Because Trump sounded so optimistic about reaching an agreement with Russia re the ceasefire, I have a feeling that it has already been broadly agreed.
However, it will be interesting to see the detail behind the terms of the ceasefire given that the Russians previously said that they would only agree to an immediate ceasefire if two conditions were met:
1. Ukraine withdraws all its troops from all regions of Donbass
AND
2. Ukraine drops the idea of NATO or any other hostile military alliance and becomes a neutral, non-aligned state
Provided those conditions were met, Putin said he'd give an immediate order to cease fire.
Now, if Putin accepts this so called 30-day ceasefire without Ukraine meeting the aforementioned conditions, it may be a hard sell to present this as something positive to his domestic public, especially given that they are currently winning on the battlefield and that during the negotiations of the early 2022 they had agreed to withdraw their troops from Kiev as a gesture of goodwill and at the request of the West only to be cheated again!
At the moment, I can't imagine the kind of concessions that the US would have to give Russia for them to agree to this 30-day ceasefire without Ukraine meeting the conditions that Putin articulated before! Let's wait and see!
We all want peace more than anything, and I hope it will be a lasting one!
I think you are right - it will all come down to the details. Bit it occurs to me that the US is ready to put the pressur on Zelensky to concede in key areas. I personally doubt Putin will get complete withdrawal from Donbas. but let's see. Taking NATO off the table and reclaiming Kursk already give Putin a good narrative alongside rapid warming of US-Russia relations. But not risk free, as you say,
Let´s hope it´s not an end of war at one place only to start another one somewhere else (like pulling out of Afghanistan to go after Ukrainians and Russians).
Simplicius assesses that both the US and UK expect the ceasefire offer to be rejected. And in fact are actively working to undermine their own proposals (certainly the UK and Ukraine are, as you note).
Putin would be a fool to agree a ceasefire, and he is no fool.
What do you think Ian?
I have to say if Putin offers a ceasefire it will be the most astonishing act of generosity.
I can imagine the UK is keen to undermine Russia in all this. And let's be clear, if Russia does come on board, it isn't going to be today or possibly, tomorrow, there will need to be a Trump-Putin phone call, by all accounts.
So, I always ask myself, what does Putin want out of this?
The biggest prize for him in all this is a reset relationship with the US and Trump, He'll continue to make marginal gains of territory if he keeps fighting in Ukraine, but at what cost? He was talking this morning in a wide ranging interview about inviting US companies to exploit aluminium reserves in Russia and accessing Russia's mroe valuable stock of rare earths etc (even in occupied land, which was interesting..). There are not a lot of upsides to keeping on fighting, even though he most certainly can. So, this isn't really about winning the war, or letting Zelensky off the hook, or being generous, at least in my opinion.
And in any case, as I said in the article, it still hinges on a reckoning on NATO membership and so on. It's still a gamble for Putin in some ways. But he will drive a hard bargain. And hard to see Ukraine getting anything better than Istanbul 1 which took NATO off the table. Indeed, hard for Zelensky to resist that, having almost agreed it in 2022 when he was in a better position than he's in now....
Can't see Putin agreeing either, he has the global majority behind him while this peace deal looks like its only about narrative for us hapless plebs in the golden (soon to be bronze) billion.
Don't underestimate how much the global majority would support a peace in Ukraine and, indeed, how this would burnish Putin's reputation having stood firm against the rusty rest, sorry, west. :-) And remember, we are talking about a possible ceasefire - any peace deal will come out of the negotiations and Putin won't concede on his core priorities, especially NATO membership. Let's see.
I do not believe Russia will agree to this ceasefire and they would be foolish to do so. Trump has given the green light to continue arming and supplying intelligence info to Ukraine, the Ukrainians are still in the Kursk region and they have just conducted the largest drone bombing raid on civilian infrastructure in Russia since the beginning of the SMO. So he agrees to a ceasefire and this gives Zelensky time to re-equip and rest his army. It just doesn’t make sense. Maybe the West knows Russia won’t agree to a ceasefire and are laying a trap to blame him on the continuation of the war. Prepare for an increase in western main stream media demonisation of President Putin and all things Russian.
My pick is that Trump calls Putin to put the proposal formally and Putin reiterates his prerequisites: NATO is permanently off the table and the new republics are free of Ukrainian occupation or attack.
