In President Trump’s recent spat with President Zelensky, along with a whole slew of falsehoods about the level of US funding of Ukraine and who started the war, Trump did make one true statement: prior to going into politics, Zelensky was a comedian. That is, he was an outsider to politics and to the horribly corrupt political system in Ukraine, which was relentlessly mocked in the comedy show in which he starred, Servant of the People (IMDb rating 7.3). In 2019, he fought against the corrupt oligarch-friendly Petro Poroshenko and succeeded on an anti-corruption ticket, running for a political party named after the TV show.
Whilst Donald J. Trump’s TV show The Apprentice (IMDb rating 4.7) wasn’t really a comedy, it was light entertainment (with its own running gag: “You’re fired!”) Like Zelensky, Trump used his TV fame to go into politics as an outsider, on a largely anti-corruption or ‘Drain the swamp’ ticket against notoriously corrupt opponents. And like Zelensky, Trump has had more than one person get close to assassinating him (although in his case they weren’t Russian special forces).
The similarities continue. One of Trump’s top political priorities has been to repel what he has described – arguably, quite accurately – as an “invasion” along the US’s southern border. Zelensky has found himself with an inarguably real one, along multiple axes. Both are, unquestionably, patriots.
Trump has been accused of having committed fraud, in separate legal proceedings shamelessly brought by his political opponents in order to get him out of the way. He’s also been accused of illegally trying to hang on to power. Zelensky has now faced similar accusations – sadly, from Trump – describing him as a dictator and claiming vast sums of US money have gone missing under his watch, apparently in order to get him out of the way, so he can make a “deal” with the next Ukrainian president to siphon off large chunks of Ukraine’s mineral resources.
Ukrainians are familiar with people trying to pinch Ukrainian industry and resources. That’s been the Russian plan for some time now, but it’s also been the case that Ukraine has had its share of home-grown oligarchs. One alleged grifter is Mykola Zlochevsky, former owner of Burisma Holdings Ltd, and currently wanted by the Ukrainian authorities for bribery. Trump might remember Burisma, the company that was inexplicably paying Hunter Biden large amounts of money for some kind of, erm, expertise. And he might also remember asking Zelensky to dish the dirt on the connections between Burisma and the Bidens – because his political opponents went through a rather silly process of trying to remove Trump from office because of it. Both have been essentially on the same side of trying to stop that kind of corruption.
However, while Trump and Zelenskyy are similar in many – sometimes superficial – respects, Trump has more in common with Vladimir Putin – even being effectively in league with him at this point – when it comes to his rampant mercantilism. He seems to approve of plans that would appear morally reprehensible or outright illegal if done in a private capacity – such as trying to extort $500 billion in protection money – so long as they’re done under colour of national interest. But Ukrainians have seen it all before.
Nonetheless, sometimes Trump’s mercantilist thinking is so radical as to be wildly, crazily brilliant. When I heard about his plan to turn Gaza into a holiday resort, and once I’d stopped laughing, I ended up thinking what an extraordinarily insightful and optimistic outlook it demonstrated. It’ll never work of course, but I love the fact that he said it, showing in one neat mental image just how malignantly destructive all the so-called Palestinian leaders have been for generations. No career politician or diplomat could ever possibly have said such a thing, and for this and in many other respects I’m grateful that Trump exists and won a second term. Good riddance to all the DEI nonsense, too, and I’m glad J.D. Vance said what he did in Munich.
However, for this free-market conservative it’s been Trump’s mercantilism and belief in tariffs that sticks in my craw. I’ll leave it to real economic thinkers to argue about the merits – or otherwise – of his worldview, but at the very least it lacks any consideration of anything other than dollars and cents. Trump was doubtless upset that Zelensky refused to sign some kind of legal or quasi-legal agreement to hand over Ukrainian mineral wealth, but he omits from his political calculation the fact that Ukraine has been systematically destroying Russian Soviet-era materiel to such an extent that the threat posed by Russia has been dramatically diminished for a generation – and at a cost of roughly 4% of the US defence budget, with much of that money either being spent on US arms production or being by way of loans, and thus potentially repayable by Ukraine. And US aid was certainly nothing like the $300 billion, or this week $350 billion, that he claims. But if Trump is insistent on repayment in addition to the strategic victory which is in his power to effect, loans of some sort would be the correct and legally-enforceable way to do it.
Of course, Trump is rightfully annoyed that the US has been paying for Europe’s defence for a very long time, and the savings have been used to pay for an over-indulgent welfare state – infantilising and enfeebling Europe. Trump, quite rightly, wants Europe to look after its own security, with a view to focusing on the bigger threat: China. However, he seems to forget that US security also depends on eliminating the threat from Russia and maintaining the rule of law, in particular the sanctity of national sovereignty and territorial integrity. It’s not merely coincidental that the forces of freedom and democracy are arrayed on one side, with Iran, North Korea (now a co-belligerent) and a sympathetic-but-careful communist China on the other. A defeat in Ukraine would be a defeat for the US and its allies, which would undoubtedly embolden its enemies. We’re not just talking about Taiwan or even the Philippines, but potentially South America, where China has been making inroads, and the rest of the world.
Unfortunately, the deeper problem with Trump’s approach is that he is making the same mistake that most recent US Presidents (and indeed most Western politicians) make when first dealing with Russia. Upon entering office, there tends to be an assumption that Russia just needs to be treated fairly, and it will respond in kind. The ‘Russia reset’ under Obama was a particularly lame and inept example of this. But Russia’s modus operandi is to make ludicrously maximalist demands, without ever expecting to get them and while lying through its teeth, before ‘generously’ reducing its demands to something slightly less comical – which it often gets without offering anything in return. Western politicians tend to learn, just before leaving office, that they’ve been made fools of. Exactly the same thing is playing out again, with Trump already conceding key points like eventual NATO membership and territory, even ending up spouting the worst vatnik drivel about Russia “deserving” to keep the Ukrainian territory it’s murderously acquired. I don’t think he’d surrender California to illegal immigrants because, you know, they’ve worked really hard to cross the border – or because it’s hard to get rid of them – and I don’t think he knows how foolish he sounds when he says such things. Russia may end up getting part of Ukraine, but it certainly doesn’t deserve it.
Nevertheless, before the election there were some positive signs coming out of the Trump camp. General Keith Kellogg, now in Kyiv, co-authored a rather good policy paper that I found myself greatly in agreement with, only differing on points related to the genesis of the conflict and the assessment of Putin’s motives – which (charitably) may have been Kellogg’s attempt to get the document a favourable hearing from Trump, but which is more likely the result of US solipsism and a genuine ignorance of post-Cold War Ukrainian politics that a disappointingly large number of Republicans exhibit. I do, however, agree with Kellogg on what needs to be done, so I will end by quoting him, and wishing him the very best of luck:
Like other NATO leaders, Biden correctly kept US troops out of the conflict directly. Biden failed to recognise until it was too late, however, that it was in America’s interests and the interests of global security for the United States to do everything possible short of direct US military involvement to help Ukraine. To promote American interests and values, President Biden should have provided Ukraine with the weapons it needed to expel Russian forces early in the war and used all forms of statecraft to end the war, including sanctions, diplomatic isolation of Russia and, ultimately, negotiations.
The main objective of military assistance to Ukraine, short of direct US military involvement, was to prevent the precedent of an aggressor state seizing territory by force and defending the rules-based international order. It also was in America’s interests to ensure that Russia lost this war because, due to Putin’s decision to make Russia an aggressor state, a defeated and diminished Russia was the best outcome for US and global security. Some believed this would prevent Russia from invading other states, including NATO members, after it conquered Ukraine. It also was likely that a devastated Russian military would allow the United States to direct its defences against China, a far more serious threat to its national security.
To join in with the discussion please make a donation to The Daily Sceptic.
Profanity and abuse will be removed and may lead to a permanent ban.
Trump is 100% correct.
$280Bn or so has gone missing in Ukraine, one of the world’s most corrupt nations. Zelensky shrugs his shoulders. Some of this was probably channeled back to the ‘powers’ associated with the illegal Democrat machine.
Ukraine can’t win and can’t reconquer the Crimea.
Zelensky silenced the Ukrainian media, imprisoned his opposition.
Hundreds of thousands of young men paid in blood for his antics, a second rate comedian feted by grandstanding politicians at taxpayer expense.
The UKs military assets and ammunition were stripped bare for a centuries old war between 2 slavic nations where Britain has no strategic vital interest.
Trump’s move exposes the useless EU and will bring an end to the bloodshed.
Absolutely. Ukraine has since well before the conflict with Russia been one of the most corrupt countries in the world.
We are all to some extent victims of the abuse of power and corruption of our leaders, but the Ukrainian people are one of the worst sufferers of horrible leadership. If other countries prey on Ukraine it’s because their leaders continually sell the country out
As happens so often, by pointing at Zalensky’s inadequacy, Trump is in his direct and brash way shedding light on a truth people have hitherto been preferring to ignore.
That would also be true of Italy and why criminal organisations like the Mafia went on, and continue to do business.
As soon as you see it is L Rons Hubbard as the author, you know it is the usual devoid-of-reality-fake news-NATO-propaganda b.s. about to blow.
L Rons, must be a CIA agent or maybe a Guardian editor.
No, he’s maybe just bloody useless when it comes to military matters.
I have no expertise in that area but I was never dumb enough to believe the Ukraine will win rhetoric.
All you needed to know was a bit of history, like how Russia/USSR lost circa 30 million souls in largely winning WW2
And survived to prosper.
And you know what, Putin gave a recent speech whereby he said present generation Germans should feel no personal guilt.
I completely disagree with Ian but he’s perfectly entitled to his views however wrong or misguided we think they are that’s the point of this site. Don’t think Ian is either of those you have stated above presume it was a joke?
Ukraine as a nation is wrecked. Millions have left. Many have made a better life elsewhere and are unlikely to return. Tens, maybe hundreds, of thousands maimed will be a long term burden on whatever medical services are available. The most productive areas of the country are in the east, now under Russian rule.
To add insult to injury, Ukraine will now have to invite in 3rd world immigrants to replace those who have left or been killed. We know how that ends.
An utter disaster, and all almost entirely the fault of the West, Britain included.
Ukraine & Russia are on a demographic decline according to Mark Steyn, just Russia being the largest will always be in a stronger position.
Better demographic decline than the indigenous peoples becoming a minority in their own country. That really is irreversible.
Poland lost much of their youth to the West. Britain took lots of its youth in the noughties yet Polands economic performance exceeded that of Britain. Go figure as they say!
Would we ever get to the point in the UK where there are videos of men getting kidnapped off the street to be sent into the meatgrinder for cities they have never heard of. If Starmer and Tobias Ellwood of the 77th Brigade had their way, no doubt they’d welcome that.
If we had no vital strategic interest, why would we have signed the Budapest Memorandum in 1994.
If we had no vital strategic interest, why did we position the British Army armour on the Rhine from 1945 until 2019.
If we had no vital strategic interest, why would we have guaranteed Poland’s territorial integrity in 1938.
If we had no vital strategic interest, why would we have packed Wellington off to Europe during the Napoleonic Wars.
If we had no vital strategic interest, why would we have packed Marlborough off to Europe in 1702.
And so on and so forth.
Of course we have a vital strategic interest. It’s called forward defence.
If Russia returns to the borders of the USSR, as Putin clearly intends that it should, long term, an enfeebled EU will find its foreign and domestic policy determined from the east, and so will our pathetic leaders……
And just what is our strategic value in attacking Russia, a vastly superior military machine, while at the same time donating billions to a corrupt Ukraine? Your repeated accusation that Putin wants to rebuild USSR is utterly unfounded and not credible. Many of our products, including even nuclear power plants, come from the East. The amount of money, not to mention lives, completely wasted in pathetically and unquestioningly supporting USA’s greed for world domination, and look what happened: US changed their President and now everyone is looking around and scratching their heads in consternation. At least now the war can come to an end and our politicians will soon try to bury the past and their stupidity, possibly even holding an inquiry or two.
‘Russia is now dependent on missiles and drones from Iran, economic munificence from China and rockets and artillery shells from North Korea, one of the poorest nations on Earth. Pyongyang has even sent more than 10,000 North Korean soldiers to help boost Vladimir Putin’s flagging invasion.’
https://theweek.com/briefing/1013495/why-the-russian-army-just-isnt-very-good
‘First and foremost it is worth acknowledging that the demise of the Soviet Union was the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century,” Putin said. “As for the Russian people, it became a genuine tragedy. Tens of millions of our fellow citizens and countrymen found themselves beyond the fringes of Russian territory.’
You spout the same total [fact free] B.S (deep state) propaganda as Ian Rons.
‘Peter the Great waged the great northern war for 21 years. It would seem that he was at war with Sweden, he took something from them. He did not take anything from them, he returned [what was Russia’s]’
“Apparently, it is also our lot to return [what is Russia’s] and strengthen [the country]. And if we proceed from the fact that these basic values form the basis of our existence, we will certainly succeed in solving the tasks that we face.”
Putin 2022
Trump better be careful. He might end up giving Alaska back to Russia as part of a “deal”. It was, indisputably, part of their empire.
It is, in fact, Putin that needs to be careful.
The U.S. bought Alaska.
But Russia occupied huge swathes of China and still does.
JD Vance told the Europeans the greatest enemy of the West is within and many agree on that.
Spot on. I frequently agree with the author of this piece but not this time.
“It also was in America’s interests to ensure that Russia lost this war because, due to Putin’s decision to make Russia an aggressor state, a defeated and diminished Russia was the best outcome for US and global security.”
If this quote was the case, Biden would have put a lot more weapons in at an earlier date and made sure that the Europeans pulled their weight as we made sure of in the 42 country coalition in the Gulf War.
Under the useless Obama, nothing was done about Russia taking Crimea in 2014 and Trump is talking to Putin who is a poor position in reality – his Army and armaments are low in quality and his economy is tanking – so Trump will get a sensible peace albeit not as the EU would like.
There’s no realistic military option to turf Russia out of Ukraine. Sustaining the current position without a peace treaty is only possible with US support. The EU shows no appetite for filling the void left should Ukraine decide to fight on sans US support. Consequently a peace deal, on basically the same terms as those available 2 years ago seems like the best worst option, and even then it depends on Russia playing ball.
Europe has to decide if it’s interested in its own survival. As Vance pointed out, the jury’s still out on that one having spent a generation convincing ourselves & our children that we’re racist, misogynistic, xenophobes.
I read somewhere that after the Wall came down in 1991, Western leaders fell out of favour with democracy. Look how free we are compared to those Reds under the bed. Everything post 911 has been about eroding freedoms for your own good.
Russia is NOT an “aggressor state”.
It’s actions in Ukraine 8 years after the US led violent coup of 2014 were to “defend” the ethnic Russians in the Donbass from persecution, shelling, death and potential imminent genocide from the neo-Nazi, ultranationalist, paramilitary forces massing on the border of the Donbass for a final solution.
If you want a more balanced and accurate record of events you would be better off reading my blog where I have listed all the reasons for Russia’s SMO and why it was “justified”.
https://classicrecords1.wixsite.com/the-sceptic/post/russia-were-justified-in-their-actions-against-ukraine
Thanks for the link – very interesting.
More like a broken record.
Nothing justifies the actions of Putin and his henchmen.
That is why he has been indicted for war crimes.
Netanyahu has also been indicted for war crimes.
Your government and their presstitutes in the main stream media will be pleased you have believed all their lies, propaganda and omissions of the truth.
What efforts have you made to find out from independent sources what is really going on or are you just a gullible fool?
I should be very careful who you accuse of being a gullible fool when you apparently strongly support a leader who’s troops commit rape in an occupied country.
i strongly suspect you fall into the leftist trap of only believing those sources that tell you what you want to hear.
Any mainstream media report has been written by someone working under a manager, the latter also working under management and forced to succumb to company policy, especially with regard to company funds or sponsors. So every report you read in mainstream media has the possibility to be publicizing a story that magnanimous sources want told.
If you are referring to Hamas, according to the sources I access (call them left-wing if you will although I would not describe myself as such), the Hamas fighters on 7th October committed no rapes and there were no beheaded or baked babies. Take your pick of whatever you want to believe. 100% certainty is only possible if you were actually a witness yourself.
I was referring to the testimonies of Ukrainian women who have been raped by Russian invaders. So far as know, Israeli women were simply sexually assaulted or murdered, along with their children.
Accused LastName
Vladimirovich Putin
Accused FirstName
Vladimir
Charges
Allegedly responsible for the war crime of unlawful deportation of population (children) and that of unlawful transfer of population (children) from occupied areas of Ukraine to the Russian Federation (under articles 8(2)(a)(vii) and 8(2)(b)(viii) of the Rome Statute). The crimes were allegedly committed in Ukrainian occupied territory at least from 24 February 2022. There are reasonable grounds to believe that Mr Putin bears individual criminal responsibility for the aforementioned crimes, (i) for having committed the acts directly, jointly with others and/or through others (article 25(3)(a) of the Rome Statute), and (ii) for his failure to exercise control properly over civilian and military subordinates who committed the acts, or allowed for their commission, and who were under his effective authority and control, pursuant to superior responsibility (article 28(b) of the Rome Statute).
“Allegedly”.
Almost 4.8 million refugees have arrived in Russia from the territory of Ukraine and Donbass and all of them are free to leave whenever they want.
Orphans and children with mothers from ethnic Russians killed by Ukraine living in Ukraine are being well looked after.
Moving women and children to safety from a war zone is not a crime.
This following article shows that NO-ONE has been forcibly moved to Russia.
(The article makes the mistake of only using a 2.85 million figure when in fact it is 4.8 million).
https://dailysceptic.org/2023/02/05/how-many-ukrainians-have-been-forcibly-transferred-to-russia/
Well, that may well be true, but it does not change the fact that Putin abducted children from occupied regions of Ukraine.
Many claim that those children were Russian orphans of war (Russian speaking and ethnically Russian).
It’s a tricky one. I don’t claim to know either way, just presenting another side…
Again, all Western mainstream media are selling the story ‘Putin bad / Zelensky good’ for obvious political reasons. But just why should Putin abduct children from Ukraine? Are you accusing him of paedophilia – that would be a new one! If you simply Google ‘Maria Lvova-Belova’, the Russian Presidential Commissioner for Children’s Rights, and look for Russian reports, you may be convinced at the great effort Russia is spending in solving the problem of children separated from their parents due to the Ukraine conflict. Of course, Western media will report all sorts of crimes. Take your pick of what you believe.
Why did Hitler abduct aryan looking children? In removing the youth and bringing them up as your own, you reduce the opposition in the next generation.
“Abducted”????
None of the three nations — America, Russia, and Ukraine — have ratified the Rome Statute that authorizes the ICC; so, none of the three can be prosecuted by the ICC.
The US intensely lobbied the ICC to arrive at its decision to act against Putin, despite the US also not recognizing the ICC’s legitimacy.
Moreover, the US adopted a law authorizing a military invasion of the Netherlands if any American is ever detained by the court.
The US are hypocrites and know the ICC is a kangaroo court.
Vladimir Putin is the first head of state accused of war crimes by an international court for successfully “evacuating” children out of a combat zone, which is simultaneously the reason that a Genocide charge could not be drawn.
Recall that the ICC charges, even if Russia was under its jurisdiction, could only make sense if the parents of the children were not involved in the decision to evacuate their families in the direction of Russian-held territory.
In the closing months of the Western front in WWII, French and German civilians were often brought to safety by US forces by moving them into areas already liberated by the allies.
There is therefore almost no historical precedent for such an indictment and would seem to actually discourage the humanitarian treatment of civilians.
Genocide was not committed, the UN finds – but families were voluntarily relocated to zones no longer in the theatre of combat.
Yes, Abduct.
Def: To carry off or lead away a person in secret or by force.
What you say about the ICC, and who has or hasn’t ratified it, is most interesting but entirely irrelevant. Putin’s forces removed children from an illegally occupied foreign territory. The ICC and the attitude of the USA towards it is neither here nor there. Apologists for Putin (and this site appears to be full of them) are apparently seduced by his blandishments that he was “evacuating” the kids for their own good. He could, of course have held a temporary cease-fire and handed them to Ukrainian forces. And let’s not forget that the combat zone is entirely one of Putin’s own making.
The combat zone was actually not of Putin’s making. There are many videos of Ukraine shelling its residents in the east: randomly targeting residential areas, purely with the intent to kill. (See, for example, Eva Bartlett’s videos on https://odysee.com/.) Why? Because the east of Ukraine is primarily occupied by ethnic Russians. The shelling started in 2014, after the ‘Maidan coup’, i.e. well before Putin’s Special Military Operation. In fact, Putin has been heavily criticized for not starting his SMO well before 2022. But the main reason for the SMO was the threat of Ukraine joining NATO and then being able to place US missiles aimed at Russian cities along the 2,000 km border. If you should be bothered to read Putin’s many speeches (http://en.kremlin.ru/) or the articles of the Russian Foreign Office (https://mid.ru/), you will soon realize that Russia’s policies and politicians are actually very sensible, especially in comparison to ours!
“Videos of Ukraine shelling its residents in the east?? A country shells its own citizens ?? That would really endear the ethnic Russians to Ukraine. You might as well say that the English would shell the Scots to deter them from voting for separation.
There are only a few hypotheses which account for your explanation:
“The special DNA kits are an important tool for the police in fighting child abductions. ‘Firstly, the DNA of family members of missing Ukrainian children can be tested, so that this information can later be used to show that parents and children belong together,’ Roos explains. ