In the State Department’s readout of Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s telephone call to NATO Secretary-General, Mark Rutte, Rubio said: “while our nation has been committed to helping end the war, if a clear path to peace does not emerge soon, the United States will step back from efforts to broker peace.” That was last Friday, April 18.

Rubio was repeating what he had said in Paris two days before, following his talks on what he has called “specific outlines of what it might take to end the war”. In his brief press conference at Le Bourget Airport, Rubio repeated himself five times in as many minutes.

“We are now reaching a point where we need to decide and determine whether this is even possible or not, which is why we’re engaging both sides…So we came here yesterday to…try to figure out very soon – and I’m talking about a matter of days, not a matter of weeks – whether or not this is a war that can be ended. If it can, we’re prepared to do whatever we can to facilitate that and make sure that it happens, that it ends in a durable and just way. If it’s not possible – if we’re so far apart that this is not going to happen – then I think the President’s probably at a point where he’s going to say, well, we’re done. We’ll do what we can on the margins. We’ll be ready to help whenever you’re ready to have peace. But we’re not going to continue with this endeavor for weeks and months on end.”

Again: “there’s no – no one’s saying this can be done in 12 hours. But we want to see how far apart it is and whether those differences are – can even be narrowed, if it’s even possible to get movement within the period of time we have in mind.”

And again: “we need to figure out here now, within a matter of days, whether this is doable in the short term. Because if it’s not, then I think we’re just going to move on, from our perspective. The President feels very strongly about that. He has dedicated a lot of time and energy to this, and there are a lot of things going on in the world right now that we need to be focused on. So, this is important, but there are a lot of other really important things going on that deserve just as much if not more attention.”

And yet again: “we need to figure out whether it’s even possible within the short term. I can tell you this: This war has no military solution to it. It really doesn’t. It’s not going to be decided with – neither side has some strategic capability to end this war quickly…If it’s not going to happen, then we’re just going to move on. We’re going to move on to other topics that are equally if not more important in some ways to the United States.”

And for the fifth time: “now we’ve reached the point where we have other things we have to focus on. We’re prepared to be engaged in this as long as it takes, but not indefinitely, not without progress. If this is not possible, we’re going to need to move on… But if it’s not going to happen, we need to know now because we have other things we have to deal with.”

Trump then repeated Rubio’s repeats. “If for some reason one of the parties makes it very difficult, we’re just gonna say you’re foolish, you’re fools, you’re horrible people, and we’re just gonna take a pass. Hopefully, we won’t have to do that…And Marco’s right in saying we’re getting – we want to see it end.”

This is nothing if not orchestration.

The interpretation it prompts is that there is a US default position which Trump and his men have already discussed and to which they have decided they will revert. Alternatively, they haven’t agreed yet on what to do, and the repetitions of Rubio and Trump are a negotiating bluff to press for more concessions from Kiev, Moscow, and the European capitals.

In fact, the default is both – a Trump bluff which Rubio has been told to repeat; and a plan for warfighting against both Russia and China, though not at the same intensity at the same time.

This default scheme was spelled out some time ago by Wess Mitchell, a senior State Department official in Trump’s first term and business partner of Elbridge Colby, now the Pentagon’s chief strategist. Mitchell’s default, to cite the headlines of two of his papers, is “To prevent China grabbing Taiwan, stop Russia in Ukraine” and “Strategic Sequencing, Revisited”

That’s the objective. The means are to reorient the bulk of US forces to warfighting against China; avoid a two-front war with Russia and China simultaneously; and increase the capacities of the European states to continue the fight against Russia in Ukraine while retaining, even reinforcing the troop, missile, and nuclear weapon reserves of US firepower in Europe.

“Sequencing is a strategy,” Mitchel declaimed last October, “for gaining an early advantage in that competition—not a solvent for the underlying fact of competition. The whole point is to manage time wisely by using the proxy wars that are underway in Ukraine and Israel to increase our own capacity to wage war, so that a larger and more consequential war may yet be avoided due to our enhanced strength. If a sequencing strategy fails in its immediate aims but nevertheless delivers a significant plus-up in the West’s collective capabilities, it will still leave us better off than we would otherwise have been for fighting a future war in the Indo-Pacific when it comes.”

The Trump default in the present “peace negotiations” with Russia is the Mitchell-Colby war against both Russia and China, but not simultaneously – it’s the military strategy of the 18^th century homily, the stitch in time to save nine.

Practical evidence that this is what is happening at the moment is at the Polish border with the Ukraine, where the recent evidence reveals the US Army is withdrawing its military stores, men, missiles, and transport base at Rzezow.

Mitchell, a German-speaking American academic, has been awarded prizes for the idea that empire-running governments with far-flung borders, bases, and interests to defend should avoid too many fights with too many enemies simultaneously. Mitchell’s military solution is the clock – sequence military priorities over time so as to maximize the force needed, one fight or one war at a time.

In the past Mitchell’s salary has been paid by a Russia war-fighting think tank called the Centre for European Policy Analysis (CEPA) in Washington; read more about CEPA here.

More recently, Mitchell established a self-employing think tank called The Marathon Initiative with Elbridge Colby, now the third-ranking official at the Pentagon as Under Secretary of Defense for Policy. In 2023 the Marathon charity took in $1.07 million, and paid out $374,000 to Mitchell, $377,216 to Colby. The sources of the money were contracts from the Pentagon’s Defense Threat Reduction Agency, from foundations and trusts like the family-controlled Fidelity Investments Charitable Gift Fund. Now that Colby has moved to the Pentagon, the money donated to the Marathon Initiative is likely to multiply as a conduit of influence.

For their think tank’s advisors, Mitchell and Colby recruited Admiral Dennis Blair, a former Pacific fleet commander and Director of National Intelligence (2009-2010); Thomas de Maizière, German Defense Minister in the Merkel Administration; two first-term Trump appointees, and Druva Jaishankar, son of the current Indian Foreign Minister.

Left, Wess Mitchell; right, Elbridge Colby.

Mitchell kept repeating his stitch-in-time strategy as he grew closer to the Trump re-election campaign. In 2021 he advocated the buildup of Fortress Ukraine for delaying direct US and NATO war against Russia. “The aim of American diplomacy—and the crux of our strategy for avoiding a two-front war—should be to sharpen Russia’s dilemma and render that country less menacing to ourselves on a faster timeline than China is able to realize its ambitious military potential as a great power. Rather than attempting to woo or court Russia into a conciliatory stance, we should present it with a combination of insuperable obstacles to westward expansion (including, if necessary, by inflicting a far more serious defeat than it has heretofore experienced in Ukraine) while presenting new opportunities for cooperation, investment, and growth in Russia’s east.”

On March 14, 2022, three weeks after Russia decided on pre-emptive defence against this scheme, launching the Special Military Operation, Mitchell repeated himself. “It’s right for the United States and its allies to bring as much pressure as early as possible in the conflict—the opposite of the Biden administration’s stairstep [sic] approach. We were able to go light on the first two rounds of sanctions only because the Russian military ended up performing poorly in the opening days of the conflict. China could reasonably conclude that in a similar span of time it could consolidate its position over Taiwan while the United States and its allies tarried to assess Taiwanese will to resist. If the United States is now going to sanction the Russian energy sector, it would be far preferable to do so in conjunction with the Europeans, not least to demonstrate to the Chinese that the U.S. and its allies are willing to jointly accept the pain of recession to stop large-scale aggression.”

Ignoring the evidence of time – and of the battlefield defeats of every US weapon and operational plan the US had provided in the Ukraine war, and the loss of most of the Ukrainian army – Mitchell wrote on October 18, 2024: “What we want in Eastern Europe is a strong glacis [military fortification term] to help keep Europe stable in coming years as the U.S. focuses more attention toward Asia. Ukraine would logically be the centerpiece of that glacis, as it will be the largest and best fighting force in Europe for the foreseeable future. Diplomacy should therefore strive to create conditions for a Ukraine that is as territorially large and economically viable as possible.”

Mitchell was writing this on the eve of Trump’s re-election. It was his, Colby’s and their associates’ prompt for Trump’s campaign line that he could negotiate a swift end to the Ukraine war. “In Ukraine’s case,” Mitchell announced, “we should not be eager for a settlement if it comes at a moment when battlefield realities are likely to deliver a rump state that would have low utility in the Eastern European glacis that we need for conducting a pivot…a sequencing strategy will not succeed unless Europeans begin to take substantially greater responsibility for the defence of their neighborhood. The entire logic of sequencing rests on the ability to get the secondary theater in a shape that allows a reorientation of attention to the primary theater without taking on inordinate risk in the former…We should be clear that this is not about ‘abandoning’ Europe. Even once the United States has prioritized Asia, it will be a European power and continue to have compelling strategic reasons to keep certain kinds of high-end military hardware in that theater, both to augment European capabilities and to have a point d’appui [military term] from which to project power to other places, including Asia. Washington should seek a new grand bargain with Europe aimed at altering this state of affairs. It should be willing to support creative arrangements, including joint Franco-Polish-German military formations…To pivot to Asia, America needs a fulcrum in Europe, and that can only be provided by the Europeans themselves.”

