Trump’s negotiating strategy is to “escalate to-de-escalate” in a very risky attempt to coerce concessions, which he might soon apply against Putin after being emboldened by its success with Iran.
If Trump said that the deployment of French and British troops to Ukraine will not create problems for Russia, then the Alaska summit was a complete failure as I am sure he was told very clearly there that this would be unacceptable to Russia. Moreover, Trump’s strategy of “escalating to deescalate” has not worked in Iran. Yes, he has dangerously escalated the conflict in Iran by bombing those nuclear sites, but has not obtained any concessions from the Iranians. On the contrary, Iran’s stance has hardened. It has stopped negotiating with the US, and is not letting the IAEA back into the country.
Any interaction or engagement with Putin emboldens Trump. The phone calls, the meetings. Putin made a big mistake meeting with him and many saw it coming. Sure, it has delayed the imposition of secondary sanctions, but make no mistake, they are coming, on top of the “security guarantees” that they are now discussing.
If you look at Trump as someone whom muddies the water to stun all other fish thus catch his prey easier, you may see that what Trump says is a matter of moment. What matters is what Trump wants.
Good thing with him is that he negotiates. It looks as a roller-coaster but effectively world is a much safer place than with Biden hologram in WH. For now though.
Uh, were you in a coma in 2020?? First China unleashed the Covid bioweapon into America and after Trump failed to retaliate and then after the election we came the closest ever to nuclear war as Milley committed treason to head it off by siding with China over Trump.
Trump thinks he’s the world’s “biggest, meanest junkyard dog.” He’s not. He has declared a tariff war on the whole world, which makes him hated by every other country. At home, increasing numbers of his “MAGA base” are abandoning him, too. His narcissism makes him his own worst enemy.
Because he does not involve Congress in his moves, either domestically or internationally, his orders are temporary and illusory. Just like Biden rolling back all of the Trump 1.0 accomplishments, so Trump 2.0 accomplishments will be gone soon after he leaves.
The funniest moment of the first Trump term was when Trump looked like Patty Hearst reading McMaster’s speech to stay in Afghanistan. Trump eventually grew a pair of 🥜 and stood up to the Military Industrial Complex and surrendered to the Taliban….but we lost an additional 60 troops in Afghanistan.
"Hypothetically" Russia could give up and go home, but I give the chances of that happening about the same as allowing any NATU presence in Ukraine. Simply not worth discussing.
IMHO the first NATO-flagged unit and/or warplane to enter Ukraine will be DOA and spectacularly so to ensure no more follow.
We've been hearing that one for almost four years now.
Of course, it beggars the imagination that nobody in the Pentagon, nobody in Whitehall, nobody in Hexagon Balard, nobody could take the politicians aside and tell them that they should stop letting their mouths write checks that their asses cannot cash.
And of course the generals are very good at getting their message out if the politicians will not listen.
None? I'd need to see the receipts for that, not to mention that one doesn't even need to be a general, if commentators on the internet apparently know, even if nobody in office apparently does.
Anyway, since the beginning of this war, we've been assured that NATO is out of everything from catnip to burrito coverings, yet they only escalate. (We hear the same about Russia, but Russia isn't the issue here.(
C'mon, the escalation has several driving factors:
1. They do in fact run out of one weapon and are forced to use another.
2. Weapons they do have prove ineffective so they substitute.
3. As noted previously, they keep losing and are clamoring for any advantage.
You never hear about quantity solutions vs. quality because they simply don't have the quantity to spare and they've acknowledged their patent inability to increase production significantly.
--
You could easily argue that HIMARS has been their single best weapon but how often do you hear about it anymore?
Not sure where you're going with this, but of course it's the loser that chooses to escalate in order to change their fortunes. That's obviously NOT Russia.
Russia has already eliminated a good number of NATO officers in Ukraine. I believe the Oreshnik missile demonstration destroyed a deep bunker of such back in November of 2024. And that is just one example.
Emboldened by zero friction from 1990 to 2014, they are unlikely to see the reality.
But their people do see it.
There us so little popular support for nato intervention by nato countries despite hourly brainwash, the chances of them going past the loud rattle to scare the bear are none. Putin plays that fiddle well so far by not allowing a realistic fear in the Westies populace to grow.
Of course it does. Hence the propaganda to sell every major war.
Worst thing that can happen is entering a war which requires general populace mobilisation which is followed by the videos of men in fatigue (or civilian clothes) abducting people on the streets to "volunteer" them into war effort.
For most else, it does not mater what people think. I agree.
