very wise you mention already in the head-line “….- at least between US & Russia. Here in Europe, especially in Germany these sort of politicians are loosing their mind, Some in this forsaken “ampel” government leaking their most absurd idea: Baerbock to become President of the UN General Assembly. Ok when it would be to destroy the UN fine, but this Baerbock can’t even speak in her native language a single sentences without errors, not to mention English and other language she dosn’t speak
I always found it strange that Baerbock is more belligerent than Scholz. It's true that there are other Amazons in Europe too: Kallas, von der Leyen...
to say the least. inmates have taken over the asylum and the election outcome from February 25 are not really giving reason for hope this will change any time soon. 900 billion additional debts.
its this so called "silent majority" which got during 15 years of Merkel and her great coalition and then in the authoritarian Covid period totally brainwashed.
Seems a sensible way to start. Russia does not lose much, winter is over and blowing up more power station infrastructure is militarily meaningless. Against that, they get some respite from Ukrainian drone attacks against their refineries, which are likewise painful but militarily irrelevant.
From the Ukraine perspective, it sure looks like they are getting sold down the river.
The US started this mess (remember Victoria Nuland of 'f**k the EU' fame boasting that the Maidan revolution had cost the US $5B to bring about) and is now washing its hands of it.
Question is enforcement, what happens if either side violates the deal? Does the US cut off or massively boost Ukraine arms, depending on who is at fault?
Even if Russia is at fault and breaches the agreement I think Trump just wants to end a conflict that has nothing to do with America. In his hands, America is no longer the international policeman. America first.
"Even if Russia is at fault and breaches the agreement I think Trump just wants to end a conflict that has nothing to do with America."
That's not true, he wants to look good doing it. He could end the war on Russian terms.
"In his hands, America is no longer the international policeman. America first."
Except when it comes to his Zionist buddies who gave him money to help Israel. He doesn't mind going to war in Syria, Yemen, and Gaza. So, it is Israel first.
The only way this war will end is on Russian terms. Neither the US nor Europe can supply the number of NATO troops that would be required to force Russia to end the war on any but their own terms.
"The only way this war will end is on Russian terms. Neither the US nor Europe can supply the number of NATO troops that would be required to force Russia to end the war on any but their own terms."
Never underestimate Putin's ability to screw the pooch. Putin should have taken this war seriously from the start instead of dragging it out.
The Russian leadership want so badly to believe that this is all a misunderstanding, that the West will never do to them what it did to Iraq, Libya and Syria, to name three.
"Russians write symphonies, Russians are europeans!" they tell themselves. This is why they keep falling for the okey doke, over and over.
Dumb scrotes. Nobody in the West cares about culture except as a weapon. The West has made its intentions for Russia entirely plain and doesn't even bother to hide them.
RU is somewhat awestruck that their "partners" are so provocatively foolhardy. Lavrov stated recently that the West has lost its fear. As a public statement, this should be taken as a serious warning.
Why a significant number of people seems just unable to understand how intelligent and capable Donald Trump is?
Why even more significant number of people seems unable to perceive how powerful ISrael is.
Israel is a nation state, a Jewish state that enjoys real, heartfelt support of majority of Jewish people, wherever they live, all over the globe.
As long as Israel is being perceived as existentially threatened, Jewish nation all over the world will do all it can to ensure security for Israel.
And Jews, as a nation, are second most powerful nation in the world.
Israel is among the ten most powerful states in the world, but Jews, as a nation are second most powerful.
Second only to Americans, but fortunately or unfortunately, so deeply embedded into American society, finance, media, religion, academy, politics, culture that divorce is impossible.
Salt of the Earth.
A word of advice whom it may concern.
There is no path to destroy Israel. There is no path to expell Jewish nation from the Middle East
The only way forward for Palestinians is by unequivocally accepting security for Israel as a basis on which to build all further steps..
Based on this report it's not a ceasefire, just a reduction in what each side says they will target with long range weapons. There doesn't seem to be any mention of ground warfare anywhere, which presumably Russia will continue to press.
Yes, Ukraine is being sold down the river as we all knew it would. It's America's MO, they know no other one.
If either side violates the deal, the other side will resume its attacks. That's it.
It's been stated more than once by RU officials that US military-technical aid must cease as 1 part of any short-term ceasefire, which itself is only a step in a lasting peace
US & Ukrainian extremists masquerading as normal, democratic, mainly through CIA with the little help of MI6
Ukraine is a victim, but UA extremists, and absolutely UA leadership are among the responsible
Ukrainian leaders have been used, but they also tried to use first US , CIA and Great Britain, and now Britain, Germany...
Who doesn?'t plan to end the war?
Everybody here in Europe has a secret plan, to profit from the war
- Germany, to finally breath free, take the chance to rearm, to build the strongest army in Europe
- France to take the position of a leading military power in Europe, providing nuclear umbrella
- Britain, to really rule Europe through behind the scenes machinations
- Baltic, and Scandinavia, to have the conflict continue, as to gather allies, behind themselves, not to be left alone with the bear
- Ukrainian leadership, not to have to face the first day of peace, and answer whether the whole business of provoking the war made any sense to Ukrainians,
they lost 20% of population, app half of all Russian speakers, 20% of territory, succeeded in making Ukraine more Ukrainian, forbid RUssian language and Russian church
The Ukraine doesn't deserve anything more than total destruction, given all of its subterfuge in staging a coup against its legitimately elected president at the behest of the US State Department, UK Home Office, and NATO.
The Trump administration is absolutely brilliant: leave the Europeans out. I find that extremely funny. It Demonstrates the lie at the heart of the entire endeavor. It was always an American neocon attempt to destroy Russia, by attrition, through a proxy war, and have the Ukrainians supply the canon fodder. It’s so very honest and dead naked: the euros are cuckolds.
I’m coming around to the Trump people . I was very hesitant. Clearly he is making the blob look stupid and dishonest.
The plan seems obvious -- Zelensky will end up either not agreeing to the US-proposed ceasefire or breaching a ceasefire if he initially agrees. Then the US will shrug, say we really tried to stop the war, and walk away from the Ukraine. Apart from some warmongers in Congress, no-one in the US will care. And what happens in the Ukraine after that will disappear from the news.
Presumably the EuroScum and Zelensky can see what is coming down the pike. Who can say how they will react?
This is a modified Yalta moment with the US and Russia making the deal - Now if Z and the EU decide to pursue the war the US can step aside and let them go at it. The EU will try and get the US involved - and when they don't my bet is they'll be the first to say if you aren't going to help why stay in NATO and at that point Trump will basically say -- good point -seeeeya.
Doesn't matter whether the US steps aside or not. Actually, US has been to the side/rear the entire time. How many times have we heard from RU over the last so many years that Uncle Sammy is "agreement incapable" anyways.
Most interesting is the fact Putin has agreed with Trump to the proposition that “Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel." Does this suggest the ties between Moscow and Tehran may be beginning to fray? Or that Putin no longer has confidence that the Mullahs are a rising power? The jury is very much out, but the Iranian Axis continues to weaken.
My interpretation is it is a message from Moscow to Tehran to halt its nuclear bomb work or face the consequences (with no help from Russia if they are bombed into the stone age).
Seems very late. Iran has had reactors for some decades, ample time to grow generations of nuclear technicians.
Bombing them back into the Stone Age is just silly, the country is way too big and dispersed. It would take nukes to do the job and that would leave Israel, a much smaller country, in existential peril.
We all saw the Iran missile strikes on Israel last year. Israel has much more to lose from a nuclear Mid East than Iran does.
It takes very specific reactors to produce plutonium in quantity and Iran does not have them, like Israel has for decades, or the equipment to process the waste fuel to separate the plutonium. Israel's primary advantage is the Samson Option.
Israel is small and does not have so many separate targets, so it is greatly disadvantaged in any nuclear exchange with a huge and widely dispersed hostile entity.
No argument that Iran's power reactors are suboptimal for breeding plutonium and also agree that I\afaik Iran has no fuel reprocessing capability.
Still, if push came to shove, I'd wager that Iran could buy warheads from fellow Muslims in Pakistan, as Saudi reportedly already has.
Israel has never thought about the advisability of doing anything that didn't lead to the development of a Greater Israel throughout the Middle East. Buying a nuclear warhead doesn't address the myriad problems connected with delivering it on target. Iran wouldn't need to have nuclear weapons to destroy Israel with conventional ones they are well known to possess.
"My interpretation is it is a message from Moscow to Tehran to halt its nuclear bomb work or face the consequences (with no help from Russia if they are bombed into the stone age)."
That would be very stupid on Russia's part. If Iran falls to the West, the territory of Iran, which is set on Russia's southern border would be a direct threat to Russia.
As are Turkey and Russia by the Black Sea, but that didn't prevent the Pentagon from putting nuclear missiles in Turkey to threaten Russia into putting them into Cuba.
"As are Turkey and Russia by the Black Sea, but that didn't prevent the Pentagon from putting nuclear missiles in Turkey to threaten Russia into putting them into Cuba."
That is precisely my point. If the West gains control of the Iranian territory, they will have a platform for nuclear weapons in close proximity to Russia. Therefore, it is incumbent on Russia to see that Iran does not fall.
The IAEA has been consistent that Iran's nuclear program has never produced uranium enriched to the purity required to produce a super criticality as would be required for weapons.
How advanced are Iran with the nuclear bomb project? If its as advanced as Israel claims it is wont hitting the nuclear weapons bases even if they are in dumbs contaminate the air and water for US allies like Qatar and Saudi Arabia probably making some parts of their countries unlivable? Otherwise there should be a ground invasion which will mobilise the people behind the Ayatollahs and I dont know if US has the apetite for it even if it temporarily winds down the Russian war. How will it take care of China who has commercial interests worth hundreds of billions of dollars with Iran? If you see the Chinese blogosphere and social media space they are uniformly preparing/ expecting to face a physical war with Nato or the US in the next 5-10 years or even less. Even if Russia keeps a stand down and look away policy in case of a US-Iran war China can queer the pitch for the US.