For evidence on the ground that Trump is not withdrawing from the war with Russia, but throwing the clock at President Vladimir Putin, recent reports from Poland prove to be camouflage, not coincidences.

On March 4, the Polish politician Tomasz Buczek, who represents the Polish Confederation party in the European parliament, published what he said was evidence of “real signs of the end of US financial assistance to Ukraine.” This appeared in a lengthy text Buczek tweeted with film shot from a passing car near the Rzeszów–Jasionka Airport, in southern Poland. The airport, named after Jasionka village on the outskirts of the city of Rzeszów, is less than 100 kilometres east of the Ukrainian border; since 2022 it has served as the hub for delivery of men and materiel from the US and the NATO states which have then been moved by truck or train to Lvov, and onwards towards the eastern front.

According to Buczek, “Rzeszow-Jasionka Airport. In this place a few days ago were the logistics and warehouse facilities of the US ARMY with trucks and equipment sent to Ukraine. The paved square of concrete slabs, built at an express pace in 2022, is also disappearing at this rate. In just a few days, the slabs were removed from an area of almost 2 hectares and the next in line for liquidation is already another one of such technical facilities with an area of about 4 hectares.”

Source: https://twitter.com/buczek_tomasz/status/1896877495238193331

Buczek went on to conclude: “No alliances are forever. And Article 5 of NATO has never been tested in practice. Therefore @ Confederation_ has warned against too far-reaching pacifist trends in Poland and Europe and too high hopes for military security in international alliances. Alliances are needed – true, but more effective will be a rich state, a strong nation, its own arms industry, a large army equipped with its own tanks and high-tech equipment. Meanwhile, the Brussels elite is worried about the climate.”

Although this was an echo of the Trump Administration line, and of the Mitchell-Colby aim to build up anti-Russian forces in Poland, the Polish state news agency reported the next day, on March 5 that Buczek had been mistaken.

“Fake news”, the government in Warsaw claimed. There had been a transfer from US to European and Polish control of the airport hub, and its US-supplied Patriot missile defences, but this was not a Trump decision, nor was it a US pullout from the Russian war. On the contrary, the government source announced the airport will soon be reinforced by German missile units and a Norwegian Air Force squadron of F35 fighters.

Source: https://www.stripes.com/

“The formal handover of tasks related to the missile defence of the airport in Jasionka, a key military hub for supplying fighting Ukraine, by the U.S. Patriot missile battalion, took place on March 3. However, the decision to replace the Americans with Germany was made before President Donald Trump was sworn in. The Americans’ move out of Jasionka is therefore not directly related to the latest decision of the U.S. Administration to suspend U.S. military aid to Ukraine. It also does not indicate that the Americans intend to withdraw from Polish territory at all, or that – as the author [Buczek] of the checked post suggests – the Polish-American alliance is weakening. Rather, the signals coming from the new U.S. administration indicate that the presence of U.S. troops in Poland is not threatened…”

“This post contains at least two manipulations: the removal of Americans from Jasionka, a visible sign of which is the abandonment of the area they occupied, is not directly related to President Trump’s recent decision to withhold U.S. military aid to Ukraine, and it is also not a harbinger of the withdrawal of thousands of other American soldiers from Poland. As reported on March 3 this year by the American military portal Stripes.com [the Stars & Stripes newspaper] , U.S. soldiers formally handed over the Patriot missile defence mission in Poland (in Jasionka) to German forces at the beginning of March, but decisions on this matter were made much earlier. The 5th Army Battalion, 7th Air Defense Artillery Regiment, the only U.S. Patriot missile battalion stationed in Europe, was deployed to Rzeszow-Jasionka Airport shortly after Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in early 2022. The news about the transfer of the Patriot missile battalion to a base in Germany appeared a few days before the swearing-in of President Donald Trump on January 20 this year. ‘The biggest catalyst for this change is that we have been diverted to modernization efforts by the Army Chief of Staff,’ [battalion commander Lieutenant Colonel Daniel] Corbett said, as quoted by stripes.com. The U.S. unit is to be the first operational U.S. Patriot battalion to deploy the army’s new Integrated Air and Missile Defense Command System. Therefore, according to Corbett, ‘there were concerns that it would be difficult to do it while carrying out the mission in Poland.’”

“In turn, as you can read on the website of the Polish government, the Germans, who have been replacing the Americans since March, have delegated to our country as part of the mission of the North Atlantic Alliance, namely NATO Security Assistance and Training for Ukraine, two batteries of Patriot anti-aircraft missiles from the 21st Luftwaffe anti-aircraft missile group from Sanitz, in Pomerania. On the other hand. along with the batteries of the anti-aircraft and anti-missile defense system, about 200 German soldiers arrived in Poland. The stationing of German troops in Poland also strengthens NATO’s integrated air defence on the eastern flank of the Alliance.”

