The behaviour of Starmer is embarrassing. Huge cuts at home while sending billions to Ukraine with no material explanation as to why apart from 'we support Ukraine'. What is the Ukrainian strategic significance to the UK?
It's purely for domestic political purposes to try and wedge Reform - but it appears to be backfiring because many Britons feel he is spending way too much time on foreign policy and far too little time in fixing the UK.
The spirit of the age is now the "flip flop." "Flip flops" expertly crafted by the Tavistock minded then scripted, based on globalist amoral and post-modern world view, ultimately designed to de-stabilize and de-nationalize Profiteering at every level. No historical precedent for the scope of this. God help us.
Excellent summary (as always!); very good Ian! I have but one comment. As stated in the article:
Russia’s decision in October 2022 to formally annex the four oblasts of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk changed the calculus. However, Russia does not have full territorial control of any of those oblasts, which are cut through the middle by a hotly contested front line.
Current estimates for the level of occupation of Khersonskaya, Zaparozhskaya and Donetskaya oblasts are 70% for each, although the percentage for the latter is increasing by the day. As for Luganskaya oblast, I saw two days ago that it is 99,5% occupied.
Of course, there is also territory presently occupied in Kharkovskaya and Sumskaya oblasts.
I just checked the local media again and as of the 18th of April, Donetskaya oblast (the most active area) was 80% occupied (from the Russian perspective, 80% has been liberated).
I don't disagree with any of that, Dmitriy. But the Ukrainians aren't going to give up towns it still occupies such as Slaviansk and Kramatorsk, without a fight or as part of any peace deal, it seems to me.
Yes. The WEF will continue to use Ukrainian nationalism to destroy Ukrainian nationalism, always the plan since the beginning of the conflict. It is well documented that before 2022, social engineers calibrated this conflict would have a 6-to-1 attrition rate, in favor of Russia, which Col. Douglas MacGregor has pointed out. Meanwhile, the hundreds of billions sent to Ukraine, thus far, are largely unaccountable, as Ukraine has been used for money laundering for years, and now this is the peak experience: Part funneled back to the MI Complex, part bequeathed to Zelenskyy's mansions, and part expertly channeled to the Zelenskyy/Soros ethnic Ukrainian ilk in control there (I have the list here with photos of this comment section could be configured for uploading photos.)
Simplicius (also on Substack) has many times provided evidence of the attrition rate (by virtue of the monthly exchange of military bodies between Russia and the Ukraine) being in excess of 10:1. Today’s exchange (the 16th of May) was 909 to the Ukraine for 34 to Russia. In April, it was 909 to the Ukraine for 42 to Russia. That is more than 25:1.
Yes, I have also made that point, having looked at the various body exchanges orchestrated by the UAE. The caveat, of course, is that Russia is generally advancing so is more likely to recover Ukrainian bodies. Nevertheless, I agree Ukraine appears to be suffering higher attrition, despite the spin and censorship.
Good to know. Col. Douglas MacGregor on Judge Napolitano has given the attrition rate of 6-to-1 favoring Russia several times. Clearly, Zelenskyy used Ukrainian nationalism to destroy Ukrainian nationalism, knowing full well these attrition-rate projections in advance.
Ian, I just wanted to point out that the front line isn’t really “cut through the middle”, but in some cases right along the border (Luganskaya) or in Donetskaya closer and closer to the border. Yes, ultimately the last major cities will be Kramatorsk and Slavyansk, perhaps even this summer. It has been to date a long, grinding process, but Russia is fully prepared to go to the end.
Yes of course, and I can see that. I was talking figuratively, but you are correct. I doubt that Russia could conquer both cities by this summer, but it's an academic point. I'm hoping for peace, which is also academic, of course.
The fact that these talks are even happening is a geopolitical pivot in itself. For years, Ukraine has functioned as the frontline of a broader power contest, its posture shaped less by sovereign calculus and more by external incentives and pressures. Now, with the U.S. finally pushing for direct negotiations, the dynamic is shifting.
The reality is simple: wars end when power centers decide the costs outweigh the benefits. Russia has the upper hand on the battlefield. Ukraine no longer enjoys unshakable Western backing, and Trump’s team, however controversial, understands that endless conflict serves no strategic U.S. interest.
The optics of peace may still be messy; but behind closed doors, the logic of power is asserting itself.
When discussing Mr. Starmer the great John Mearsheimer always calls him "Keith Starmer" which is hilarious given that it shows how little known Starmer actually is outside of the UK.
I'm going to make a wild prediction that the Russians stick steadfastly to their position/guns, so do the Ukrainians, Steve will say the Russians are willing to negotiate, Marco will insist on the Cornflakes Ultimatum (starring Jason Cornflakes), and the Ewok will fly to Trabzon and jump up and down and bang his ewok stick on the floor and insist that Putin is too scared to meet him.
Trump will tell TruthSocial he's ecstatic while simultaneously telling NeoconNews he's furious.
I am ashamed of the way the British press is describing what is happening in Istanbul, as it is approaching the usual shameful Russian models. In a world where every sneeze leaves an electronic trail, everything comes down to interpretation. I see less and less journalism and more and more propaganda. I once dreamed that the Russians would learn good things from you, but instead, you have learned bad things from us.
Your role, Ian, is priceless, and I hope that one day it will be appreciated as the very onion of Dostoevsky (прича о луковке), for which any sinner can be dragged out of hell.