Believe what you wish. I'm not suggesting that it's a large number. The facts will come out in the wash at the end of this, when the fog of war has burned away.
Russia, obviously, is not going to ‘give up and go home‘. But neither has it succeeded in deterring NATO from establishing a foothold in Ukraine. This raises some questions about the efficacy of its SMO to date; perhaps Russia is following the same globalist ROE (under UN aegis) that have prevented statesmen from waging and winning wars since 1945: the same rules that cause Russia to refrain from targeting critical infrastructure and so-called ‘civilian’ personnel. Maybe victory needs to be properly defined.
The issue, in my view, is that Russia has failed to prevent NATO from entering Ukraine in the first place. (After all, NATO forces have been present there for years, albeit ’unofficially’.) Moreover, given Western weakness, NATO should not be escalating *at all* right now; if anything, it should have surrendered to Russia’s terms long ago. The Ukraine is intrinsic to Russia, so the latter’s failure to stop NATO from reaching Kiev to begin with says something—like America’s failure to control its Mexican neighbor...
Globalism 101 treats nation-states, along with families, as illicit entities, denying them the means to perpetuate themselves. Both Russia and the West are saddled with the Illuminati’s ‘humanistic’ doctrine that enshrines ‘human rights’ above all else. States are no longer allowed to conduct wars, much less grant commanders the resources and leeway they need to prevail. Every conflict becomes another Korea or Vietnam, emboldening even the most unskilled challengers. So no one can prevail.
> Russia, obviously, is not going to ‘give up and go home‘. But neither has it succeeded in deterring NATO from establishing a foothold in Ukraine
You don't see an old bully just give in to a superhero ever until he's knocked out and then becomes superhero's friend.
Up to 2014 Russia was perhaps militarily capable but on all other aspects was not in a position to fight nato and it is still not ready to the full extent. US grip on world economy is way to powerful. Since 2014 they crafted aliances of mutual benefits to allow themselves to easily shake off westies financial chokehold and it works well.
This is what westies used to get some foothold in UA but not sufficient to defend their encroachment of Russia.
.
Only a year ago, westies were not discussing war ending negotiations. Winners do not negotiate end of hostilities, they just achieve them. Trump is in for a win win here. If the peace comes, he's the peacemaker. If it does not, he pulls out with enough grace blaming EuroUtopia and ukronazis for failure to see reality.
“If it does not, he pulls out with enough grace blaming EuroUtopia and ukronazis for failure to see reality.”
By all accounts a truce will involve U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine via the EU, which will pay for them. So while not sending its own troops (at least overtly), the U.S. has committed to Europe’s Article V-like arrangement, implying Ukraine’s de facto NATO membership. Trump, with his minerals deal, is not ‘pulling out’ of Ukraine at all.
Russia has exhibited extraordinary patience and restraint. It could be argued early on that they really couldn't do anything more than they did, but the West didn't press their advantage and remarkably "chose the form of their destructor".
The West's epic failure here (and in Iran) will mark a major historical turning point in the global power balance that few expected when the SMO started.
While I do believe Trump is pretty intelligent, I dont believe for a moment that he is controlling US geopolitical policy or decisions about Ukraine. He is not equipped, even with a small circle of capable advisors. I suspect deep state advisers within western intel agencies plus the MIC are directing the path froward.
After following Andrew for a few years, listening to Brian Berletic and other analysts closely, I think this blog piece does a great job of capturing and summarizing what is really going on:
It is clear none of us has any agency in deciding what will happen. The best we can do is seek to understand the risks of collateral damage to ourselves and to mitigate risks that are too high to accept, if possible.
As we traverse these birthing pangs of the multipolar world order, we all need to hope/pray that the real decision makers avoid nuclear war.
I’m surprised Putin would allow the NATO nations peace keeping forces. This basically has Ukraine in NATO. If he agrees to it then I kinda shows he just wanted that region all along and is satisfied with what his incursion has done. I have always wondered why he didn’t just blitzkrieg right to Kiev and call it a day. I fully believe he could have done it. There have been huge losses of life for both sides and it’s possible he finally sees this but it’s still a bit shocking he’s allowing Ukraine into NATO without there being a formal recognition of it. There were things spoken in that meeting we didn’t get the memo on for sure.
Putin did not “allow” NATO peacekeeping forces in Ukraine. Trump said he did, but the Kremlin denies that. Trump makes up lies to further his narrative, as if saying so makes it so.
Witkoff is a grade A moron…he has the job because the Trump administration doesn’t care about secure communications or FOIA and he can read Signal and parrot what he believes his orders are.
I believe Putin's 1st move (Feb '22) towards Kiev was a warning but it was a clumsy manoeuvre that the Ukrainians strongly reacted to. Putin will not agree to European (NATO) troops as peace keepers after a cease fire - once NATO is officially in they won't leave so Putin's only option is to escalate and destroy them. That means game on - including USA!
The US will never put boots on the ground and will continue to sell US arms that Europe will buy and send to the Ukraine. Trump will NEVER send a US serviceman there to die and risk WWIII.
He did "blitzkrieg right to Kiev," and failed impressively. Lucky for the invaders Ukraine didn't have adequate weaponry to annihilate the retreating, mud-mired columns February 1991 Highway of Death style.
Russian troops held about 27% of Ukrainian territory at the end of February 2022. Then they took paxk territory in Kherson and Mykolaiv. Then Kharkiv, and so on to Russia holding 19% of Ukrainian territory by late 2022. Nearly 3 years later, that's at about 21%.
How many skilled workers have left Russia? How many Russian casualties? What did Finland and Sweden choose to do? Nicely done, putin!
I haven’t seen any “Russian dithering and indecision.” Unlike Trump, Putin is deliberate and strategic, not prone to emotional retaliation. Trump increased tariffs on Canada in retaliation for their recognition of Palestine. He doubled the tariff on India to “punish” them for buying Russian oil. Trump is unstable. Putin is not.
True dat. The Fourth Turning predicted war on this administration’s watch (regardless of who won the election) years ago, and Martin Armstrong puts WWIII starting in 2027 or 2028.
Trump surrendered to the Taliban. And more soldiers died after Trump ordered his withdrawal from Syria than during the military operation. Trump made the correct call in Syria and Afghanistan and it’s Bolton and Cheney that attack Trump over his deal with the Taliban. I have to be careful not to call you a “Cheney Republican” because the Substack author has a zero tolerance policy on name calling and “Cheney Republican” is the worst thing I could call someone…but if you want American forces still in Afghanistan then you are a Cheney Republican! But I’m not calling you that! 😉
Suppose it's guesswork with Trump. From a wider perspective his interest in cordial relations with Putin should ensure he will be on course: Ukraine is a lost case, the Europeans are divided and incapable to make a fist. He has already shown them the Daddy-child relationship, he has agreed on the permanent peace arrangement, and more importantly obstructive Europeans and Ukraibe provides him a great way out.
Forgive me Andrew but out topic, I allow myself to ask this question I ask everywhere and absolutely nobody answer it.
Is it THE question?
Is there such cognitive dissonance in it that both pro and anti NATO are not able to answer?
Ok, I ask again:
Russia bomb and destroy for months now, factories, power plants , warehouse and we hear : 0 dead, 0 wounded.
No workers? No security or cleaning agent?
If there were deads and wounded, you could hear Ukrainian and western media shouting about this "monstrous killing of innocent civilians" and? ....nothing.
Russia invented the 0 death bombing?
If somebody have an explanation, thank to him(her).
From what I’ve read, Russia’s attacks are intended to spare human life as much as possible. For example, they recently bombed a military electronics factory in western Ukraine that was owned by an American company. Their missiles hit at 4:30 a.m., well before any workers arrived.
It's very simple. Ukraine is hiding the casualty numbers from attacks on weapons factories at a specific request of her Western allies. The same as with casualty numbers on the front. Southfront.press just quoted couple of days ago Russian hackers that have come across about 1.7Mio casualties amongst the Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian Department of Defence.
The reason is - very high casualty numbers amongst the Ukrainians will motivate Ukrainians to sue for peace and most of the voting populations in the EU to agree with that.
The situation is reversed with Gaza, where Western MSM enhance casualties by a factor of 2-3x and also try to minimize combatant losses. In both cases - in Ukraine as in Gaza - the changes are driven by PR.
What is going on is that Ukrainian state and Western allies go through every case on a case by case basis. Weapon factories are legitimate targets under International law. So it would be self-defeating to cry at losses at Ukrainian weapon factories. So you don't hear anything about that. Unless you can rename the weapon factory as a hospital or a school or a disco. Like Hamas does it in Gaza.
On the other side, you do hear tons about Ukrainian attacks on Russian weapon factories from Western MSM. This is a completely rational approach.
I think that you don't understand how these Russians think. They do not think like the Americans. Hence, there will be war. Giddy Kim of the DPRK may get the nod to send his modern MIRV solid fuel ICBMs with cobalt warheads to crash California real estate prices. You don't understand Kim's mindset. He wants to go down in history by making Trump poor. To a billionaire, being poor is a fate worse than death.
