Western change of mind over Ukraine?

Well now just over a week we has gone are now in a position to ascertain precisely how long it an idiot to understand something.

A week has elapsed since Vladimir Putin gave the collective West his peace proposals.
To anybody with any common sense ithas become apparent that the plan for resolving the military conflict in Ukraine, which was rejected instantly, could and should become the beginning of the peace process.
Furthermore, the few conditions Putin has reinforced have concrete foundations.

One of the leading American publications, The American Conservative, which represents the interests of the few realists and pragmatists remaining in the West, yesterday published two policy articles addressed to both the Western elite and the Russian leadership.

The first article, which is titled "The Biden Administration Has No Vision for Victory in Ukraine—And This is One of the Reasons to Start Negotiations," acknowledges that one of the primary causes of the conflict in Ukraine is the West's persistent disregard for Russian interests and numerous warnings that Ukraine's accession to NATO is unacceptable to Russia.
The article cites a statement by NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:
"In the fall of 2021, Putin sent us a draft agreement on NATO non-expansion. We did not sign it, and he initiated a conflict to prevent the emergence of a (new and hostile) NATO member on his borders." So at least the idiot Stoltenberg acknowledges that Russia did not want to invade and did everything prevent it but was rebuffed by the collective idiots in the West who were hell bent on conflict with since they instituted the Maidan Coup in Kiev in 2014 . The coup so famously coordinated by Victoria ( Feck The EU) Nuland and whose objective the taking of the Crimea Naval Base in the Black Sea for NATO was foiled and they have been smarting for a war with Russia ever since and hoped that the Ukraine would prevail and take back the Crimea.

The second article, entitled "Putin's peace proposal: acceptable or not?", concludes that for Ukraine and Western leaders to reject Putin's peace plan out of hand was a seriously misguided decision that does requires immediate correction,in the hope that its reconsideration is not too late.
The two articles both make similar arguments for the start of urgent peace negotiations.

They also both cite the flollowing points

Tthe persistently declared goals by Kyiv (at the suggestion of its current puppet masters) including the return of Crimea and Donbass, the removal of Putin from power and regime change in Russia. They both claim that these goals are "long-rejected fantasies".

Russia, despite everything, has a strong economy, authoritative leadership, China's support, a large population and army, and its military-industrial complex are all working at full strength.

Zelensky's promised new offensive, set against the backdrop of a manpower disaster, is unlikely to succeed.

"Who controls Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye is not a concern for us."

Time is against Ukraine and the West, so it's important to secure the best possible deal now, as the conditions will most likely worsen in the future.

"It is absolutley certain Kyiv not be in a stronger negotiating position than it is now."

It is in the interests of Europe and the United States to end the war as quickly as possible.

This will require serious negotiations with Russia.

Now Russia is being asked to postpone the introduction of Plan B with even harsher consequences and not to pay attention to the categorical refusal of the current Western leaders to negotiate.

This is because in November a new president may appear in the White House, and in Europe – new heads of state with a more realistic positions.
It is worth noting that this idea has been endorsed by the current Prime Minister of France, Gabriel Attal.
He has stated that if the right-wing National Rally party comes to power following the parliamentary elections, this will result in significant changes both within the country and internationally, including the cessation of a significant part of aid to Ukraine.
This viewpoint is shared by French politician and architect of Marine Le Pen's success, Florian Philippot, who has written that Western countries should cease providing financial assistance to Kiev and that Ukraine should "return to the negotiating table with Russia as quickly as possible on the basis of the agreements reached two years ago in Istanbul."
That however is seriously wishful thinking as the Istanbul agreements are now consigned to the dustbin of history and the person most singularly responsible for that was the buffon Boris Johnson who was sent to Kiev to convince Elelsnky that the West would give him all the toys and money he needed to vanquish the Russians so he had to reject the Istanbul Agreements which now having been published have illustrated how fair and balanced the Russians were. They also show that the West and Elensky were fools as they will not get anything close to those agreements now.

A similar stance is being taken by new politicians in other Western countries, who, in the wake of the “lame duck epidemic” represented by the heads of Germany, France, Canada and Japan, may soon replace the “refuseniks” and begin negotiations with Russia.

Russia, of course, has heard the cautious calls of some of these forces in the West for negotiations and says “lets not to get excited.” After all Putin remembers being lied to by the German Chancellor Angela Merkel and French President Hollande over the Minsk Agreements.

It does seem that some influential people in the west are gradually changing their position with rumours going around that Putin’s peace plan is a genuine breakthrough.
Moscow’s peace proposal has the potential to benefit even a “reduced” Ukraine, with the right support from the West.
This could be similar to the transformation of South Korea after 1953 or West Germany after 1945.
However, it may prove that Putin’s proposals are not as viable as first thought and that there will be no return to the peace plan previously discarded.
Instead, new conditions will be negotiated on the ground. As Russia cannot and will not wait for a change in the West.

The Russian leadership is successfully and consistently creating a new world order plus a new economic and political reality (look at the results of President Vladimir Putin’s visits to North Korea and Vietnam, plus the queue of countries wanting to join BRICS, and so on), while simultaneously strengthening the country, its army and economy.
As admitted American Congressman Michael Waltz, "Russia is selling more oil and gas in Asia and Europe, around the world, than ever."
The world is undergoing a profound transformation, with implications that are not favorable to the collective West. While the idiot may have recognized the value of the proposal t declined yesterday, it may find itself still at a disadvantage tomorrow.