Ian: Your experience makes you far more knowledgable than humble little me. I’m genuinely puzzled however, as to why you take this so called ‘peace process’ seriously? In reminds me of the Israel/Palestine peace process, at least in terms of its utter unreality. For Russia, it makes sense to go along with this obvious charade, to keep China and the global south on board for them, but they must know that none of their core demands can be met by negotiation at this early stage. Let’s go through them…… No NATO: Whatever Ukraine or the US scribble on a piece of paper is worthless. Both countries have a recent history of breaking agreements they have signed, and even as the Russian team kicks its heels in Istanbul, western leaders are saying out loud that the path to NATO membership is irreversible. Kellogg told European leaders recently that even if Trump agrees to no NATO now, a future president could just flip it in a heartbeat. It won’t be in a treaty, because congress would never ratify one. The 4 oblasts plus Crimea: This is now Russian sovereign territory (according to the RF constitution). The US, Europe, and rump Ukraine are never going to agree to recognise these territories de jure, and Ukraine will never voluntarily agree (at this time) to vacate them. Russia on the other hand, will never accept a Ukrainian presence on 1sq metre of what they regard as occupied Russian land, and they have the clear military capacity to clear them out, at greater cost to Ukraine than to Russia. De-militarisation: Russia will not agree to Ukraine maintaining a sizeable military, and continuing to be armed and trained by NATO. Ukraine & USA will not, at this time, agree disarmament. De-Nazification: Can Russia agree to the continuance of a regime on its borders with a more entrenched and widely established Nazi component now, than it had back in 2022, let alone in 2014 when this crisis first came to a head - a rather obvious no seems the answer. Protection for Russian speakers in rump Ukraine: See de-Nazification above. All the above have been Russian objectives since the start of the SMO, repeated ad nauseam by RF officials from Putin down. Why would Russia abandon any of them now, when they hold all the cards, and it’s just a matter of time till the Ukrainian army collapses. Why would Russia allow itself to be ensnared in the preposterous Kellogg ‘plan’, which they know is just a means to freeze the war, stop the RF advancing, and give the Ukraine time to take a desperately needed breather and re-arm, to pick up the conflict another time, when it might be more favourable for them? To turn to Ukraine, why would Zelensky accept any of Russias conditions for ending the war, when to do so means swinging on the end of a rope in Kiev, and to not do so will likely have no negative consequences - the US is going to walk away? C’mon, really? Why would the Ukrainian oligarchy, security establishment, and military command agree to anything, when the grift is so beneficial to them, and a peaceful rump Ukraine, with a destroyed economy and a dire demographic, is not. To me, there is an air of total unreality to these proceedings. Sadly, I think Russia will need to continue administering a severe beatdown to Ukraine until it is prostrate on the canvas, and fully divested of its illusions and narratives. At that point, Russia gets all its conditions satisfied. I can’t see any other way it can possibly end…….. unless of course, Russia is considerably weaker than I have understood to be the case, and it also needs a timeout to rebuild. I suppose if nothing else, these ‘peace negotiations’ will clarify that.
Who said I take it seriously? It's important, but it's not imperfect. But right now, talking stands a better chance of ending the war than where we're at on the battlefield.
"…….. unless of course, Russia is considerably weaker than I have understood to be the case, and it also needs a timeout to rebuild."
The entire premise of this proxy war has been to weaken Russia. That Anglo-American effort—courtesy of the CIA and MI6—has failed spectacularly. Once again, the so-called "Western intelligence experts" have underestimated Russia. Hitler famously claimed the USSR would crumble with a single kick to the door. NATO seems to have adopted the same fantasy—that the Russian Federation remains the same hollow, broken shell it was in 1992 after the Soviet collapse. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now.
For Russia, any so-called "time out" would merely give Ukraine and the West a chance to regroup and rearm. It would be Minsk all over again—and everyone in the Kremlin remembers exactly how that played out. No one in Moscow is foolish or naive enough to fall for that twice. The Russian economy is stronger, public support for Putin remains solid, "crippling Western sanctions" have flopped, and Russian industry is now outproducing the entire NATO alliance in arms manufacturing. By every strategic measure, Russia holds the initiative—and it certainly should not let up at this point in time.
Western “high-tech” weaponry is being matched—and often outclassed—by Russian systems, despite decades of CIA "experts" assurances that Russian arms were outdated and ineffective. U.S. policy toward Russia seems rooted in the delusion that Russians excel only at making and drinking vodka. On the ground, Russia adapts swiftly—tactically and logistically—to the evolving battlefield, especially with drones and unmanned systems. Strategically and operationally, there is no sign Russia needs a “time out.” Alternative media analysts, including Col. Douglas Macgregor, highlight a staggering kill ratio: five or six Ukrainian soldiers lost for every Russian casualty—losses the AFU simply cannot sustain. The material attrition is even worse—armor, artillery, and equipment are being destroyed or worn out far faster than they can be replaced or repaired. NATO’s “best” stockpiles are nearly exhausted, and many EU states in the so-called “Coalition of the Willing” now openly admit they have nothing left to give.