Trump takes this back to Zelensky, who knows he’s dead if he agrees and dead if he doesn’t. It’s up to Trump to convince him he’ll live longer with Uncle Sam on his side.
I suppose it would make sense for the Russians to push forward as hard and fast as possible in the next few days, as the line of actual control when the ceasefire comes into effect is likely to become the new border between the two states.
“egregiously corrupt Ukrainian politician” is a tautology, but leaving that aside, what do you make of Timoshenko’s complaint that the plan along along was to expend Ukrainian blood to hurt Russia. She seems slow on the uptake - this was made explicit by US leaders from the very beginning.
Right now her comments are targetted at a domestic audience. Clearly positioning herself. Although she hasn't done that well in recent elections so not sure how she thinks she has a chance this time.
The Russians would have quite literally 'war gamed' most scenarios. A ceasefire when one is winning makes little sense. The Russians adapted to the ramped up sanctions. I wonder what's in it for them? Also how will UK about face. May be with a little help from the BBC?
Ian: you say it’s ‘hard to see Ukraine getting anything better than Istanbul 1’. Better? My Russian friend told me that many Russians regarded Istanbul 1 as a catastrophic defeat for Russia. Ukraine was insane not to take it - no annexations in East Ukraine, the Russian army withdraws from everywhere, except Crimea, and Crimean status itself to be subject to discussion?! Hard to see Ukraine getting anything better than that, when 3 years later it is in an immeasurably worse negotiating position, it is being methodically destroyed, and it’s army is on its last legs……. It’s not hard to see, it’s surely utterly impossible to see. On any objective analysis, Ukraine should feel lucky to get out of this, still existing as a state at all. The real question is, will Russia be crazy enough to accept a ceasefire deal, with a USA that has been overtly trying to destroy and break up the RF since the late 90s, and a Ukraine that immediately breaks every agreement it has ever signed with the RF? If Russia does agree to stop fighting, and freeze the lines (even for 30 days), it will demonstrate one extremely significant fact - that the RF is actually much weaker than all indicators have led us to believe.
Then he will likely go down with the ship, and may even share the same fate as that gentleman in the bunker nearly 80 years ago - tho in reprise, the poison/bullet may be administered by someone else.
Yes, but he is a completely fabricated figure. He is not ideological. He’s an actor. The adulation is receding, and so is the money. Why on Earth would he want to stay. Would it not be better to just leave now (make up a reason), and retire to a very well fortified villa in the south of France. Added benefit is that he passes the poisoned chalice to somebody else. The longer he stays, as the unravelling gets exponentially worse, surely the more danger he is in. I just don’t understand it.🤔
I get it. Me neither. But several of his former advisers have pointed out that he has a messianic (deluded?) belief in his own destiny and an aversion to alternative viewpoints.
I’d appreciate your view on this question Ian. 🤔 In the three years of the SMO, I have never heard any alt media address it. Why does Zelensky want to remain President? He is an actor, not a politician; he is now immensely wealthy, his physical safety and that of his family is constantly in danger (and not from Russia); the weight of crushing responsibility for what has already happened to his country & its people, and what is yet to happen, lies on his shoulders. Who would want that? Why on Earth would he want to keep doing it? If he makes peace, Azov will eliminate him, if he continues the war, he will preside over the total destruction of Ukraine as a state. Why stay? Why hasn’t he long ago bowed out for (say) medical reasons, or maybe held the scheduled elections, and been defeated. Why is he still there?
He's shit out of good options and high on western adulation, and his own propaganda? Can you name someone in a similar position in history who quietly stepped down?
The core demands are: No NATO, 4 oblasts (in their entirety), de-militarisation, de-nazification, rights of ethnic Russians in rump Ukraine. When you list them, it is immediately obvious that the USA is agreement incapable. So….. as you say; interesting times.
I don’t think you are necessarily wrong in every aspect. The situation is fast moving, and while you make some good points, I think Putin is looking at a bigger prize of US-Russia normalisation. No, he clearly won’t settle unless his core demands are met. However, recent signs suggest that the US may be ready to strong arm Ukraine to agree and I still see Zelensky as the biggest obstacle to peace.