“In November 2024, the Norwegians also agreed to defend the hub in Jasionka. The mission of the Norwegian air defence unit in Jasionka, which has the NASAMS system, is to secure the airspace of the airport. The Norway operation is part of NATO’s Integrated Air and Missile Defence Operation, coordinated by the Alliance’s European Air Command (AIRCOM). By Easter 2025, the Norwegian mission will be extended to include four F-35 fighters.”

Top – the German state propaganda agency report, January 23, 2025. Below – In Rzeszów, Polish Deputy Prime Minister Władysław Kosiniak-Kamysz meeting German Minister of Defense Boris Pistorius.

The Polish government report of March 5 continued: “Contrary to the suggestion contained in the verified entry [Buczek tweet], there is also no mention of the withdrawal of American soldiers from Poland. After the meeting with President Trump in Washington, [Poland’s President] Andrzej Duda admitted in an interview with journalists that the American leader, ‘as far as Poland is concerned’, envisages strengthening the presence of the American army, emphasizing that we are one of the most reliable allies. President Duda had a similar impression – that the American military presence in Poland would be ‘at least maintained’ – from the meeting in Warsaw with US Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth.”

This Polish response was reinforced by the announcement on April 7 from US Army Europe headquarters that a long-planned repositioning of US troops from Jasionka was under way, but that the forces were not leaving the front against Russia – they were transferring to other bases in Poland. “United States Army Europe and Africa announces the planned repositioning of U.S. military equipment and personnel from Jasionka, Poland, to other sites in the country. This transition is part of a broader strategy to optimize U.S. military operations, improving the level of support to Allies and partners while also enhancing efficiencies. The decision to reposition troops and equipment reflects months of assessment and planning, coordinated closely with Polish hosts and NATO Allies. The important work of facilitating military aid to Ukraine via Jasionka will continue under Polish and NATO leadership, supported by a streamlined U.S. military footprint. Poland and its allies will maintain the robust protective infrastructure around this critical site.”

Source: https://www.europeafrica.army.mil/

“In 2022, U.S. forces established a temporary presence in Jasionka after the Russian full-scale invasion of Ukraine. The site is not at a permanent Polish military base, but has been utilized by U.S., NATO and partner forces for three years. In the meantime, the U.S. Army has established U.S. Army Garrison Poland and more robust facilities based on host-nation agreements and significant investment in those facilities from both the Polish and U.S. governments.”

Look carefully at the dates and the timeline they reveal. The redeployment of US forces in Poland – in fact, an increase in their numbers and firepower, according to the Polish General Staff – was decided by the Biden Administration as part of its war plan against Russia. Trump, Rubio, and US Defense Secretary Hegseth are implementing this plan, but making it appear to be their initiative, not Biden’s; and also part of Trump’s “peace negotiations”, not war against Russia.

The evidence on the ground in Poland is that this is the Trump Administration’s default position. The Rubio and Trump announcements of last week are camouflage.

This is the understanding also of Russian military intelligence, the General Staff, and President Putin. For the time being, no Russian will say so publicly. However, on Sunday (April 20) a Moscow military blogger published a chart of US aircraft arrivals at the Rzeszów-Jasionka airport from January 2023 to the middle of this month.

Source: https://t.me/s/neinsider — April 20 at 06:08.

The commentary says: “Despite public rhetoric and speculation in the media, the change of the American administration has not yet affected the volume of deliveries of military cargo to Ukraine…If we take into account the military transport C-17 and S-5, as well as the chartered civilian cargo “Boeing-747” and “Douglas MD-11F”, then the picture presented on the graph above turns out accordingly. There were noticeable anomalous surges of supplies in the preparation of the Ukrainian Armed Forces’ offensive in 2023 and at the end of 2024 because of the fears of the Biden administration about the termination of deliveries after Trump took office. If these anomalies are excluded, then on the monthly average in 2023-2024, 35 such flights arrived in Rzeszów. And in February-April 2025, despite the weekly pause in March, there was an average of 25 flights per month. During the first 19 days of April, 20 flights have arrived.”

On March 27 the Defense Ministry in Warsaw imposed new regulations to prevent Buczek and the Russian milbloggers from publishing films and photographs exposing what the US, Germans and other NATO forces are doing in Poland. “The new regulations, introduced as part of an amendment to the Homeland Defense and Counterintelligence Act, are aimed at safeguarding key national infrastructure,” the state radio announced on April 15.

Source: https://dziennikustaw.gov.pl/D2025000043201.pdf
For commentary on the legality of the order, read this.

Source: https://www.polskieradio.pl/