Sure, could be, but too cryptic & Byzantine for communicating with quasi-ally Iran, even by diplomatic standards, for this layman. Putin would likely also say (& even believe) "none should be positioned to destroy anyone, but, hey, this ain't Planet Utopia, it's the Real World". The needless to express corollary is "Israel should never be in a position to destroy Iran" &/or “Iran should never be PUT in a position to JUSTLY destroy Israel".
I wouldn't read too much into that statement. First, it's not a Russian report of Putin's words, it's just what the US embassy in Moscow is reporting. I'd suggest waiting for the Russian State Department official readout for the precise language if you want accuracy.
Second, I expect that any Russian language regarding Israel and Iran would state that neither should be in a position to destroy the other. That said, such language doesn't mean they can't attack each other. Both sides mounted attacks last year, the most spectacular one being Iran's ballistic missile attack in October.
There's a difference between weakening and simply being quiet, which is what Iran's been for the last six months. But there's no factual basis that I know of to conclude that Iran has become militarily or geopolitically weakened. One might in fact conclude the opposite: that they're using this time to prepare for conflict.
Update: The Kremlin's readout of the discussion says only this about the situation in the Middle East:
"Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump also touched upon other issues on the international agenda, including the situation in the Middle East and the Red Sea region. Joint efforts will be made to stabilize the situation in crisis points, to establish cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation and global security."
There is no mention of Iran or Israel specifically.
The only problem with the preposition is that the last Iranian attack on Israel proved that Iran could destroy Israel with conventional weapons, unknown to much of the world because of subterfuge on all other sides' media and propaganda outlets. Israel broke off its last attack when its F-35s encountered illumination from Iran's S-400 missile defense systems across all paths of attack before entering Iranian airspace.
To "destroy" Israel would, I believe, require a nuclear attack or a conventional one so overwhelming that it might as well be nuclear.
Assuming Iran could repeat last October's attack with greater numbers and greater accuracy, (which I believe they can) then they could inflict serious damage, perhaps even devastating damage. Nevertheless it wouldn't destroy Israel.
The fact that Russia and the US are explicitly looking to future areas of mutual interest for world security is in my view the most convincing piece of evidence that the US will use its power to get Ukraine to respect this deal, even if it is reluctant or willing to break the conditions during the 30-day trial.
Washington still has the possibility to suspend all deliveries, which the EU is hardly in a position to compensate. So Ukraine will comply and they will have to negotiate in good faith with Russia, or the US will increase pressure on them.
Meanwhile in the EU, it is said that a group of "Southern" countries including Portugal, Spain, France and Italy are opposing the EU commission's plans to increase arms supplies to Ukraine. Whether the issue is about the principle of such deliveries or about the conditions of the EU's plans is still unclear. But there is definitely no solid conviction to have that the EU can help Ukraine escape US pressure towards peace.
I did not understand the readout of the Trump-Putin call as suggesting that either was about to ask Ukraine to enter into negotiations. It seems both are aiming to construct an outcome in the form of a faint accompli for Ukraine.
I understood that the next step would involve direct talks between Ukraine and Russia, without US presence, and certainly without European presence.
Although this may not be an opportunity to define the substance of what the US and Russia may have already agreed on, there must be a Ukrainian involvement and acceptance to be part of the move towards peace, don't you think?
And I would expect there are many details to agree on as to where the line will be placed.
The flow of European weapons is not enough to sustain the war much longer, and Germany has warned that they've reached the bottom of their stash. They simply can't keep giving stuff away because their own military does not have any left.
You should not believe the stats about the value of weapons vs share of GDP. One, because different countries value the donations differently. Some value them according to what it will cost them to replace the donated item, while other value according to the residual value in public accountancy of items that have been immobilised for decades. Onbviously, the first method will artifically pump up the stats. Second, because some countrioes donated lots of items that proved virtually unusable. And Third, because some countries provided training that was much more useful than donations, yet worth much less money.
Virtue signalling through publicized expense is not the same thing as actually useful military support.
I can't speak about other countries than mine. There has been some clear inadequacies between NATO doctrine and the realities of this war.
But I am 100% certain that once Ukrainians got properly trained and converted to French equipment, meant to be light and mobile rather than heavily armoured as they were used to, some of these equipments proved to be the best Ukraine had in their inventories. I'm thinking about the Caesar howitzer, or the AMX-10 reconnaissance tank. But they were not meant to be used in the framework of previous Ukrainian doctrine, and they do not match NATO doctrine either. They're something different, requiring to adapt Ukrainian doctrine to the material. Proved most critical.
There's nothing like bringing a "ceasefire" to a victim that still wishes to fight back against her violator. Nothing like telling a man defending his home that it's time to stop and give the attacker the garage & half the living for the sake of "safety."
Trump & Vance both may be uniquely idiotic and petulent in equal measure that they fail to see the low cost/high impact payoff of the West's Ukraine policy, but the rest of the OECD community does and is still committed to helping the justified party protect itself. But even if Europe were to abandon Ukraine, it will still remain only the Ukrainians themselves with the legitimate right to demand a ceasefire.