I also think people are conflating the ceasefire with the negotiations. themselves, although the two can’t be completely separated, of course.
But let’s see. The next few days will be interesting.
Thank you so much for your articles and your timely, amazing, outstanding book! I am about halfway through it.
Please forgive me if I rush things by not finishing it. How is it that Britain has abandoned diplomacy in this case? Cameron's role and his machinations against the EU in 2014, as you write in your book. But why not come to his senses later?
Following in the footsteps of the US since then, but why not come to his senses later?
2022 and the Istanbul talks and the danger of the destruction of Ukraine (a danger that has not completely disappeared and will be realised if the war continues) - why should Britain want this?
Are the motives of a century and a half ago and the scramble of the 19th century so strong? I have never heard of this, although it is hard to believe.
Why hasn't the British elite grasped this? Sympathy for the nation has been eclipsed by the fashion for empty political applause. The British press, even the best, is full of innuendo, spin and silence. How did this happen?
How did Britain get out of this dead end first?
Please forgive me for asking so many questions.
Thank you once again for your enlightened and caring opinion.
Thank for you for your kind words. You raise some big questions.
At heart, I think the UK suffered from constantly changing cast of political characters running the country, be that at Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary level. This unwittingly put more control over day to day policy towards Russia in the hands of the blob, which, at its core, has an anti-Russian bias coupled with a lack of understanding of contemporary Russia, given its so-called experts date back to the Soviet era.
Couple this with a general decline in the quality of strategic thinking across the government and a disinvestment in diplomatic skills, plus a sense of lacking a clear direction post-Brexit and a clamour to get ever closer to a chaotic US system under Biden in particular, then you end up here!
That's a short answer to a much bigger set of questions, but I hope it helps.
Thank you so much for your answer. Taking on all the responsibility is very noble! But after all, the main blame lies with the Russian side to create the horrible image that now haunts us (I am Russian) in many ways deservedly. The Litvinenko poisoning, the poisoning of the Skripals, the famous Russia report, the scandal surrounding the ban on publication of which seems to have done more damage to Russians than its contents. But the point of it is that dirty and dubious money has flooded everything from lawyers and solicitors, estate agents, PR people, public schools, designers and so on. Against such a backdrop, it is difficult to demand that the government establish and develop diplomatic relations. I don't know if you would agree with that.
Critical incompetence and inflexibility on both sides that has become tragic.
Thank you very much for your reply and your reflections.
Thanks Gene, and I don't disagree with anything you say. But I can only be accountable for what the Brits did, as I was part of that 'system'. Perhaps naively, I hope that if we behave well in our statesmanship, then we will slowly reach a point where our interlocutors engage in a reciprocal manner.
For most of my life I've believed that the best European universities and a relatively free press prompted the right answers, but apparently that doesn't always work.
Ian - are you familiar with the book "Myths, Lies and Oil Wars" by F. William Engdahl? Chapter 10 discusses something many have not mentioned - the Dnieper-Donetz basin contains a kind of oil which conventional Western oil geology says should not exist. A certain Professor Krayushkin of the Geology Department at Kiev University had discovered that oil and gas are not of fossil origin, but non biological in origin. It may well be that this is as usual, an Oil War.
Putin wants a new government in Kiev, the restoration of the Orthodox Church, and De-Nazification along with territory and neutrality. He rightfully doesn’t believe anything the West says and is only looking for tangible results. In the last 24-hours, Trump said there was no reason for this war and Putin has no cards. Spoken like a a true belligerent and not the honest broker he is pretending to be. Now he owns the war he could have walked away from after the Zelensky blowup.
Immediately after the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands, during an emergency debate in the UK House of Commons, the British MP for the constituency of South Down (Northern Ireland), Enoch Powell, got to his feet, and said to the house ‘now we shall see of what mettle she is made’. He was speaking of Margaret Thatcher (the Prime Minister), and making a clever play on words - Thatchers moniker was the ‘iron lady’ - mettle/metal. Well, we shall now see of what mettle Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is made.
A. Dugin (close to Putin) appears dead set against a ceasefire now - there is not sufficient trust as Russia has been betrayed too many times. And why let the Ukrainians regroup when they are on the run. Russia will press the advantage for now. The more they gain now the more they will be able to dominate the peace talks - when they are ready.
Not so sure about this assessment. Today, Putin visited Kursk, dressed in khaki, looking every inch the conquering hero - to his own people, that is. Kremlin insiders are bullish. Why, they ask, should we concede on any issue when we are winning? Furthermore, why trust Trump and the rabble at his back? And, for that matter, why trust any western politician? The Russians will reject this offer - indirectly - by repeating previous demands. The US exceptionalists will have to learn that they are only exceptional in their own imaginations. Meanwhile, Germany pushes for rearmament - nothing to see here!
Isn't it the smoke and mirrors that's maddening? We now have this curious version of international diplomacy wherein one side - the main antagonists - make surly demands, practice diplomacy with a carrot and sledgehammer and bark out terms or ultimatums that are here one minute, gone the next. Then there's the background detail: Minsk1 & 2, a coup d'état, biolabs, NATO expansion, grand larceny - it goes on and on. No wonder the majority have become so depoliticised; after all, who can keep up with this mass of byzantine detail or stomach the gruesome spectacle of Trump and his co-belligerents freefalling into the abyss?
Because Trump sounded so optimistic about reaching an agreement with Russia re the ceasefire, I have a feeling that it has already been broadly agreed.
However, it will be interesting to see the detail behind the terms of the ceasefire given that the Russians previously said that they would only agree to an immediate ceasefire if two conditions were met:
1. Ukraine withdraws all its troops from all regions of Donbass
AND
2. Ukraine drops the idea of NATO or any other hostile military alliance and becomes a neutral, non-aligned state
Provided those conditions were met, Putin said he'd give an immediate order to cease fire.
Now, if Putin accepts this so called 30-day ceasefire without Ukraine meeting the aforementioned conditions, it may be a hard sell to present this as something positive to his domestic public, especially given that they are currently winning on the battlefield and that during the negotiations of the early 2022 they had agreed to withdraw their troops from Kiev as a gesture of goodwill and at the request of the West only to be cheated again!
At the moment, I can't imagine the kind of concessions that the US would have to give Russia for them to agree to this 30-day ceasefire without Ukraine meeting the conditions that Putin articulated before! Let's wait and see!
We all want peace more than anything, and I hope it will be a lasting one!
I think you are right - it will all come down to the details. Bit it occurs to me that the US is ready to put the pressur on Zelensky to concede in key areas. I personally doubt Putin will get complete withdrawal from Donbas. but let's see. Taking NATO off the table and reclaiming Kursk already give Putin a good narrative alongside rapid warming of US-Russia relations. But not risk free, as you say,
Meanwhile tensions are growing in the Balkans.
Let´s hope it´s not an end of war at one place only to start another one somewhere else (like pulling out of Afghanistan to go after Ukrainians and Russians).
Indeed.
On point 👌🏻
Simplicius assesses that both the US and UK expect the ceasefire offer to be rejected. And in fact are actively working to undermine their own proposals (certainly the UK and Ukraine are, as you note).
Putin would be a fool to agree a ceasefire, and he is no fool.
What do you think Ian?
I have to say if Putin offers a ceasefire it will be the most astonishing act of generosity.
I can imagine the UK is keen to undermine Russia in all this. And let's be clear, if Russia does come on board, it isn't going to be today or possibly, tomorrow, there will need to be a Trump-Putin phone call, by all accounts.
So, I always ask myself, what does Putin want out of this?
The biggest prize for him in all this is a reset relationship with the US and Trump, He'll continue to make marginal gains of territory if he keeps fighting in Ukraine, but at what cost? He was talking this morning in a wide ranging interview about inviting US companies to exploit aluminium reserves in Russia and accessing Russia's mroe valuable stock of rare earths etc (even in occupied land, which was interesting..). There are not a lot of upsides to keeping on fighting, even though he most certainly can. So, this isn't really about winning the war, or letting Zelensky off the hook, or being generous, at least in my opinion.
And in any case, as I said in the article, it still hinges on a reckoning on NATO membership and so on. It's still a gamble for Putin in some ways. But he will drive a hard bargain. And hard to see Ukraine getting anything better than Istanbul 1 which took NATO off the table. Indeed, hard for Zelensky to resist that, having almost agreed it in 2022 when he was in a better position than he's in now....
That is an excellent point Ian that maybe Putin (and Trump?) are looking at a much bigger picture. I hope so.
Me too. Fingers crossed.
Can't see Putin agreeing either, he has the global majority behind him while this peace deal looks like its only about narrative for us hapless plebs in the golden (soon to be bronze) billion.
Don't underestimate how much the global majority would support a peace in Ukraine and, indeed, how this would burnish Putin's reputation having stood firm against the rusty rest, sorry, west. :-) And remember, we are talking about a possible ceasefire - any peace deal will come out of the negotiations and Putin won't concede on his core priorities, especially NATO membership. Let's see.
I do not believe Russia will agree to this ceasefire and they would be foolish to do so. Trump has given the green light to continue arming and supplying intelligence info to Ukraine, the Ukrainians are still in the Kursk region and they have just conducted the largest drone bombing raid on civilian infrastructure in Russia since the beginning of the SMO. So he agrees to a ceasefire and this gives Zelensky time to re-equip and rest his army. It just doesn’t make sense. Maybe the West knows Russia won’t agree to a ceasefire and are laying a trap to blame him on the continuation of the war. Prepare for an increase in western main stream media demonisation of President Putin and all things Russian.
My pick is that Trump calls Putin to put the proposal formally and Putin reiterates his prerequisites: NATO is permanently off the table and the new republics are free of Ukrainian occupation or attack.
Trump takes this back to Zelensky, who knows he’s dead if he agrees and dead if he doesn’t. It’s up to Trump to convince him he’ll live longer with Uncle Sam on his side.
Thanks for this take on the topic.
I suppose it would make sense for the Russians to push forward as hard and fast as possible in the next few days, as the line of actual control when the ceasefire comes into effect is likely to become the new border between the two states.
Indeed.
“egregiously corrupt Ukrainian politician” is a tautology, but leaving that aside, what do you make of Timoshenko’s complaint that the plan along along was to expend Ukrainian blood to hurt Russia. She seems slow on the uptake - this was made explicit by US leaders from the very beginning.
:-)
Right now her comments are targetted at a domestic audience. Clearly positioning herself. Although she hasn't done that well in recent elections so not sure how she thinks she has a chance this time.
Yes she appears to be America’s candidate for the presidency but I doubt that endears her to anyone in Ukraine except certain cynical power brokers.
Don’t underestimate the broad appeal of American funding in a bureaucracy that just lost most of it.
The Russians would have quite literally 'war gamed' most scenarios. A ceasefire when one is winning makes little sense. The Russians adapted to the ramped up sanctions. I wonder what's in it for them? Also how will UK about face. May be with a little help from the BBC?
Ian: you say it’s ‘hard to see Ukraine getting anything better than Istanbul 1’. Better? My Russian friend told me that many Russians regarded Istanbul 1 as a catastrophic defeat for Russia. Ukraine was insane not to take it - no annexations in East Ukraine, the Russian army withdraws from everywhere, except Crimea, and Crimean status itself to be subject to discussion?! Hard to see Ukraine getting anything better than that, when 3 years later it is in an immeasurably worse negotiating position, it is being methodically destroyed, and it’s army is on its last legs……. It’s not hard to see, it’s surely utterly impossible to see. On any objective analysis, Ukraine should feel lucky to get out of this, still existing as a state at all. The real question is, will Russia be crazy enough to accept a ceasefire deal, with a USA that has been overtly trying to destroy and break up the RF since the late 90s, and a Ukraine that immediately breaks every agreement it has ever signed with the RF? If Russia does agree to stop fighting, and freeze the lines (even for 30 days), it will demonstrate one extremely significant fact - that the RF is actually much weaker than all indicators have led us to believe.
I don't fully agree, but I respect your point of view.
Then he will likely go down with the ship, and may even share the same fate as that gentleman in the bunker nearly 80 years ago - tho in reprise, the poison/bullet may be administered by someone else.
Yes, but he is a completely fabricated figure. He is not ideological. He’s an actor. The adulation is receding, and so is the money. Why on Earth would he want to stay. Would it not be better to just leave now (make up a reason), and retire to a very well fortified villa in the south of France. Added benefit is that he passes the poisoned chalice to somebody else. The longer he stays, as the unravelling gets exponentially worse, surely the more danger he is in. I just don’t understand it.🤔
I get it. Me neither. But several of his former advisers have pointed out that he has a messianic (deluded?) belief in his own destiny and an aversion to alternative viewpoints.
I’d appreciate your view on this question Ian. 🤔 In the three years of the SMO, I have never heard any alt media address it. Why does Zelensky want to remain President? He is an actor, not a politician; he is now immensely wealthy, his physical safety and that of his family is constantly in danger (and not from Russia); the weight of crushing responsibility for what has already happened to his country & its people, and what is yet to happen, lies on his shoulders. Who would want that? Why on Earth would he want to keep doing it? If he makes peace, Azov will eliminate him, if he continues the war, he will preside over the total destruction of Ukraine as a state. Why stay? Why hasn’t he long ago bowed out for (say) medical reasons, or maybe held the scheduled elections, and been defeated. Why is he still there?
He's shit out of good options and high on western adulation, and his own propaganda? Can you name someone in a similar position in history who quietly stepped down?
The core demands are: No NATO, 4 oblasts (in their entirety), de-militarisation, de-nazification, rights of ethnic Russians in rump Ukraine. When you list them, it is immediately obvious that the USA is agreement incapable. So….. as you say; interesting times.
Where am I wrong, do you think?🤔
I don’t think you are necessarily wrong in every aspect. The situation is fast moving, and while you make some good points, I think Putin is looking at a bigger prize of US-Russia normalisation. No, he clearly won’t settle unless his core demands are met. However, recent signs suggest that the US may be ready to strong arm Ukraine to agree and I still see Zelensky as the biggest obstacle to peace.
I also think people are conflating the ceasefire with the negotiations. themselves, although the two can’t be completely separated, of course.
But let’s see. The next few days will be interesting.
Thank you so much for your articles and your timely, amazing, outstanding book! I am about halfway through it.
Please forgive me if I rush things by not finishing it. How is it that Britain has abandoned diplomacy in this case? Cameron's role and his machinations against the EU in 2014, as you write in your book. But why not come to his senses later?
Following in the footsteps of the US since then, but why not come to his senses later?
2022 and the Istanbul talks and the danger of the destruction of Ukraine (a danger that has not completely disappeared and will be realised if the war continues) - why should Britain want this?
Are the motives of a century and a half ago and the scramble of the 19th century so strong? I have never heard of this, although it is hard to believe.
Why hasn't the British elite grasped this? Sympathy for the nation has been eclipsed by the fashion for empty political applause. The British press, even the best, is full of innuendo, spin and silence. How did this happen?
How did Britain get out of this dead end first?
Please forgive me for asking so many questions.
Thank you once again for your enlightened and caring opinion.
Thank for you for your kind words. You raise some big questions.
At heart, I think the UK suffered from constantly changing cast of political characters running the country, be that at Prime Minister, Foreign Secretary and Defence Secretary level. This unwittingly put more control over day to day policy towards Russia in the hands of the blob, which, at its core, has an anti-Russian bias coupled with a lack of understanding of contemporary Russia, given its so-called experts date back to the Soviet era.
Couple this with a general decline in the quality of strategic thinking across the government and a disinvestment in diplomatic skills, plus a sense of lacking a clear direction post-Brexit and a clamour to get ever closer to a chaotic US system under Biden in particular, then you end up here!
That's a short answer to a much bigger set of questions, but I hope it helps.
All the best and thanks again.
Ian
Thank you so much for your answer. Taking on all the responsibility is very noble! But after all, the main blame lies with the Russian side to create the horrible image that now haunts us (I am Russian) in many ways deservedly. The Litvinenko poisoning, the poisoning of the Skripals, the famous Russia report, the scandal surrounding the ban on publication of which seems to have done more damage to Russians than its contents. But the point of it is that dirty and dubious money has flooded everything from lawyers and solicitors, estate agents, PR people, public schools, designers and so on. Against such a backdrop, it is difficult to demand that the government establish and develop diplomatic relations. I don't know if you would agree with that.
Critical incompetence and inflexibility on both sides that has become tragic.
Thank you very much for your reply and your reflections.
Thanks Gene, and I don't disagree with anything you say. But I can only be accountable for what the Brits did, as I was part of that 'system'. Perhaps naively, I hope that if we behave well in our statesmanship, then we will slowly reach a point where our interlocutors engage in a reciprocal manner.
"Cameron's role and his machinations against the EU in 2014, as you write in your book. But why not come to his senses later?"
Maybe Cameron was paralysed with conscience over having ordered the bombing of Gaddafi's house, killing three of his grandchildren in the process?
Nah.
Cameron didn't give a shit then and never will. And that is the mark of the 'man'.
For most of my life I've believed that the best European universities and a relatively free press prompted the right answers, but apparently that doesn't always work.
"the BBC announced that Britain had helped the US and Ukraine agree on the need for a 30-day ceasefire"
I didn't realise things between Trump and Zelenski had got that bad.
Western strategy: "OK, Russia you've won, so how about we call it a draw, eh, and these are our non-negotiable conditions..."
Putin: LOL
Ian - are you familiar with the book "Myths, Lies and Oil Wars" by F. William Engdahl? Chapter 10 discusses something many have not mentioned - the Dnieper-Donetz basin contains a kind of oil which conventional Western oil geology says should not exist. A certain Professor Krayushkin of the Geology Department at Kiev University had discovered that oil and gas are not of fossil origin, but non biological in origin. It may well be that this is as usual, an Oil War.
Putin wants a new government in Kiev, the restoration of the Orthodox Church, and De-Nazification along with territory and neutrality. He rightfully doesn’t believe anything the West says and is only looking for tangible results. In the last 24-hours, Trump said there was no reason for this war and Putin has no cards. Spoken like a a true belligerent and not the honest broker he is pretending to be. Now he owns the war he could have walked away from after the Zelensky blowup.
Immediately after the Argentine invasion of the Falkland Islands, during an emergency debate in the UK House of Commons, the British MP for the constituency of South Down (Northern Ireland), Enoch Powell, got to his feet, and said to the house ‘now we shall see of what mettle she is made’. He was speaking of Margaret Thatcher (the Prime Minister), and making a clever play on words - Thatchers moniker was the ‘iron lady’ - mettle/metal. Well, we shall now see of what mettle Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin is made.
your assessment is wrong. Ukraine broke any agreement ever from minsk to istanbul.
The west is setting up another trap for Russia and Russia isn't stupid.
Especially since they are obliterating the Ukranians right now on the battlefield.
Should the Russians agree fjr the sake of scoring a few points in the PR battle, then I hope they are ready for a false flag etc
Turns out I might not have been that wrong....
On what evidence do you base that claim?
Because even though a ceasefire isn't over the line yet, the Kremlin is expressing cautious optimism, rather than ruling it out altogether.
I don't think there is a right or wrong in this, in any case, given the huge number of variables involved.
of course they aren't ruling it out. They'd be rendered liers and evil by western press etc.
They will stall until they completely wiped out the troops in kursk, and reached their hoals in the donbaz... as they have stated dozens of times.
A. Dugin (close to Putin) appears dead set against a ceasefire now - there is not sufficient trust as Russia has been betrayed too many times. And why let the Ukrainians regroup when they are on the run. Russia will press the advantage for now. The more they gain now the more they will be able to dominate the peace talks - when they are ready.
How close is Dugin really to Putin?
Not so sure about this assessment. Today, Putin visited Kursk, dressed in khaki, looking every inch the conquering hero - to his own people, that is. Kremlin insiders are bullish. Why, they ask, should we concede on any issue when we are winning? Furthermore, why trust Trump and the rabble at his back? And, for that matter, why trust any western politician? The Russians will reject this offer - indirectly - by repeating previous demands. The US exceptionalists will have to learn that they are only exceptional in their own imaginations. Meanwhile, Germany pushes for rearmament - nothing to see here!
Let's see if you are right.
Isn't it the smoke and mirrors that's maddening? We now have this curious version of international diplomacy wherein one side - the main antagonists - make surly demands, practice diplomacy with a carrot and sledgehammer and bark out terms or ultimatums that are here one minute, gone the next. Then there's the background detail: Minsk1 & 2, a coup d'état, biolabs, NATO expansion, grand larceny - it goes on and on. No wonder the majority have become so depoliticised; after all, who can keep up with this mass of byzantine detail or stomach the gruesome spectacle of Trump and his co-belligerents freefalling into the abyss?