian-unreality-and-american-weakness I want to comment just on one episode, a European “counter-proposal” hastily concocted by Starmer, Macron and Merz, reported by Reuters here: https://www.reuters.com/business/finance/full-text-european-counter-proposal-us-ukraine-peace-plan-2025-11-23/
This isn’t a plan either, by which one would normally understand heads of agreement for an armistice and/or peace treaty. It’s a clumsy rewrite of the Witkoff scrawl, and preserves its incoherent amateurism. A few examples.
Point 2: “There will be a total and complete non-aggression agreement reached between Russia and Ukraine and NATO. All ambiguities from the last 30 years will be resolved.” Copied from Witkoff. The second sentence is meaningless.
Point 6: “Size of Ukraine military to be capped at 800,000 in peacetime.” Better than Witkoff’’s 600,000, but there is no parallel obligation by Russia or NATO.
Point 7: “Ukraine joining NATO depends on consensus of NATO members, which does not exist.” Who is agreeing to what here?
Point 9: “NATO fighter jets will be stationed in Poland.” Currently NATO warplanes are stationed in Romania and the Baltic states as well. Why single out Poland? It’s none of Russia’s business anyway.
Point 10a: “10. US guarantee that mirrors Article 5
a. US to receive compensation for the guarantee”.
Again, what business is this of Russia? What credibility has a military alliance with the USA for which it has to be bribed?
Point 10c: “If Russia invades Ukraine, in addition to a robust coordinated military response, all global sanctions will be restored and any kind of recognition for the new territory and all other benefits from this agreement will be withdrawn.”
What do you mean “if”? Russia has invaded Ukraine, that’s what this war is about. What is this “recognition for the new territory”? Point 21 calls it Ukraine’s “occupied sovereign territory.” Is it Ukrainian or Russian? Dmitriev has surely blundered by calling the occupied areas “new”: for Putin, they have always been Russian because of Kievan Rus or the Third Rome or something.
Point 27: “This agreement will be legally binding. Its implementation will be monitored and guaranteed by a Board of Peace, chaired by President Donald J. Trump. There will be penalties for violation.”
Countries are represented in treaties by the holders of public offices, viz. monarchs, elected officials and ambassadors, not named and mortal individuals, The peace treaty of Westphalia in 1648, the origin of modern international law, begins with a statement of perpetuity outlasting individual monarchs https://avalon.law.yale.edu/17th_century/westphal.asp :
“I. That there shall be a Christian and Universal Peace, and a perpetual, true, and sincere Amity, between his Sacred Imperial Majesty [the Emperor of Austria], and his most Christian Majesty [the King of France]; as also, between all and each of the Allies, and Adherents of his said Imperial Majesty, the House of Austria, and its Heirs, and Successors; but chiefly between the Electors, Princes, and States of the Empire on the one side; and all and each of the Allies of his said Christian Majesty, and all their Heirs and Successors, chiefly between the most Serene Queen and Kingdom of Swedeland, the Electors respectively, the Princes and States of the Empire, on the other part.”
The text is shamefully silent on war crimes and reparations – which makes the planned seizure of frozen Russian assets abroad an unprincipled act of piracy, not a roundabout form of justice.
This shambolic text is clear on one thing. The mask of feigned solidarity with violated Ukraine dropped for a moment. This revealed that at least these three European leaders and no doubt many others (not all), would accept partition of Ukraine, with the cession to Russia of the Crimea and the occupied parts of the south-eastern oblasts, as long as the greater part of Ukraine stayed genuinely free. Putin would get to keep his blood-soaked conquests. They would sacrifice one of the central pillars of the postwar international order, the inviolability of frontiers, making the whole world a more dangerous place. In return, they would create a huge DMZ of contested sovereignty, blocking trade, investment and human relations for decades. How could even a democratic successor to Putin like the murdered Navalny accept the return of the conquered territory? The interest of democratic Europe is what ir leaders have said since 2022, some of them meaning it: we support Ukraine’s war of self-defence for as long as it takes.
Fortunately – and I am not joking when I say this – there is very little chance Putin will take the deal that Europe is apparently ready to make. This would not by itself end the war but by peeling off European as well as American support, it would force Zelensky to bite the bullet fairly quickly. But Putin will not give up on the aim of destroying Ukraine as an independent free country wih its o own language, cullture and history : it must accept the full imperial Russian yoke. Ukrainians will not accept this, and nor will European public opinion. Putin is a more intelligent man than Donald Trump, but by creating courts of toadies not independent and professional advisers, they are both detaching themselves more and more from the realities of their own vulnerability.
I predict (quite safely) that Putin will reject Trump’s mess of an offer and fight on through the winter. I still predict, less safely, that his regime will soon fall, and suddenly, as it has no ideology beyond a crude and paranoid nationalism and no deep institutional roots in society, for which the naked self-interest of a handful of kleptocrats, spooks and propagandists cannot substitute.
Will climate change and sea level rise eventually damage and destroy global infrastructure faster than it can be repaired, replaced or re-sited?
Google AI reports yes from its LLM survey of the literature. I hope it’s okay to do a long paste. I think the issue merits thinking about.
QUOTE
“Yes, climate change and sea level rise are likely to outpace our ability to repair and replace global infrastructure, as damage from extreme weather, flooding, and corrosion is expected to accelerate. The increasing frequency and intensity of climate-related events will necessitate a shift towards more proactive, long-term adaptation and resilience strategies to manage existing and future risks, rather than just reacting to damage as it occurs,
Why infrastructure is at risk?
