BLet's turn to a reported proposal floating around from Jared Kushner.
BAnton Gerashchenko posted on X about a Washington Post column by David Ignatius.
BIt says Kushner wants to revive the NATO-Russia Council model for Europe's postwar security.
BThe forum that was suspended after Russia invaded Ukraine and annexed Crimea in 2014.
BExactly. The column, citing an unnamed U.S. official, says he wants talks with Moscow to run alongside ceasefire negotiations.
BI'll say it plainly: we couldn't independently confirm this. It's one columnist citing an unnamed official.
BBut it's worth arguing about, because it's the kind of idea that shapes a war's endgame.
BAnd my first reaction is: read the room. European officials are saying ceasefire first, then maybe talk about architecture.
BA top reply on X put it bluntly: "Russia or USA will not decide about the security of Europe. Only Europe will."
BI actually think there's a case for Kushner's model. You need a place to manage risk with Moscow, especially when trust is zero.
BA forum that was suspended after Russia invaded Ukraine? That's not risk management, that's a reward.
BIt's not a reward. It's a mechanism. If there's a ceasefire, someone has to talk to Russia about security guarantees.
BThen let Europe lead. The last thing we need is an American backchannel that cuts Ukraine out.
BThe report says it would run alongside ceasefire negotiations, not instead of. That's different.
BBut the timing matters. You don't hand Moscow a new council seat while the missiles are still flying.
BYou might have to, if you want a durable end. Freezing the war without a security framework just invites round two.
BSo we trust the same Russia that has broken every deal? That's not realism, Brian, that's amnesia.
BRealism means talking to the country that can end the war. That's not trust, that's strategy.
BEurope gets a veto. If European officials insist on ceasefire first, Kushner's idea is dead on arrival.
BAnd that would be a mistake. You don't have to like Moscow to have a formal channel.
BWe had one before 2014. How did that work out?
BFair point, but the alternative is an unmanaged collapse. That's worse.
BOr the alternative is Europe finally taking responsibility for its own security, like that reply said.
BEurope can take responsibility and still benefit from U.S. involvement. Those aren't opposites.
BFine, but the order matters: ceasefire, verified withdrawal, then maybe a forum.
BI'd put talks in parallel—for security guarantees, not for trust. But I'll concede the optics are terrible right now.
BThat's the first reasonable thing you've said in five minutes.
BI was trying to get there.