I think this scenario has been evident for months. During talks the Trump administration *never* pressed Ukraine to withdraw from the five regions Russia claims. The U.S. offered Russia only *de facto* recognition of the areas it *currently* controls, in effect hoping to make the LoC a border. Notably Russia has not insisted that Ukrainian withdrawal precondition peace. Instead, its demand is that Ukraine withdraw at an indefinite point, either before or after a truce. This point, to me, seems quite significant. (The very fact that Russia is negotiating with a regime it *officially* does not recognize—and equates with Nazism—is also salient; it does not augur well for Putin.)
There are numerous reports that Russia recently offered to return a few oblasts (Kherson and Zaporizhizhia) in exchange for all of Donetsk. The Ukrainians obviously balked, but the Americans said the offer had been made, and the Russians did not issue a direct denial. In late February Trump also said on live television that Putin privately agreed to European peacekeepers in Ukraine, a setup Russia now seems likely to accept under certain terms. The long record of Russian restraint on Ukraine—from allowing Yanukovych’s deals with NATO to withdrawing from Kiev and now offering a LoC freeze—suggests Russia is weaker than the AMC thinks.
The U.S. has made clear (as Hegseth did at the end of February) that any truce will be tied to Article V-like guarantees for Ukraine, including arms sales that the EU will pay for. It will ratify Ukraine’s longstanding de facto NATO membership, while giving Kiev the opportunity to rearm. Ukraine will retain access to foreign suppliers vis-à-vis Odessa, Rzseszów, and Bukovina. NATO infrastructure will be set up along the Dnieper and westward. A deal that allows all this cannot, in my view, be judged as anything other than a setback for Russia. It implies that Ukraine’s handlers have managed to degrade Russia’s mobility and economy, or at least impose sufficient costs on the latter.
Russia’s interests are not served by recognizing the LoC as a border and allowing NATO infrastructure farther west.
Russia could also escalate to de-escalate by not agreeing to a peace treaty. Most likely outcome. It's to Russia's advantage to let the Ukraine smo drag on right now.
I think Alaska was a partial success and partial failure, in the sense Russia was evaluating whether DJT could deliver peace. And it's clear he cannot stop all the different interest groups, but he wants to make a deal.
Realistically resolving the root causes of Ukraine necessitates creating a new security architecture in Europe, but this would be the end of NATO's raison d'être. And the root cause is also connected to a brain somewhere behind the scenes controlling hands and levers in the midst or hidden behind the weird alliance of elites in Europe and America, the EU, the "deep state", the MIC, etc. When Europe agreed to the (unrealistic) trade deal, it made a deal to boost DJT's ego, but it also locked the USA into the EU.
If Trump said that the deployment of French and British troops to Ukraine will not create problems for Russia, then the Alaska summit was a complete failure as I am sure he was told very clearly there that this would be unacceptable to Russia. Moreover, Trump’s strategy of “escalating to deescalate” has not worked in Iran. Yes, he has dangerously escalated the conflict in Iran by bombing those nuclear sites, but has not obtained any concessions from the Iranians. On the contrary, Iran’s stance has hardened. It has stopped negotiating with the US, and is not letting the IAEA back into the country.
Any interaction or engagement with Putin emboldens Trump. The phone calls, the meetings. Putin made a big mistake meeting with him and many saw it coming. Sure, it has delayed the imposition of secondary sanctions, but make no mistake, they are coming, on top of the “security guarantees” that they are now discussing.
If you look at Trump as someone whom muddies the water to stun all other fish thus catch his prey easier, you may see that what Trump says is a matter of moment. What matters is what Trump wants.
Good thing with him is that he negotiates. It looks as a roller-coaster but effectively world is a much safer place than with Biden hologram in WH. For now though.
Uh, were you in a coma in 2020?? First China unleashed the Covid bioweapon into America and after Trump failed to retaliate and then after the election we came the closest ever to nuclear war as Milley committed treason to head it off by siding with China over Trump.
Um.... I think you got into wrong Substack section.
This is not the "rage, fantasy and fairytales" section.
After Alaska we thought that Trump had finally understood the Russian point of view. Apparently we were wrong.
Trump is weak, stupid and easily manipulated.
Trump thinks he’s the world’s “biggest, meanest junkyard dog.” He’s not. He has declared a tariff war on the whole world, which makes him hated by every other country. At home, increasing numbers of his “MAGA base” are abandoning him, too. His narcissism makes him his own worst enemy.
So? The only thing that matters is that his orders are obeyed.
Because he does not involve Congress in his moves, either domestically or internationally, his orders are temporary and illusory. Just like Biden rolling back all of the Trump 1.0 accomplishments, so Trump 2.0 accomplishments will be gone soon after he leaves.
So? Trump is a moron, but his orders are carried out all the same.
It's not as if Congress (utterly supine) can call the missiles back.
No, but a Federal Judge will order them returned to their silos shortly after launch. LOL
The funniest moment of the first Trump term was when Trump looked like Patty Hearst reading McMaster’s speech to stay in Afghanistan. Trump eventually grew a pair of 🥜 and stood up to the Military Industrial Complex and surrendered to the Taliban….but we lost an additional 60 troops in Afghanistan.
"Hypothetically" Russia could give up and go home, but I give the chances of that happening about the same as allowing any NATU presence in Ukraine. Simply not worth discussing.
IMHO the first NATO-flagged unit and/or warplane to enter Ukraine will be DOA and spectacularly so to ensure no more follow.
Don't kid yourself. NATO is betting that Russia does not have the stones.
Meanwhile, NATO countries are running out of missiles and ammo, while Russia slowly conquers more and more formerly Ukrainian territory.
We've been hearing that one for almost four years now.
Of course, it beggars the imagination that nobody in the Pentagon, nobody in Whitehall, nobody in Hexagon Balard, nobody could take the politicians aside and tell them that they should stop letting their mouths write checks that their asses cannot cash.
And of course the generals are very good at getting their message out if the politicians will not listen.
But this does not happen.
There are no US Generals that are soldiers these days; they're all politicians kissing ass until they can retire within the MIC.
None? I'd need to see the receipts for that, not to mention that one doesn't even need to be a general, if commentators on the internet apparently know, even if nobody in office apparently does.
Anyway, since the beginning of this war, we've been assured that NATO is out of everything from catnip to burrito coverings, yet they only escalate. (We hear the same about Russia, but Russia isn't the issue here.(
C'mon, the escalation has several driving factors:
1. They do in fact run out of one weapon and are forced to use another.
2. Weapons they do have prove ineffective so they substitute.
3. As noted previously, they keep losing and are clamoring for any advantage.
You never hear about quantity solutions vs. quality because they simply don't have the quantity to spare and they've acknowledged their patent inability to increase production significantly.
--
You could easily argue that HIMARS has been their single best weapon but how often do you hear about it anymore?
NATO hasn't shown any stones so far -- all bark and no bite. They've been threatening this for how long?
OTOH, Russia's shown zero compunction regarding targeting foreign troops in Ukraine whenever they find them, and usually with at least Iskanders.
NATO has been doing about all of the escalation in this war, emboldened by Russian impotence and irresolution.
Yes, NATO's been escalating, but that's just ongoing proof of NATO's impotence and irresolution, not Russia's.
If it were Russia escalating, you'd be saying the opposite.
Not sure where you're going with this, but of course it's the loser that chooses to escalate in order to change their fortunes. That's obviously NOT Russia.
Russia has already eliminated a good number of NATO officers in Ukraine. I believe the Oreshnik missile demonstration destroyed a deep bunker of such back in November of 2024. And that is just one example.
We keep hearing that one as well. Even if true (doubtful) it doesn't seem to stop NATO from escalating.
Emboldened by zero friction from 1990 to 2014, they are unlikely to see the reality.
But their people do see it.
There us so little popular support for nato intervention by nato countries despite hourly brainwash, the chances of them going past the loud rattle to scare the bear are none. Putin plays that fiddle well so far by not allowing a realistic fear in the Westies populace to grow.
Have you not learned, it doesn't matter what the people think or want?
Of course it does. Hence the propaganda to sell every major war.
Worst thing that can happen is entering a war which requires general populace mobilisation which is followed by the videos of men in fatigue (or civilian clothes) abducting people on the streets to "volunteer" them into war effort.
For most else, it does not mater what people think. I agree.
Believe what you wish. I'm not suggesting that it's a large number. The facts will come out in the wash at the end of this, when the fog of war has burned away.
Russia, obviously, is not going to ‘give up and go home‘. But neither has it succeeded in deterring NATO from establishing a foothold in Ukraine. This raises some questions about the efficacy of its SMO to date; perhaps Russia is following the same globalist ROE (under UN aegis) that have prevented statesmen from waging and winning wars since 1945: the same rules that cause Russia to refrain from targeting critical infrastructure and so-called ‘civilian’ personnel. Maybe victory needs to be properly defined.
The issue, in my view, is that Russia has failed to prevent NATO from entering Ukraine in the first place. (After all, NATO forces have been present there for years, albeit ’unofficially’.) Moreover, given Western weakness, NATO should not be escalating *at all* right now; if anything, it should have surrendered to Russia’s terms long ago. The Ukraine is intrinsic to Russia, so the latter’s failure to stop NATO from reaching Kiev to begin with says something—like America’s failure to control its Mexican neighbor...
Globalism 101 treats nation-states, along with families, as illicit entities, denying them the means to perpetuate themselves. Both Russia and the West are saddled with the Illuminati’s ‘humanistic’ doctrine that enshrines ‘human rights’ above all else. States are no longer allowed to conduct wars, much less grant commanders the resources and leeway they need to prevail. Every conflict becomes another Korea or Vietnam, emboldening even the most unskilled challengers. So no one can prevail.
> Russia, obviously, is not going to ‘give up and go home‘. But neither has it succeeded in deterring NATO from establishing a foothold in Ukraine
You don't see an old bully just give in to a superhero ever until he's knocked out and then becomes superhero's friend.
Up to 2014 Russia was perhaps militarily capable but on all other aspects was not in a position to fight nato and it is still not ready to the full extent. US grip on world economy is way to powerful. Since 2014 they crafted aliances of mutual benefits to allow themselves to easily shake off westies financial chokehold and it works well.
This is what westies used to get some foothold in UA but not sufficient to defend their encroachment of Russia.
.
Only a year ago, westies were not discussing war ending negotiations. Winners do not negotiate end of hostilities, they just achieve them. Trump is in for a win win here. If the peace comes, he's the peacemaker. If it does not, he pulls out with enough grace blaming EuroUtopia and ukronazis for failure to see reality.
“If it does not, he pulls out with enough grace blaming EuroUtopia and ukronazis for failure to see reality.”
By all accounts a truce will involve U.S. arms transfers to Ukraine via the EU, which will pay for them. So while not sending its own troops (at least overtly), the U.S. has committed to Europe’s Article V-like arrangement, implying Ukraine’s de facto NATO membership. Trump, with his minerals deal, is not ‘pulling out’ of Ukraine at all.
Very well stated.
Russia has exhibited extraordinary patience and restraint. It could be argued early on that they really couldn't do anything more than they did, but the West didn't press their advantage and remarkably "chose the form of their destructor".
The West's epic failure here (and in Iran) will mark a major historical turning point in the global power balance that few expected when the SMO started.
I don't accept people insulting my audience here. That's an instant ban, no second chances.
Whether a sociopath or a paid NSA troll, he had to go.
While I do believe Trump is pretty intelligent, I dont believe for a moment that he is controlling US geopolitical policy or decisions about Ukraine. He is not equipped, even with a small circle of capable advisors. I suspect deep state advisers within western intel agencies plus the MIC are directing the path froward.
After following Andrew for a few years, listening to Brian Berletic and other analysts closely, I think this blog piece does a great job of capturing and summarizing what is really going on:
https://internationalman.com/articles/the-middle-east-the-decisive-battleground-of-ww3/
It is clear none of us has any agency in deciding what will happen. The best we can do is seek to understand the risks of collateral damage to ourselves and to mitigate risks that are too high to accept, if possible.
As we traverse these birthing pangs of the multipolar world order, we all need to hope/pray that the real decision makers avoid nuclear war.
Russia just needs to get China to stop all mineral shipments to the U.S.! End of The Military Industrial Complex Weapons Production
China need much more a weakened Russia than West. China don't want that Russia loose, but win neither.
China & Russia have a mutual enemy = The U.S.
Another Great article as always
I’m surprised Putin would allow the NATO nations peace keeping forces. This basically has Ukraine in NATO. If he agrees to it then I kinda shows he just wanted that region all along and is satisfied with what his incursion has done. I have always wondered why he didn’t just blitzkrieg right to Kiev and call it a day. I fully believe he could have done it. There have been huge losses of life for both sides and it’s possible he finally sees this but it’s still a bit shocking he’s allowing Ukraine into NATO without there being a formal recognition of it. There were things spoken in that meeting we didn’t get the memo on for sure.
Putin did not “allow” NATO peacekeeping forces in Ukraine. Trump said he did, but the Kremlin denies that. Trump makes up lies to further his narrative, as if saying so makes it so.
Ok. When it’s all said and done you’ll forget you said that I’m sure.
Witkoff is a grade A moron…he has the job because the Trump administration doesn’t care about secure communications or FOIA and he can read Signal and parrot what he believes his orders are.
I believe Putin's 1st move (Feb '22) towards Kiev was a warning but it was a clumsy manoeuvre that the Ukrainians strongly reacted to. Putin will not agree to European (NATO) troops as peace keepers after a cease fire - once NATO is officially in they won't leave so Putin's only option is to escalate and destroy them. That means game on - including USA!
The US will never put boots on the ground and will continue to sell US arms that Europe will buy and send to the Ukraine. Trump will NEVER send a US serviceman there to die and risk WWIII.
Trump 2 is basically Biden’s second term but with bigger deficits! 😉
Just wait. When the Bit bonds get announced the world will be falling all over themselves to buy as many as we wish to sell. Bessent is a genius
He did "blitzkrieg right to Kiev," and failed impressively. Lucky for the invaders Ukraine didn't have adequate weaponry to annihilate the retreating, mud-mired columns February 1991 Highway of Death style.
Russian troops held about 27% of Ukrainian territory at the end of February 2022. Then they took paxk territory in Kherson and Mykolaiv. Then Kharkiv, and so on to Russia holding 19% of Ukrainian territory by late 2022. Nearly 3 years later, that's at about 21%.
How many skilled workers have left Russia? How many Russian casualties? What did Finland and Sweden choose to do? Nicely done, putin!
At best, this is a catastrophic defeat for Russia. At worst, this means WWIII. But it has long been obvious that Trump is mousetrapped.
This is the inevitable result of Russian dithering and indecision.
I haven’t seen any “Russian dithering and indecision.” Unlike Trump, Putin is deliberate and strategic, not prone to emotional retaliation. Trump increased tariffs on Canada in retaliation for their recognition of Palestine. He doubled the tariff on India to “punish” them for buying Russian oil. Trump is unstable. Putin is not.
Trump may be an imbecile, but that suits NATO plans just fine. He is well on the way to being mousetrapped into war.
True dat. The Fourth Turning predicted war on this administration’s watch (regardless of who won the election) years ago, and Martin Armstrong puts WWIII starting in 2027 or 2028.
And corruption, which meant putin's trillion dollar defense spending splurge over the preceding decade ... You know.
Prigozhin was right? Putin should have used the iron fist and wrap this thing up 2 years ago.
Are you in the secrets of gods?
Do you know everything about the context three years ago?
Can't you imagine that China and India made serious limitations?
Was Russia ready ?
I doubt it’ll go like that. The Eurocrats don’t have the money, the popular will nor the armies to send.
And Trump may flip flop but is ultimately too scared of repeating Biden in Afghanistan to commit.
Trump surrendered to the Taliban. And more soldiers died after Trump ordered his withdrawal from Syria than during the military operation. Trump made the correct call in Syria and Afghanistan and it’s Bolton and Cheney that attack Trump over his deal with the Taliban. I have to be careful not to call you a “Cheney Republican” because the Substack author has a zero tolerance policy on name calling and “Cheney Republican” is the worst thing I could call someone…but if you want American forces still in Afghanistan then you are a Cheney Republican! But I’m not calling you that! 😉
I’m opposed to US troops anywhere but American soil, and calling me slurs isnt going to change that. ;)
So why are you attacking Trump’s surrender to the Taliban??
I’m not. Trump wanted to withdraw from Afghanistan. All good and well.
But under Biden it turned into a rout, and Trump wants avoid that happening to him.
Trump surrendered to the Taliban…the fact you care about Afghanistan leads me to believe you are a Cheney Republican.
lol ok buddy
Suppose it's guesswork with Trump. From a wider perspective his interest in cordial relations with Putin should ensure he will be on course: Ukraine is a lost case, the Europeans are divided and incapable to make a fist. He has already shown them the Daddy-child relationship, he has agreed on the permanent peace arrangement, and more importantly obstructive Europeans and Ukraibe provides him a great way out.
See also my further analysis: https://leonvermeulen.substack.com/publish/posts/detail/171616559?
Forgive me Andrew but out topic, I allow myself to ask this question I ask everywhere and absolutely nobody answer it.
Is it THE question?
Is there such cognitive dissonance in it that both pro and anti NATO are not able to answer?
Ok, I ask again:
Russia bomb and destroy for months now, factories, power plants , warehouse and we hear : 0 dead, 0 wounded.
No workers? No security or cleaning agent?
If there were deads and wounded, you could hear Ukrainian and western media shouting about this "monstrous killing of innocent civilians" and? ....nothing.
Russia invented the 0 death bombing?
If somebody have an explanation, thank to him(her).
From what I’ve read, Russia’s attacks are intended to spare human life as much as possible. For example, they recently bombed a military electronics factory in western Ukraine that was owned by an American company. Their missiles hit at 4:30 a.m., well before any workers arrived.
It's very simple. Ukraine is hiding the casualty numbers from attacks on weapons factories at a specific request of her Western allies. The same as with casualty numbers on the front. Southfront.press just quoted couple of days ago Russian hackers that have come across about 1.7Mio casualties amongst the Ukrainian soldiers in the Ukrainian Department of Defence.
The reason is - very high casualty numbers amongst the Ukrainians will motivate Ukrainians to sue for peace and most of the voting populations in the EU to agree with that.
The situation is reversed with Gaza, where Western MSM enhance casualties by a factor of 2-3x and also try to minimize combatant losses. In both cases - in Ukraine as in Gaza - the changes are driven by PR.
You make confusion. You speak about military losses and indeed they hide the true number.
But each time an ukrainian civilian has a scratch on his finger you can hear médias shouting to death.
They even grow their civilian deaths and wounded.
Why should they suddendly hide tens or hundreds or thousands workers killed in russian shelling?
West médias immediatly would requière the immediate stop of "this horrible genocide of Ukrainian workers".
What is going on is that Ukrainian state and Western allies go through every case on a case by case basis. Weapon factories are legitimate targets under International law. So it would be self-defeating to cry at losses at Ukrainian weapon factories. So you don't hear anything about that. Unless you can rename the weapon factory as a hospital or a school or a disco. Like Hamas does it in Gaza.
On the other side, you do hear tons about Ukrainian attacks on Russian weapon factories from Western MSM. This is a completely rational approach.
I think that you don't understand how these Russians think. They do not think like the Americans. Hence, there will be war. Giddy Kim of the DPRK may get the nod to send his modern MIRV solid fuel ICBMs with cobalt warheads to crash California real estate prices. You don't understand Kim's mindset. He wants to go down in history by making Trump poor. To a billionaire, being poor is a fate worse than death.
I think this scenario has been evident for months. During talks the Trump administration *never* pressed Ukraine to withdraw from the five regions Russia claims. The U.S. offered Russia only *de facto* recognition of the areas it *currently* controls, in effect hoping to make the LoC a border. Notably Russia has not insisted that Ukrainian withdrawal precondition peace. Instead, its demand is that Ukraine withdraw at an indefinite point, either before or after a truce. This point, to me, seems quite significant. (The very fact that Russia is negotiating with a regime it *officially* does not recognize—and equates with Nazism—is also salient; it does not augur well for Putin.)
There are numerous reports that Russia recently offered to return a few oblasts (Kherson and Zaporizhizhia) in exchange for all of Donetsk. The Ukrainians obviously balked, but the Americans said the offer had been made, and the Russians did not issue a direct denial. In late February Trump also said on live television that Putin privately agreed to European peacekeepers in Ukraine, a setup Russia now seems likely to accept under certain terms. The long record of Russian restraint on Ukraine—from allowing Yanukovych’s deals with NATO to withdrawing from Kiev and now offering a LoC freeze—suggests Russia is weaker than the AMC thinks.
The U.S. has made clear (as Hegseth did at the end of February) that any truce will be tied to Article V-like guarantees for Ukraine, including arms sales that the EU will pay for. It will ratify Ukraine’s longstanding de facto NATO membership, while giving Kiev the opportunity to rearm. Ukraine will retain access to foreign suppliers vis-à-vis Odessa, Rzseszów, and Bukovina. NATO infrastructure will be set up along the Dnieper and westward. A deal that allows all this cannot, in my view, be judged as anything other than a setback for Russia. It implies that Ukraine’s handlers have managed to degrade Russia’s mobility and economy, or at least impose sufficient costs on the latter.
Russia’s interests are not served by recognizing the LoC as a border and allowing NATO infrastructure farther west.
Russia could also escalate to de-escalate by not agreeing to a peace treaty. Most likely outcome. It's to Russia's advantage to let the Ukraine smo drag on right now.
I think Alaska was a partial success and partial failure, in the sense Russia was evaluating whether DJT could deliver peace. And it's clear he cannot stop all the different interest groups, but he wants to make a deal.
Realistically resolving the root causes of Ukraine necessitates creating a new security architecture in Europe, but this would be the end of NATO's raison d'être. And the root cause is also connected to a brain somewhere behind the scenes controlling hands and levers in the midst or hidden behind the weird alliance of elites in Europe and America, the EU, the "deep state", the MIC, etc. When Europe agreed to the (unrealistic) trade deal, it made a deal to boost DJT's ego, but it also locked the USA into the EU.
Russia should call the bluff of the West. Backing down now is dangerous for Russia.