Increased frequency and intensity of extreme weather: Climate change is making events like hurricanes, heavy rainfall, and droughts more severe. This can cause direct damage to roads, bridges, and other infrastructure, and create cascading failures due to their interconnected nature.
Accelerated sea level rise: Rising sea levels, combined with storm surges, push floodwaters further inland, threatening coastal infrastructure like ports, power plants, and sewage treatment facilities.
Accelerated corrosion: Higher water temperatures and increased salinity from rising sea levels can speed up the corrosion of buried pipes, concrete, and other materials, leading to a shorter lifespan for infrastructure and more frequent, costly repairs.
Increased saltwater intrusion: Sea level rise can contaminate freshwater aquifers that supply cities and agriculture, making it necessary to invest in new, more expensive water treatment and desalination infrastructure.
Outdated design standards: Many existing structures were built with historical climate data in mind, which is no longer an accurate predictor of future conditions. This means they are operating outside their designed tolerance levels.
The challenge of adaptation.
High costs: Repairing and replacing infrastructure is expensive, but the cost of not adapting is likely to be even higher due to cascading economic and social impacts from infrastructure failure.
Proactive versus reactive: The traditional model of building and then repairing after damage occurs is not sustainable. Future strategies must focus on building new infrastructure that is climate-resilient from the start and retrofitting existing assets to withstand future impacts.
Strategic planning: A failure to plan ahead for climate impacts will lead to a situation where the pace of damage outstrips the rate of repair. This requires long-term strategic planning for where and how we build, and for which assets need to be relocated or protected.
A need for new materials and designs: New materials that can better withstand corrosive environments are needed, along with innovative design approaches that consider future climate conditions rather than past ones.” – Google AI.
END QUOTE
My Opinion Below:
In Australia we are NOT adapting and we are NOT preparing for the future. We remain in reactive mode and we refuse to pay the costs to update, harden and re-site infrastructure as the cases may require. We also refuse to reduce emissions and shut down coal use and exports (as one egregious example of refusal to act).
The general public, governments and even many academic studies or commentary all seem to assume change will be gradual even from here and we will have time to adapt. This is not the case. The climate is spinning rapidly “out of control” (inappropriate terminology but it conveys the meaning). We could say the climate is shifting abruptly to a new state or more likely to and through a range of new de-stabilised states as it changes rapidly and continuously. Storm frequencies, intensities and consequent damages are rapidly escalating.
Nothing short of declaring a state of continuous climate emergency and acting on this with 100% of available national resources will answer this crisis. The devotion of available national resources, including discretionary spending, to any other activities other than 100% to survival and adaptation for the people of the nation will not be sustainable. The nation and people must halt all or most discretionary expenses and redirect the great bulk of finances and resources to survival in the face of rapid and catastrophic changing climate regime which is now taking hold. This crisis is happening now. The fixes must start happening now, mitigation and adaptation. The longer we leave it the worse we fall behind the eight ball.
I know I will hear crickets for now. Later on will come the weeping and wailing and gnashing of teeth.
James W. I’m going to defend the Europeans on several grounds
John Q : “The aim is to get a plan that Trump will endorse and Putin won’t”. True enough. But why bother? Trump’s is a weathercock, biased towards Russia of course, but White House gyrates on every detail as factions in his court fight or influence over his decaying mind. Giving priority to placating him this week as against supporting Ukraine over time is bizarre and futile. This particular effort opens up a dangerous split with Ukraine which Putin will exploit.
Revealing anecdote from the court of Elagabalus: “the U.S. Department of Homeland Security detained White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt’s brother’s ex-fiancee, Brazilian national Bruna Caroline Ferreira.” (Yahoo). Ex-fiancee, but mother of Leavitt’s 11-year-old nephew, sharing custody with her remarried brother. I wonder who – perhaps a White House colleague? – pointed ICE in Ms Ferreira’s direction, since she has no criminal record. She will probably be deported back to Brazil, which she left at age six, and meanwhile languishes in a ghastly ICE jail in Louisiana.
The argument about the Hobart football stadium is couched in terms of a false dichotomy. See the ABC article: https://www.abc.net.au/news/2025-11-30/hobart-stadium-vote-leaves-macquarie-point-at-crossroads/106044588
This article makes out that the choice is between development, mainly of the football, tourist and hospitality industries, versus protection of heritage values. This is a false dichotomy. It’s about more than that. There is mention of opportunity but no mention of opportunity costs.
For example, in basic terms, building a $A1.3 billion stadium means a $A1.3 billion hospital cannot be built. That would be a major new metropolitan hospital for Hobart and indeed for Tasmania. The Tasmanian health system is under severe strain. A new hospital this size plus staff would make a great difference in healthcare there.
But of course the sporting, tourism and hospitality industry lobbies can’t see that. They can only see their own immediate interests. Australia will pay a heavy price soon enough for all this misallocation of resources. We are not in any state to meet our existing and worsening crises in health, housing, welfare, education, social services and environmental issues. We continue to splurge our national wealth on wasteful projects, wasteful living and wasteful and damaging forms of entertainment. Partying out our remaining time while large sections of the population descend into severe poverty and wide parts of Australia submerge, burn or suffer other environmental crises depending on the time, locality and shifting climate. What a ship of fools! When will they wake up?