Despite early missteps and miscalculations, the Russian Federation should—and appears willing to—press on relentlessly toward its objectives, unless Ukraine finds the courage to defy Zelensky's Western puppet masters and end this futile charade of a war. Nothing else will spare the Ukrainian people from the crushing, inevitable defeat barreling toward them—no matter how many speeches, sanctions, or crates of second-hand weapons the West lobs in their direction. The USA and EU remain pathologically incapable of admitting that this proxy war is yet another failure in its long tradition of disastrous misadventures—Vietnam redux. Even the EU elites—drunk on delusion and the indulgences Zelensky is all too eager to provide—can’t escape the obvious truth: Ukraine is living on borrowed time.
Ian: But talking now doesn’t stand a snowballs chance of ending the war, because the conditions in Ukraine are not right for that. Russia is winning the war, and surely their victory on the battlefield is now, at this time, the only possible way to end the war - given each sides position, and how far apart those positions are. Would Imperial Germany have given up the war, before the Hinderburg line had been broken?
If Ian were to propose finishing the war on the battlefield we'd have to strip him of his world champ's peacemonger belt (not sure if it's WBA, WBC or a newfangled one) and we wouldn't want that would we ;-)
But I agree with you, as what you are saying is exactly what Mearsheimer has been saying for a long time – and which I'm prone to repeating like a parrot – which is that negotiations can only succeed when the conditions exist for them to succeed, and given Ukraine is not on its knees yet, and Russia is still only making 'modest' gains, the conditions under which a peace negotiation can succeed look a long way off.
Trying to force negotiations at the wrong phase of the cycle seems likely (to me) to make relations even worse. A process doomed to failure will just annoy both sides?
The counter-argument to that is that if it saves a single life, then it's worth trying?
I don't know what the trigger might be for Mearsheimer's implied 'sweet spot', but I'd guess something like the loss of a major city, and I mean major, so not the large towns left in Donbas, but a proper city like Kharkhov or Dnepropetrovsk or Nikolaev. As those aren't on Russia's demand list (yet), we may never arrive at the sweet spot for negotiations, because we may first arrive at Russia deciding that it's "job done".
I don't see this NOT going into 2026.
Ian's right, talking stands a better chance of ending the war, today, than on the battlefield, but only if the Ukrainians offer the three immortal words: "We give up."
I think Putin is more focussed on a US reset and marginalising Europe. If you only think about the basic calculus of war, then you might be right. But stepping back, aside from shackling NATO, conquering Ukraine isn't Putin's top priority, in my opinion.
"conquering Ukraine isn't Putin's top priority, in my opinion"
Agreed, 100%
Not only does he have no interest in going to the Polish border, I have no doubt he doesn't even want to go beyond the 4 + Crimea, so all these differing reports from yesterday of 5 + 1 or 6 + 1 or 8 + 1 are to a large extent idle threats, though I can imagine he will want buffer zones carved out of at least Sumy and Kharkhov. Dnepro is best left alone as it is one of the most historical Ukrainian oblasts/provinces as far as I can see. I'm far from convinced that Russia has any real interest in Dnepro but we'll see...
I wonder will Putin live to regret subsuming Zapo and Kherson into Russia. At the time it made sense. But three years later, it looks like a rod for his own back (and Russia's). I wonder will it go down in history as a misstep.
Given a time machine, I suspect he might go back and undo that move.
DPR and LPR are clearly non-negotiable and Russia isn't going home until they've got every single blade of grass, in my opinion. I also think there are parts of Kharkhov that they want back and will fight until they have them.
I don't see how Putin extricates himself from the Zapo and Kherson conundrum, assuming it is a conundrum, in order for him to be able to offer something to Trump in exchange for Trump giving Putin everything else.
Maybe a landing zone might be 2 + 1 (DPR, LPR, Crimea) and then line of contact everywhere else.
I imagine you're right: on balance, knocking this whole thing on the head (on the basis of the above para) would likely be more beneficial to Russia in the long term than being bothered seizing what's left of Kherson and Zapo.
The main target should be a piece of paper that assigns neutral status to Ukraine in the way Austria has it (I believe), but the problem is that the West is so untrustworthy that even if such an agreement were ratified at the UN, Russia knows that it is effectively worthless. The West does what it wants.
As such, is a US reset really worth much to Russia at all, given it will only last Trump's presidency (at best)?
I'd rather have the territory than a piece of paper that can be torn up, but the main benefit to Russia wrapping this up as soon as possible is that it is damaging their demographics. This is the only thing the West is succeeding at. A war of attrition works on both sides, unfortunately. Both are losers.
Given the choice of a wee bit of extra territory in Zapo and Kherson, or preserving my country's demographics, I'd be leaning towards the latter.
I think the Russians wanted Kherson and Zaporizhzhia to provide that much needed 'land bridge' to Crimea, which prevents the Ukrainians from pulling more stunts like cutting the water off from Crimean like they did previously. I would imagine that they also wanted to create more of a buffer zone between Ukraine and the 1991 border, if you look at a map somewhere like Mariupol is very close to a major Russian military town in Rostov-on-Don, so taking that whole southern part of Ukraine makes good sense.