It's simply not Trump's decision or the European far right's decision to make--whether Ukraine continues to resist invasion, rape, and mass murder. Just like it would equally be beyond the purview of Washington or Brussels to insist Kiev keep fighting, if the desire to resist had passed.
The sheer outrage Trump has caused in Canada & Europe may be something beyond the realm of understanding for his pack of apologists within the "realist" school--in their very limited vision, they can't see any reason the Europeans will *truly*, for the *long-term,* break w/ Trump on Ukraine. But that's the irony, it is for reasons of common values & world view--in addition to pure geopolitical power issues--that the Europeans feel called to do the right & wise thing. It is the very notion that fighting back is "right"--the idea to right wing nativists that there are moral dimensions to foreign policy is so alien--that obscures their ability to see how blatantly smart it has been (and profoundly successful) for the West to resist Russia.
"The only way this war will end is on Russian terms."
Really? This must be based on your apparent deep grasp of history, with evidence being the U.S. triumph in Vietnam? Or the Soviets' win in Afghanistan? The US win in Afghanistan?! Or Hitler's triumph over Stalin, perhaps?
No, these never came about, did they? The weaker, smaller, or disadvantaged party won in the end--and the USSR was certainly "disadvantaged" in1941 despite out-sizing the Germans.
Ukraine not only halted & defeated the initial Russian invasion, it pushed them back from Kiev and the northeast entirely, relegating Moscow's hold to 18%. And has since held the Russians there. This has been w/ Western aid, of course, but Vietnam was aided, was it not? The anti-Russian mujahadeen were backed by the West.
The overall cost of Western aid to Ukraine has been a rounding error compared to the budgets of the USA & EU. No Western troops have been put in harms way. Regardless, there is zero evidence Russia will be able to breakout any time soon in ways that eluded its knuckle-dragging military for five years. A U.S. commentator the other week calculated that at the Russians' current average pace, it would take something like 106 years to overrun all of Ukraine.
It is one thing for you to want Ukraine to lose and, as a matter of policy, want the U.S. to sabotage Kiev's ability to resist. But the reality, clear to those with actual understanding of military strategy & operations, is that Moscow is that Ukraine has the ability for the foreseeable future to keep Russia stuck & bleeding white.
You may not *like* this fact, but it's just that--factual. The evidence clearly demonstrates Ukraine's ability to resist. Not forever, but that's a false comparison anyway.
Who are you quoting, "The only way this war will end is on Russian terms." ? Other than that, I won't comment further. but I don't like to be misrepresented. Why not try reading the article?
The EU, Germany and France, had all along be the target of the Anglosphere, the US, and their spearhead, Biden's neocons' provocations of Russia. EU' elites not wanting, not daring seeing through the scheme, do not deserve any compassion. Result is: after the Cold War and the End of History, a Russian-American Cold sharing of the European spoils.
Putin is a fool, but that was obvious from his original war strategy; this cease-fire will not last 24 hrs. Ukraine will break it, and Putin will be blamed.
Wow! Here I was expecting a "LIKE" from you. You seem to be over-brimming with hyperbole, illogic & ignorance. Define "limited" & "unlimited" within the context of your usage - or just change yer handle to "SURrealist".
"Define "limited" & "unlimited" within the context of your usage - or just change yer handle to "SURrealist"."
Limited means not a concerted effort to win. Unlimited means every effort to defeat decisively. This war has been going on longer than it took for Russia to expel the Nazis.
The obvious 'green line' in any eventual pause in hostilities runs along the Dnieper to the bend south of Zaporozhye, and south along the Oskil, and roughly south from the Oskil and east from the Dnieper bend - with a DMZ something like 10km either side of the green line.
I guess you also need a DMZ along the border in the north, and I guess UN troops from India and elsewhere stationed in the DMZ.
Why does nobody actually talk about these obvious details of the endgame, rather than engage in endless rhetorical abuse, especially in brain-dead Europe?
very wise you mention already in the head-line “….- at least between US & Russia. Here in Europe, especially in Germany these sort of politicians are loosing their mind, Some in this forsaken “ampel” government leaking their most absurd idea: Baerbock to become President of the UN General Assembly. Ok when it would be to destroy the UN fine, but this Baerbock can’t even speak in her native language a single sentences without errors, not to mention English and other language she dosn’t speak
German politics (to the outsider) seem very strange and hardly congruent with Germany's national interests.
Crazy warmonger Baerbock is apparently 'green'.
Hitler was a vegetarian.
I always found it strange that Baerbock is more belligerent than Scholz. It's true that there are other Amazons in Europe too: Kallas, von der Leyen...
to say the least. inmates have taken over the asylum and the election outcome from February 25 are not really giving reason for hope this will change any time soon. 900 billion additional debts.
Germany is doomed.
its this so called "silent majority" which got during 15 years of Merkel and her great coalition and then in the authoritarian Covid period totally brainwashed.
"German is doomed."
As is France and the UK
Just the regular Johanns, Jeans & Johns.
They should do the Trampolina 360 degree course-correction maneuver.
Seems a sensible way to start. Russia does not lose much, winter is over and blowing up more power station infrastructure is militarily meaningless. Against that, they get some respite from Ukrainian drone attacks against their refineries, which are likewise painful but militarily irrelevant.
From the Ukraine perspective, it sure looks like they are getting sold down the river.
The US started this mess (remember Victoria Nuland of 'f**k the EU' fame boasting that the Maidan revolution had cost the US $5B to bring about) and is now washing its hands of it.
Question is enforcement, what happens if either side violates the deal? Does the US cut off or massively boost Ukraine arms, depending on who is at fault?
Even if Russia is at fault and breaches the agreement I think Trump just wants to end a conflict that has nothing to do with America. In his hands, America is no longer the international policeman. America first.
"Even if Russia is at fault and breaches the agreement I think Trump just wants to end a conflict that has nothing to do with America."
That's not true, he wants to look good doing it. He could end the war on Russian terms.
"In his hands, America is no longer the international policeman. America first."
Except when it comes to his Zionist buddies who gave him money to help Israel. He doesn't mind going to war in Syria, Yemen, and Gaza. So, it is Israel first.
The only way this war will end is on Russian terms. Neither the US nor Europe can supply the number of NATO troops that would be required to force Russia to end the war on any but their own terms.
"The only way this war will end is on Russian terms. Neither the US nor Europe can supply the number of NATO troops that would be required to force Russia to end the war on any but their own terms."
Never underestimate Putin's ability to screw the pooch. Putin should have taken this war seriously from the start instead of dragging it out.
The Russian leadership want so badly to believe that this is all a misunderstanding, that the West will never do to them what it did to Iraq, Libya and Syria, to name three.
"Russians write symphonies, Russians are europeans!" they tell themselves. This is why they keep falling for the okey doke, over and over.
Dumb scrotes. Nobody in the West cares about culture except as a weapon. The West has made its intentions for Russia entirely plain and doesn't even bother to hide them.
You are right. It is sad to see Russia try to capitulate.
RU is somewhat awestruck that their "partners" are so provocatively foolhardy. Lavrov stated recently that the West has lost its fear. As a public statement, this should be taken as a serious warning.
Get real. Suggesting that Putin/Kremlin/Stavka has not been acting "seriously" since at least 2007 is flawed, to say the least.
You have to ask yourself why?
Why a significant number of people seems just unable to understand how intelligent and capable Donald Trump is?
Why even more significant number of people seems unable to perceive how powerful ISrael is.
Israel is a nation state, a Jewish state that enjoys real, heartfelt support of majority of Jewish people, wherever they live, all over the globe.
As long as Israel is being perceived as existentially threatened, Jewish nation all over the world will do all it can to ensure security for Israel.
And Jews, as a nation, are second most powerful nation in the world.
Israel is among the ten most powerful states in the world, but Jews, as a nation are second most powerful.
Second only to Americans, but fortunately or unfortunately, so deeply embedded into American society, finance, media, religion, academy, politics, culture that divorce is impossible.
Salt of the Earth.
A word of advice whom it may concern.
There is no path to destroy Israel. There is no path to expell Jewish nation from the Middle East
The only way forward for Palestinians is by unequivocally accepting security for Israel as a basis on which to build all further steps..
Comment when you are serious.
Agreed.
Based on this report it's not a ceasefire, just a reduction in what each side says they will target with long range weapons. There doesn't seem to be any mention of ground warfare anywhere, which presumably Russia will continue to press.
Yes, Ukraine is being sold down the river as we all knew it would. It's America's MO, they know no other one.
If either side violates the deal, the other side will resume its attacks. That's it.
Nyet still means nyet.
It's been stated more than once by RU officials that US military-technical aid must cease as 1 part of any short-term ceasefire, which itself is only a step in a lasting peace
More precise answer on
Who started this mess?
US & Ukrainian extremists masquerading as normal, democratic, mainly through CIA with the little help of MI6
Ukraine is a victim, but UA extremists, and absolutely UA leadership are among the responsible
Ukrainian leaders have been used, but they also tried to use first US , CIA and Great Britain, and now Britain, Germany...
Who doesn?'t plan to end the war?
Everybody here in Europe has a secret plan, to profit from the war
- Germany, to finally breath free, take the chance to rearm, to build the strongest army in Europe
- France to take the position of a leading military power in Europe, providing nuclear umbrella
- Britain, to really rule Europe through behind the scenes machinations
- Baltic, and Scandinavia, to have the conflict continue, as to gather allies, behind themselves, not to be left alone with the bear
- Ukrainian leadership, not to have to face the first day of peace, and answer whether the whole business of provoking the war made any sense to Ukrainians,
they lost 20% of population, app half of all Russian speakers, 20% of territory, succeeded in making Ukraine more Ukrainian, forbid RUssian language and Russian church
The Ukraine doesn't deserve anything more than total destruction, given all of its subterfuge in staging a coup against its legitimately elected president at the behest of the US State Department, UK Home Office, and NATO.
The Trump administration is absolutely brilliant: leave the Europeans out. I find that extremely funny. It Demonstrates the lie at the heart of the entire endeavor. It was always an American neocon attempt to destroy Russia, by attrition, through a proxy war, and have the Ukrainians supply the canon fodder. It’s so very honest and dead naked: the euros are cuckolds.
I’m coming around to the Trump people . I was very hesitant. Clearly he is making the blob look stupid and dishonest.
The plan seems obvious -- Zelensky will end up either not agreeing to the US-proposed ceasefire or breaching a ceasefire if he initially agrees. Then the US will shrug, say we really tried to stop the war, and walk away from the Ukraine. Apart from some warmongers in Congress, no-one in the US will care. And what happens in the Ukraine after that will disappear from the news.
Presumably the EuroScum and Zelensky can see what is coming down the pike. Who can say how they will react?
This is a modified Yalta moment with the US and Russia making the deal - Now if Z and the EU decide to pursue the war the US can step aside and let them go at it. The EU will try and get the US involved - and when they don't my bet is they'll be the first to say if you aren't going to help why stay in NATO and at that point Trump will basically say -- good point -seeeeya.
Doesn't matter whether the US steps aside or not. Actually, US has been to the side/rear the entire time. How many times have we heard from RU over the last so many years that Uncle Sammy is "agreement incapable" anyways.
If RU doesn't get what it wants soon in these bilateral chit-chats to simply deal with pre-conditions to a temporary ceasefire, there won't be 1.
Why would anyone but Russia and the US be involved in ending a conflict where the latter is attacking the former using the Ukraine as a proxy?
Most interesting is the fact Putin has agreed with Trump to the proposition that “Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel." Does this suggest the ties between Moscow and Tehran may be beginning to fray? Or that Putin no longer has confidence that the Mullahs are a rising power? The jury is very much out, but the Iranian Axis continues to weaken.
My interpretation is it is a message from Moscow to Tehran to halt its nuclear bomb work or face the consequences (with no help from Russia if they are bombed into the stone age).
Seems very late. Iran has had reactors for some decades, ample time to grow generations of nuclear technicians.
Bombing them back into the Stone Age is just silly, the country is way too big and dispersed. It would take nukes to do the job and that would leave Israel, a much smaller country, in existential peril.
We all saw the Iran missile strikes on Israel last year. Israel has much more to lose from a nuclear Mid East than Iran does.
It takes very specific reactors to produce plutonium in quantity and Iran does not have them, like Israel has for decades, or the equipment to process the waste fuel to separate the plutonium. Israel's primary advantage is the Samson Option.
Israel is small and does not have so many separate targets, so it is greatly disadvantaged in any nuclear exchange with a huge and widely dispersed hostile entity.
No argument that Iran's power reactors are suboptimal for breeding plutonium and also agree that I\afaik Iran has no fuel reprocessing capability.
Still, if push came to shove, I'd wager that Iran could buy warheads from fellow Muslims in Pakistan, as Saudi reportedly already has.
Israel has never thought about the advisability of doing anything that didn't lead to the development of a Greater Israel throughout the Middle East. Buying a nuclear warhead doesn't address the myriad problems connected with delivering it on target. Iran wouldn't need to have nuclear weapons to destroy Israel with conventional ones they are well known to possess.
NK may be eager to do some bidness,
"My interpretation is it is a message from Moscow to Tehran to halt its nuclear bomb work or face the consequences (with no help from Russia if they are bombed into the stone age)."
That would be very stupid on Russia's part. If Iran falls to the West, the territory of Iran, which is set on Russia's southern border would be a direct threat to Russia.
I can't find a map showing that Russia shares a border with Iran.
They do not share a land border, but they are separated by the Caspian Sea.
As are Turkey and Russia by the Black Sea, but that didn't prevent the Pentagon from putting nuclear missiles in Turkey to threaten Russia into putting them into Cuba.
"As are Turkey and Russia by the Black Sea, but that didn't prevent the Pentagon from putting nuclear missiles in Turkey to threaten Russia into putting them into Cuba."
That is precisely my point. If the West gains control of the Iranian territory, they will have a platform for nuclear weapons in close proximity to Russia. Therefore, it is incumbent on Russia to see that Iran does not fall.
The IAEA has been consistent that Iran's nuclear program has never produced uranium enriched to the purity required to produce a super criticality as would be required for weapons.
How advanced are Iran with the nuclear bomb project? If its as advanced as Israel claims it is wont hitting the nuclear weapons bases even if they are in dumbs contaminate the air and water for US allies like Qatar and Saudi Arabia probably making some parts of their countries unlivable? Otherwise there should be a ground invasion which will mobilise the people behind the Ayatollahs and I dont know if US has the apetite for it even if it temporarily winds down the Russian war. How will it take care of China who has commercial interests worth hundreds of billions of dollars with Iran? If you see the Chinese blogosphere and social media space they are uniformly preparing/ expecting to face a physical war with Nato or the US in the next 5-10 years or even less. Even if Russia keeps a stand down and look away policy in case of a US-Iran war China can queer the pitch for the US.
I think you need to more thoroughly proofread before you click on send.
Sure, could be, but too cryptic & Byzantine for communicating with quasi-ally Iran, even by diplomatic standards, for this layman. Putin would likely also say (& even believe) "none should be positioned to destroy anyone, but, hey, this ain't Planet Utopia, it's the Real World". The needless to express corollary is "Israel should never be in a position to destroy Iran" &/or “Iran should never be PUT in a position to JUSTLY destroy Israel".
I wouldn't read too much into that statement. First, it's not a Russian report of Putin's words, it's just what the US embassy in Moscow is reporting. I'd suggest waiting for the Russian State Department official readout for the precise language if you want accuracy.
Second, I expect that any Russian language regarding Israel and Iran would state that neither should be in a position to destroy the other. That said, such language doesn't mean they can't attack each other. Both sides mounted attacks last year, the most spectacular one being Iran's ballistic missile attack in October.
There's a difference between weakening and simply being quiet, which is what Iran's been for the last six months. But there's no factual basis that I know of to conclude that Iran has become militarily or geopolitically weakened. One might in fact conclude the opposite: that they're using this time to prepare for conflict.
Update: The Kremlin's readout of the discussion says only this about the situation in the Middle East:
"Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump also touched upon other issues on the international agenda, including the situation in the Middle East and the Red Sea region. Joint efforts will be made to stabilize the situation in crisis points, to establish cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation and global security."
There is no mention of Iran or Israel specifically.
The only problem with the preposition is that the last Iranian attack on Israel proved that Iran could destroy Israel with conventional weapons, unknown to much of the world because of subterfuge on all other sides' media and propaganda outlets. Israel broke off its last attack when its F-35s encountered illumination from Iran's S-400 missile defense systems across all paths of attack before entering Iranian airspace.
To "destroy" Israel would, I believe, require a nuclear attack or a conventional one so overwhelming that it might as well be nuclear.
Assuming Iran could repeat last October's attack with greater numbers and greater accuracy, (which I believe they can) then they could inflict serious damage, perhaps even devastating damage. Nevertheless it wouldn't destroy Israel.
Your definition of destruction might be similar to the one for genocide held by Zionists.
Devastatingly damaged vs.destroyed is sliced very thinly.
The fact that Russia and the US are explicitly looking to future areas of mutual interest for world security is in my view the most convincing piece of evidence that the US will use its power to get Ukraine to respect this deal, even if it is reluctant or willing to break the conditions during the 30-day trial.
Washington still has the possibility to suspend all deliveries, which the EU is hardly in a position to compensate. So Ukraine will comply and they will have to negotiate in good faith with Russia, or the US will increase pressure on them.
Meanwhile in the EU, it is said that a group of "Southern" countries including Portugal, Spain, France and Italy are opposing the EU commission's plans to increase arms supplies to Ukraine. Whether the issue is about the principle of such deliveries or about the conditions of the EU's plans is still unclear. But there is definitely no solid conviction to have that the EU can help Ukraine escape US pressure towards peace.
I did not understand the readout of the Trump-Putin call as suggesting that either was about to ask Ukraine to enter into negotiations. It seems both are aiming to construct an outcome in the form of a faint accompli for Ukraine.
I understood that the next step would involve direct talks between Ukraine and Russia, without US presence, and certainly without European presence.
Although this may not be an opportunity to define the substance of what the US and Russia may have already agreed on, there must be a Ukrainian involvement and acceptance to be part of the move towards peace, don't you think?
And I would expect there are many details to agree on as to where the line will be placed.
The flow of European weapons is not enough to sustain the war much longer, and Germany has warned that they've reached the bottom of their stash. They simply can't keep giving stuff away because their own military does not have any left.
You should not believe the stats about the value of weapons vs share of GDP. One, because different countries value the donations differently. Some value them according to what it will cost them to replace the donated item, while other value according to the residual value in public accountancy of items that have been immobilised for decades. Onbviously, the first method will artifically pump up the stats. Second, because some countrioes donated lots of items that proved virtually unusable. And Third, because some countries provided training that was much more useful than donations, yet worth much less money.
Virtue signalling through publicized expense is not the same thing as actually useful military support.
A running joke is that the Euro training was of negative-value - that the Ukies should have trained the Euros.
I can't speak about other countries than mine. There has been some clear inadequacies between NATO doctrine and the realities of this war.
But I am 100% certain that once Ukrainians got properly trained and converted to French equipment, meant to be light and mobile rather than heavily armoured as they were used to, some of these equipments proved to be the best Ukraine had in their inventories. I'm thinking about the Caesar howitzer, or the AMX-10 reconnaissance tank. But they were not meant to be used in the framework of previous Ukrainian doctrine, and they do not match NATO doctrine either. They're something different, requiring to adapt Ukrainian doctrine to the material. Proved most critical.
Is that Ukraine, Gaza, or a Tesla dealership?
Can UKR get a new Prez & amended constitution in 30 days? If not, why have a ceasefire at all?
There's nothing like bringing a "ceasefire" to a victim that still wishes to fight back against her violator. Nothing like telling a man defending his home that it's time to stop and give the attacker the garage & half the living for the sake of "safety."
Trump & Vance both may be uniquely idiotic and petulent in equal measure that they fail to see the low cost/high impact payoff of the West's Ukraine policy, but the rest of the OECD community does and is still committed to helping the justified party protect itself. But even if Europe were to abandon Ukraine, it will still remain only the Ukrainians themselves with the legitimate right to demand a ceasefire.
It's simply not Trump's decision or the European far right's decision to make--whether Ukraine continues to resist invasion, rape, and mass murder. Just like it would equally be beyond the purview of Washington or Brussels to insist Kiev keep fighting, if the desire to resist had passed.
The sheer outrage Trump has caused in Canada & Europe may be something beyond the realm of understanding for his pack of apologists within the "realist" school--in their very limited vision, they can't see any reason the Europeans will *truly*, for the *long-term,* break w/ Trump on Ukraine. But that's the irony, it is for reasons of common values & world view--in addition to pure geopolitical power issues--that the Europeans feel called to do the right & wise thing. It is the very notion that fighting back is "right"--the idea to right wing nativists that there are moral dimensions to foreign policy is so alien--that obscures their ability to see how blatantly smart it has been (and profoundly successful) for the West to resist Russia.
"Ukraine continues to resist invasion, rape, and mass murder."
Russia, Russia, Russia!!!! Do you even hear yourself?
Man, you're so close to figuring it all out. You're even on the right websites, ffs, but you can't see the truth.
Common-NAZI-values?
"The only way this war will end is on Russian terms."
Really? This must be based on your apparent deep grasp of history, with evidence being the U.S. triumph in Vietnam? Or the Soviets' win in Afghanistan? The US win in Afghanistan?! Or Hitler's triumph over Stalin, perhaps?
No, these never came about, did they? The weaker, smaller, or disadvantaged party won in the end--and the USSR was certainly "disadvantaged" in1941 despite out-sizing the Germans.
Ukraine not only halted & defeated the initial Russian invasion, it pushed them back from Kiev and the northeast entirely, relegating Moscow's hold to 18%. And has since held the Russians there. This has been w/ Western aid, of course, but Vietnam was aided, was it not? The anti-Russian mujahadeen were backed by the West.
The overall cost of Western aid to Ukraine has been a rounding error compared to the budgets of the USA & EU. No Western troops have been put in harms way. Regardless, there is zero evidence Russia will be able to breakout any time soon in ways that eluded its knuckle-dragging military for five years. A U.S. commentator the other week calculated that at the Russians' current average pace, it would take something like 106 years to overrun all of Ukraine.
It is one thing for you to want Ukraine to lose and, as a matter of policy, want the U.S. to sabotage Kiev's ability to resist. But the reality, clear to those with actual understanding of military strategy & operations, is that Moscow is that Ukraine has the ability for the foreseeable future to keep Russia stuck & bleeding white.
You may not *like* this fact, but it's just that--factual. The evidence clearly demonstrates Ukraine's ability to resist. Not forever, but that's a false comparison anyway.
Who are you quoting, "The only way this war will end is on Russian terms." ? Other than that, I won't comment further. but I don't like to be misrepresented. Why not try reading the article?
Dreamer.
The EU, Germany and France, had all along be the target of the Anglosphere, the US, and their spearhead, Biden's neocons' provocations of Russia. EU' elites not wanting, not daring seeing through the scheme, do not deserve any compassion. Result is: after the Cold War and the End of History, a Russian-American Cold sharing of the European spoils.
The Euros outsmarted them - they squandered anything of value already.
Putin is a fool, but that was obvious from his original war strategy; this cease-fire will not last 24 hrs. Ukraine will break it, and Putin will be blamed.
why would he be blamed? There are many ways to describe Putin, but "fool" is not one of them.
Putin's decision for a limited war with Ukraine was a big mistake.
Give that mouth-frothing a break.
"Give that mouth-frothing a break."
Stop the vacuous replies.
Wow! Here I was expecting a "LIKE" from you. You seem to be over-brimming with hyperbole, illogic & ignorance. Define "limited" & "unlimited" within the context of your usage - or just change yer handle to "SURrealist".
"Wow! Here I was expecting a "LIKE" from you."
Wow, I don't make a habit of liking an insult.
"Define "limited" & "unlimited" within the context of your usage - or just change yer handle to "SURrealist"."
Limited means not a concerted effort to win. Unlimited means every effort to defeat decisively. This war has been going on longer than it took for Russia to expel the Nazis.
The obvious 'green line' in any eventual pause in hostilities runs along the Dnieper to the bend south of Zaporozhye, and south along the Oskil, and roughly south from the Oskil and east from the Dnieper bend - with a DMZ something like 10km either side of the green line.
I guess you also need a DMZ along the border in the north, and I guess UN troops from India and elsewhere stationed in the DMZ.
Why does nobody actually talk about these obvious details of the endgame, rather than engage in endless rhetorical abuse, especially in brain-dead Europe?
PS: this leaves the Zaporozhye power plant in the DMZ.
The future Ukraine in its entirety will be pretty much a DMZ, 1 way or another. A pause in hostilities is a long-shot I put at 20% currently.