Agreed. I’d also like to say, that whilst I despise Zelensky more than I can say (he has been highly instrumental in destroying his country, and killing off 100,000s of its male pollution) and hold Azov, Right Sektor, and the other scum as beneath contempt, the ordinary people of Ukraine (like ordinary people everywhere) deserve the chance of a decent life. Another year or two for the RF to achieve something close to unconditional surrender, will be very hard yards for them. 😞
Michael Lynch: I also believe that everything you say is the truth, and agree entirely with the logical conclusions you draw: stay open to negotiations, stick firmly to the objectives for the SMO, and maybe pick up a few more as the opportunity arises, and just ignore the foolish antics of Zelensky, Trump, and the European compradors. But, in the meantime continue the military pressure until the Ukrainian military is destroyed, NATOs defeat is glaringly obvious to even the most addicted kool-aid imbibers, and the only decision makers on the future fate of rump Ukraine are in Moscow. I have believed from the beginning of the SMO, that what is at stake here is not only the future of the RF, but the fate of The Empire itself - the success of the former, is the kicking open of the door that will hasten the collapse of the rotten structure of the latter. I just hope and pray that we are both correct about the condition of the RF in Spring 2025. 🤞
Will the literal blood cousin to George Soros, notorious Rothschild agent, shut up? (Smile!) Of course not, as Ian easily knows. Whatever momentum develops, Zelenskyy's well-paid puppet negotiating team are politely forcing the hidden imperialism of the WEF globalists complete with Cancel (Russian) Culture, George Soros' LGBTQ "Open Society," and the Trump-supporting Blackrock CEO Larry Fink/s Saul Alinsky agenda which is, "Bring all to rubble and rebuild." Putin knows well the hidden imperialism of the Zelenskyy negotiating team, designed not to strengthen Ukrainian nationalism but to further destroy it. Why do people around the world believe for one minute that the leftist globalist-serving Jew, Zelenskyy, is for one minute a Nazi? It's because his blood cousin Soros, his mentor, played the very same trick in WWII: That is, to be an overt Nazi as a cover and smokescreen, while actually a closet Communist. This is incredible deception that the Russian media has been, wittingly or unwittingly, forced to go along with, probably at the demands of the Jewish Russian oligarchy.
Putin knows Trump loves big occasions and to be "the first" to do something, if they get close to a deal then I am certain Putin will offer a full State Visit to Trump with a big parade in Red Square, making him the first US President to visit Moscow since Obama in 2009, and that was for private meetings, not a full State Visit. Who knows what Donald may agree to once he sees all those tanks and Oreshniks?
Russian realism recognises that any deal brokered by U.S. lasts only until it is broken. This is the context in which Lavrov and co. are operating - and they are shrewd operators. They also know that China's support is opportunistic and will last only as long as it helps weaken U.S. and NATO. And they know that the EU's quest for relevance may lead to something drastic. So medium term I am not very hopeful for a lasting peace. The multipolar positioning will need to work itself out further to achieve a more stable equilibrium.
I disagree, China's support is not opportunistic at all, they know that when the Americans have finished with Russia that they will be coming for them, it makes absolute sense to help the Russians as much as they can without upsetting the apple cart too much. Xi's presence in Red Square on May 9th was hugely significant.
I agree that Xi's presence on May 9th was highly significant. That does not mean that China and Russia are natural allies - they never have been. Kissinger showed how easily you could drive a wedge between the two. And China's unrestricted warfare against the U.S. is just kicking into high gear. BRICS is a stepping stone for China's quest for global domination (2049 plan) and Russia is just a useful accomplice for now. Will be watching closely how this plays out.
Indeed, history shows us that they are not "natural" allies, but that is not the same thing as their current support for Russia being merely opportunistic. Their support for Russia makes perfect strategic sense, the Americans are trying to screw the Russians in Ukraine and put the Chinese in a box to stop or at least slow their growth, therefore it makes sense for China and Russia to work together to stop the Americans achieving those goals. I am not at all convinced that China wants to achieve "global domination" as Mearsheimer says, they want to be the biggest dog in their backyard of Asia Pacific and Central Asia, but they have always been a 'stay at home' power, not an expansionist one like the Europeans were or the Americans now are. Of course, Belt and Road and BRICS are part of China expanding her global influence, but that is a very different approach to that of the Americans who do so via both military and commercial means.
Yeah, I am a bit more hawkish on China. And remember the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact; a calculated time saver looking west. I see the same tactic by Russia now looking east. As for US, yes, for sure they have made their own bed with interventionist policy and now have to lie in it.
It was reported that Zelenskii has previously passed a law that no Ukrainian official, including himself, is allowed to negotiate with the Russian regime.
Thus any agreements or conclusions reached would be illegal and non-binding for Ukraine.
The Russian Delegation ended the encounter as fruitless, what we all expected, at least I didn't
if the war ends the International Trials in Moscow will as Maria Zakharova announced.
All the trials announced by Kallas that they know will go knowhere because the Russians have
being collecting material evidence of each case of attacks. (Only following Patrick Lancaster you can see Militar Police taking declaration , photos, and rest of occidental material. It's only that, or they are also following the traffic of children, organs, blood arms?
The behaviour of Starmer is embarrassing. Huge cuts at home while sending billions to Ukraine with no material explanation as to why apart from 'we support Ukraine'. What is the Ukrainian strategic significance to the UK?
Almost no strategic significance.
It's purely for domestic political purposes to try and wedge Reform - but it appears to be backfiring because many Britons feel he is spending way too much time on foreign policy and far too little time in fixing the UK.
The spirit of the age is now the "flip flop." "Flip flops" expertly crafted by the Tavistock minded then scripted, based on globalist amoral and post-modern world view, ultimately designed to de-stabilize and de-nationalize Profiteering at every level. No historical precedent for the scope of this. God help us.
Excellent summary (as always!); very good Ian! I have but one comment. As stated in the article:
Russia’s decision in October 2022 to formally annex the four oblasts of Kherson, Zaporizhzhia, Donetsk, and Luhansk changed the calculus. However, Russia does not have full territorial control of any of those oblasts, which are cut through the middle by a hotly contested front line.
Current estimates for the level of occupation of Khersonskaya, Zaparozhskaya and Donetskaya oblasts are 70% for each, although the percentage for the latter is increasing by the day. As for Luganskaya oblast, I saw two days ago that it is 99,5% occupied.
Of course, there is also territory presently occupied in Kharkovskaya and Sumskaya oblasts.
I just checked the local media again and as of the 18th of April, Donetskaya oblast (the most active area) was 80% occupied (from the Russian perspective, 80% has been liberated).
https://www.gazeta.ru/army/news/2025/04/18/25589684.shtml?ysclid=maqhbdw83u374458283
I don't disagree with any of that, Dmitriy. But the Ukrainians aren't going to give up towns it still occupies such as Slaviansk and Kramatorsk, without a fight or as part of any peace deal, it seems to me.
Yes. The WEF will continue to use Ukrainian nationalism to destroy Ukrainian nationalism, always the plan since the beginning of the conflict. It is well documented that before 2022, social engineers calibrated this conflict would have a 6-to-1 attrition rate, in favor of Russia, which Col. Douglas MacGregor has pointed out. Meanwhile, the hundreds of billions sent to Ukraine, thus far, are largely unaccountable, as Ukraine has been used for money laundering for years, and now this is the peak experience: Part funneled back to the MI Complex, part bequeathed to Zelenskyy's mansions, and part expertly channeled to the Zelenskyy/Soros ethnic Ukrainian ilk in control there (I have the list here with photos of this comment section could be configured for uploading photos.)
Simplicius (also on Substack) has many times provided evidence of the attrition rate (by virtue of the monthly exchange of military bodies between Russia and the Ukraine) being in excess of 10:1. Today’s exchange (the 16th of May) was 909 to the Ukraine for 34 to Russia. In April, it was 909 to the Ukraine for 42 to Russia. That is more than 25:1.
Yes, I have also made that point, having looked at the various body exchanges orchestrated by the UAE. The caveat, of course, is that Russia is generally advancing so is more likely to recover Ukrainian bodies. Nevertheless, I agree Ukraine appears to be suffering higher attrition, despite the spin and censorship.
Good to know. Col. Douglas MacGregor on Judge Napolitano has given the attrition rate of 6-to-1 favoring Russia several times. Clearly, Zelenskyy used Ukrainian nationalism to destroy Ukrainian nationalism, knowing full well these attrition-rate projections in advance.
Apologies, over 20:1.
Ian, I just wanted to point out that the front line isn’t really “cut through the middle”, but in some cases right along the border (Luganskaya) or in Donetskaya closer and closer to the border. Yes, ultimately the last major cities will be Kramatorsk and Slavyansk, perhaps even this summer. It has been to date a long, grinding process, but Russia is fully prepared to go to the end.
Yes of course, and I can see that. I was talking figuratively, but you are correct. I doubt that Russia could conquer both cities by this summer, but it's an academic point. I'm hoping for peace, which is also academic, of course.
If Zelensky was rational (and/or free to make rational choices) the war would have ended in 2022, if not sooner.
Indeed
So few words written, and so much truth stated.
You're very kind.
The fact that these talks are even happening is a geopolitical pivot in itself. For years, Ukraine has functioned as the frontline of a broader power contest, its posture shaped less by sovereign calculus and more by external incentives and pressures. Now, with the U.S. finally pushing for direct negotiations, the dynamic is shifting.
The reality is simple: wars end when power centers decide the costs outweigh the benefits. Russia has the upper hand on the battlefield. Ukraine no longer enjoys unshakable Western backing, and Trump’s team, however controversial, understands that endless conflict serves no strategic U.S. interest.
The optics of peace may still be messy; but behind closed doors, the logic of power is asserting itself.
Ken Starmer ?
Sorry, it’s my new name for him. I think it’s the hair.
Brilliant!
Ken Starmer is brilliant in its own right
though I'm sticking with Clint Starmer, mainly as it allows me to shoehorn John Healey into the Eli Wallach role as ... Healey Wallach
the trio rounded off with Lammy van Cleef
I’m chuckling. Lammy as van Cleef - in his own mind, probably.
When discussing Mr. Starmer the great John Mearsheimer always calls him "Keith Starmer" which is hilarious given that it shows how little known Starmer actually is outside of the UK.
For the war to end, it requires US to withdraw military, logistical & intelligence support.
Istanbul - no real progress, a prisoner exchange - but that’s about it.
Russia will turn up the military pain dial now. The timing of Mordvichev’s appointment as Commander of Russian Ground Forces was no coincidence.
I'm going to make a wild prediction that the Russians stick steadfastly to their position/guns, so do the Ukrainians, Steve will say the Russians are willing to negotiate, Marco will insist on the Cornflakes Ultimatum (starring Jason Cornflakes), and the Ewok will fly to Trabzon and jump up and down and bang his ewok stick on the floor and insist that Putin is too scared to meet him.
Trump will tell TruthSocial he's ecstatic while simultaneously telling NeoconNews he's furious.
And then they'll all go home.
I am ashamed of the way the British press is describing what is happening in Istanbul, as it is approaching the usual shameful Russian models. In a world where every sneeze leaves an electronic trail, everything comes down to interpretation. I see less and less journalism and more and more propaganda. I once dreamed that the Russians would learn good things from you, but instead, you have learned bad things from us.
Your role, Ian, is priceless, and I hope that one day it will be appreciated as the very onion of Dostoevsky (прича о луковке), for which any sinner can be dragged out of hell.
SKY media is appealing. Worse than BBC and that is surprising.
Indeed. I don't know who the winner is, everyone is running very fast in this shameful race.
Oops appaling!
Ian: Your experience makes you far more knowledgable than humble little me. I’m genuinely puzzled however, as to why you take this so called ‘peace process’ seriously? In reminds me of the Israel/Palestine peace process, at least in terms of its utter unreality. For Russia, it makes sense to go along with this obvious charade, to keep China and the global south on board for them, but they must know that none of their core demands can be met by negotiation at this early stage. Let’s go through them…… No NATO: Whatever Ukraine or the US scribble on a piece of paper is worthless. Both countries have a recent history of breaking agreements they have signed, and even as the Russian team kicks its heels in Istanbul, western leaders are saying out loud that the path to NATO membership is irreversible. Kellogg told European leaders recently that even if Trump agrees to no NATO now, a future president could just flip it in a heartbeat. It won’t be in a treaty, because congress would never ratify one. The 4 oblasts plus Crimea: This is now Russian sovereign territory (according to the RF constitution). The US, Europe, and rump Ukraine are never going to agree to recognise these territories de jure, and Ukraine will never voluntarily agree (at this time) to vacate them. Russia on the other hand, will never accept a Ukrainian presence on 1sq metre of what they regard as occupied Russian land, and they have the clear military capacity to clear them out, at greater cost to Ukraine than to Russia. De-militarisation: Russia will not agree to Ukraine maintaining a sizeable military, and continuing to be armed and trained by NATO. Ukraine & USA will not, at this time, agree disarmament. De-Nazification: Can Russia agree to the continuance of a regime on its borders with a more entrenched and widely established Nazi component now, than it had back in 2022, let alone in 2014 when this crisis first came to a head - a rather obvious no seems the answer. Protection for Russian speakers in rump Ukraine: See de-Nazification above. All the above have been Russian objectives since the start of the SMO, repeated ad nauseam by RF officials from Putin down. Why would Russia abandon any of them now, when they hold all the cards, and it’s just a matter of time till the Ukrainian army collapses. Why would Russia allow itself to be ensnared in the preposterous Kellogg ‘plan’, which they know is just a means to freeze the war, stop the RF advancing, and give the Ukraine time to take a desperately needed breather and re-arm, to pick up the conflict another time, when it might be more favourable for them? To turn to Ukraine, why would Zelensky accept any of Russias conditions for ending the war, when to do so means swinging on the end of a rope in Kiev, and to not do so will likely have no negative consequences - the US is going to walk away? C’mon, really? Why would the Ukrainian oligarchy, security establishment, and military command agree to anything, when the grift is so beneficial to them, and a peaceful rump Ukraine, with a destroyed economy and a dire demographic, is not. To me, there is an air of total unreality to these proceedings. Sadly, I think Russia will need to continue administering a severe beatdown to Ukraine until it is prostrate on the canvas, and fully divested of its illusions and narratives. At that point, Russia gets all its conditions satisfied. I can’t see any other way it can possibly end…….. unless of course, Russia is considerably weaker than I have understood to be the case, and it also needs a timeout to rebuild. I suppose if nothing else, these ‘peace negotiations’ will clarify that.
Who said I take it seriously? It's important, but it's not imperfect. But right now, talking stands a better chance of ending the war than where we're at on the battlefield.
"…….. unless of course, Russia is considerably weaker than I have understood to be the case, and it also needs a timeout to rebuild."
The entire premise of this proxy war has been to weaken Russia. That Anglo-American effort—courtesy of the CIA and MI6—has failed spectacularly. Once again, the so-called "Western intelligence experts" have underestimated Russia. Hitler famously claimed the USSR would crumble with a single kick to the door. NATO seems to have adopted the same fantasy—that the Russian Federation remains the same hollow, broken shell it was in 1992 after the Soviet collapse. They were wrong then, and they’re wrong now.
For Russia, any so-called "time out" would merely give Ukraine and the West a chance to regroup and rearm. It would be Minsk all over again—and everyone in the Kremlin remembers exactly how that played out. No one in Moscow is foolish or naive enough to fall for that twice. The Russian economy is stronger, public support for Putin remains solid, "crippling Western sanctions" have flopped, and Russian industry is now outproducing the entire NATO alliance in arms manufacturing. By every strategic measure, Russia holds the initiative—and it certainly should not let up at this point in time.
Western “high-tech” weaponry is being matched—and often outclassed—by Russian systems, despite decades of CIA "experts" assurances that Russian arms were outdated and ineffective. U.S. policy toward Russia seems rooted in the delusion that Russians excel only at making and drinking vodka. On the ground, Russia adapts swiftly—tactically and logistically—to the evolving battlefield, especially with drones and unmanned systems. Strategically and operationally, there is no sign Russia needs a “time out.” Alternative media analysts, including Col. Douglas Macgregor, highlight a staggering kill ratio: five or six Ukrainian soldiers lost for every Russian casualty—losses the AFU simply cannot sustain. The material attrition is even worse—armor, artillery, and equipment are being destroyed or worn out far faster than they can be replaced or repaired. NATO’s “best” stockpiles are nearly exhausted, and many EU states in the so-called “Coalition of the Willing” now openly admit they have nothing left to give.
Despite early missteps and miscalculations, the Russian Federation should—and appears willing to—press on relentlessly toward its objectives, unless Ukraine finds the courage to defy Zelensky's Western puppet masters and end this futile charade of a war. Nothing else will spare the Ukrainian people from the crushing, inevitable defeat barreling toward them—no matter how many speeches, sanctions, or crates of second-hand weapons the West lobs in their direction. The USA and EU remain pathologically incapable of admitting that this proxy war is yet another failure in its long tradition of disastrous misadventures—Vietnam redux. Even the EU elites—drunk on delusion and the indulgences Zelensky is all too eager to provide—can’t escape the obvious truth: Ukraine is living on borrowed time.
Ian: But talking now doesn’t stand a snowballs chance of ending the war, because the conditions in Ukraine are not right for that. Russia is winning the war, and surely their victory on the battlefield is now, at this time, the only possible way to end the war - given each sides position, and how far apart those positions are. Would Imperial Germany have given up the war, before the Hinderburg line had been broken?
If Ian were to propose finishing the war on the battlefield we'd have to strip him of his world champ's peacemonger belt (not sure if it's WBA, WBC or a newfangled one) and we wouldn't want that would we ;-)
But I agree with you, as what you are saying is exactly what Mearsheimer has been saying for a long time – and which I'm prone to repeating like a parrot – which is that negotiations can only succeed when the conditions exist for them to succeed, and given Ukraine is not on its knees yet, and Russia is still only making 'modest' gains, the conditions under which a peace negotiation can succeed look a long way off.
Trying to force negotiations at the wrong phase of the cycle seems likely (to me) to make relations even worse. A process doomed to failure will just annoy both sides?
The counter-argument to that is that if it saves a single life, then it's worth trying?
I don't know what the trigger might be for Mearsheimer's implied 'sweet spot', but I'd guess something like the loss of a major city, and I mean major, so not the large towns left in Donbas, but a proper city like Kharkhov or Dnepropetrovsk or Nikolaev. As those aren't on Russia's demand list (yet), we may never arrive at the sweet spot for negotiations, because we may first arrive at Russia deciding that it's "job done".
I don't see this NOT going into 2026.
Ian's right, talking stands a better chance of ending the war, today, than on the battlefield, but only if the Ukrainians offer the three immortal words: "We give up."
I think Putin is more focussed on a US reset and marginalising Europe. If you only think about the basic calculus of war, then you might be right. But stepping back, aside from shackling NATO, conquering Ukraine isn't Putin's top priority, in my opinion.
"conquering Ukraine isn't Putin's top priority, in my opinion"
Agreed, 100%
Not only does he have no interest in going to the Polish border, I have no doubt he doesn't even want to go beyond the 4 + Crimea, so all these differing reports from yesterday of 5 + 1 or 6 + 1 or 8 + 1 are to a large extent idle threats, though I can imagine he will want buffer zones carved out of at least Sumy and Kharkhov. Dnepro is best left alone as it is one of the most historical Ukrainian oblasts/provinces as far as I can see. I'm far from convinced that Russia has any real interest in Dnepro but we'll see...
I wonder will Putin live to regret subsuming Zapo and Kherson into Russia. At the time it made sense. But three years later, it looks like a rod for his own back (and Russia's). I wonder will it go down in history as a misstep.
Given a time machine, I suspect he might go back and undo that move.
DPR and LPR are clearly non-negotiable and Russia isn't going home until they've got every single blade of grass, in my opinion. I also think there are parts of Kharkhov that they want back and will fight until they have them.
I don't see how Putin extricates himself from the Zapo and Kherson conundrum, assuming it is a conundrum, in order for him to be able to offer something to Trump in exchange for Trump giving Putin everything else.
Maybe a landing zone might be 2 + 1 (DPR, LPR, Crimea) and then line of contact everywhere else.
I imagine you're right: on balance, knocking this whole thing on the head (on the basis of the above para) would likely be more beneficial to Russia in the long term than being bothered seizing what's left of Kherson and Zapo.
The main target should be a piece of paper that assigns neutral status to Ukraine in the way Austria has it (I believe), but the problem is that the West is so untrustworthy that even if such an agreement were ratified at the UN, Russia knows that it is effectively worthless. The West does what it wants.
As such, is a US reset really worth much to Russia at all, given it will only last Trump's presidency (at best)?
I'd rather have the territory than a piece of paper that can be torn up, but the main benefit to Russia wrapping this up as soon as possible is that it is damaging their demographics. This is the only thing the West is succeeding at. A war of attrition works on both sides, unfortunately. Both are losers.
Given the choice of a wee bit of extra territory in Zapo and Kherson, or preserving my country's demographics, I'd be leaning towards the latter.
I think the Russians wanted Kherson and Zaporizhzhia to provide that much needed 'land bridge' to Crimea, which prevents the Ukrainians from pulling more stunts like cutting the water off from Crimean like they did previously. I would imagine that they also wanted to create more of a buffer zone between Ukraine and the 1991 border, if you look at a map somewhere like Mariupol is very close to a major Russian military town in Rostov-on-Don, so taking that whole southern part of Ukraine makes good sense.
Agreed. I’d also like to say, that whilst I despise Zelensky more than I can say (he has been highly instrumental in destroying his country, and killing off 100,000s of its male pollution) and hold Azov, Right Sektor, and the other scum as beneath contempt, the ordinary people of Ukraine (like ordinary people everywhere) deserve the chance of a decent life. Another year or two for the RF to achieve something close to unconditional surrender, will be very hard yards for them. 😞
Michael Lynch: I also believe that everything you say is the truth, and agree entirely with the logical conclusions you draw: stay open to negotiations, stick firmly to the objectives for the SMO, and maybe pick up a few more as the opportunity arises, and just ignore the foolish antics of Zelensky, Trump, and the European compradors. But, in the meantime continue the military pressure until the Ukrainian military is destroyed, NATOs defeat is glaringly obvious to even the most addicted kool-aid imbibers, and the only decision makers on the future fate of rump Ukraine are in Moscow. I have believed from the beginning of the SMO, that what is at stake here is not only the future of the RF, but the fate of The Empire itself - the success of the former, is the kicking open of the door that will hasten the collapse of the rotten structure of the latter. I just hope and pray that we are both correct about the condition of the RF in Spring 2025. 🤞
Will the literal blood cousin to George Soros, notorious Rothschild agent, shut up? (Smile!) Of course not, as Ian easily knows. Whatever momentum develops, Zelenskyy's well-paid puppet negotiating team are politely forcing the hidden imperialism of the WEF globalists complete with Cancel (Russian) Culture, George Soros' LGBTQ "Open Society," and the Trump-supporting Blackrock CEO Larry Fink/s Saul Alinsky agenda which is, "Bring all to rubble and rebuild." Putin knows well the hidden imperialism of the Zelenskyy negotiating team, designed not to strengthen Ukrainian nationalism but to further destroy it. Why do people around the world believe for one minute that the leftist globalist-serving Jew, Zelenskyy, is for one minute a Nazi? It's because his blood cousin Soros, his mentor, played the very same trick in WWII: That is, to be an overt Nazi as a cover and smokescreen, while actually a closet Communist. This is incredible deception that the Russian media has been, wittingly or unwittingly, forced to go along with, probably at the demands of the Jewish Russian oligarchy.
Putin knows Trump loves big occasions and to be "the first" to do something, if they get close to a deal then I am certain Putin will offer a full State Visit to Trump with a big parade in Red Square, making him the first US President to visit Moscow since Obama in 2009, and that was for private meetings, not a full State Visit. Who knows what Donald may agree to once he sees all those tanks and Oreshniks?
Russian realism recognises that any deal brokered by U.S. lasts only until it is broken. This is the context in which Lavrov and co. are operating - and they are shrewd operators. They also know that China's support is opportunistic and will last only as long as it helps weaken U.S. and NATO. And they know that the EU's quest for relevance may lead to something drastic. So medium term I am not very hopeful for a lasting peace. The multipolar positioning will need to work itself out further to achieve a more stable equilibrium.
I disagree, China's support is not opportunistic at all, they know that when the Americans have finished with Russia that they will be coming for them, it makes absolute sense to help the Russians as much as they can without upsetting the apple cart too much. Xi's presence in Red Square on May 9th was hugely significant.
I agree that Xi's presence on May 9th was highly significant. That does not mean that China and Russia are natural allies - they never have been. Kissinger showed how easily you could drive a wedge between the two. And China's unrestricted warfare against the U.S. is just kicking into high gear. BRICS is a stepping stone for China's quest for global domination (2049 plan) and Russia is just a useful accomplice for now. Will be watching closely how this plays out.
Indeed, history shows us that they are not "natural" allies, but that is not the same thing as their current support for Russia being merely opportunistic. Their support for Russia makes perfect strategic sense, the Americans are trying to screw the Russians in Ukraine and put the Chinese in a box to stop or at least slow their growth, therefore it makes sense for China and Russia to work together to stop the Americans achieving those goals. I am not at all convinced that China wants to achieve "global domination" as Mearsheimer says, they want to be the biggest dog in their backyard of Asia Pacific and Central Asia, but they have always been a 'stay at home' power, not an expansionist one like the Europeans were or the Americans now are. Of course, Belt and Road and BRICS are part of China expanding her global influence, but that is a very different approach to that of the Americans who do so via both military and commercial means.
Yeah, I am a bit more hawkish on China. And remember the Molotov - Ribbentrop pact; a calculated time saver looking west. I see the same tactic by Russia now looking east. As for US, yes, for sure they have made their own bed with interventionist policy and now have to lie in it.
It was reported that Zelenskii has previously passed a law that no Ukrainian official, including himself, is allowed to negotiate with the Russian regime.
Thus any agreements or conclusions reached would be illegal and non-binding for Ukraine.
The Russian Delegation ended the encounter as fruitless, what we all expected, at least I didn't
if the war ends the International Trials in Moscow will as Maria Zakharova announced.
All the trials announced by Kallas that they know will go knowhere because the Russians have
being collecting material evidence of each case of attacks. (Only following Patrick Lancaster you can see Militar Police taking declaration , photos, and rest of occidental material. It's only that, or they are also following the traffic of children, organs, blood arms?
Your Patagonian-Spanish follower
This conflict will be decided on the battlefield.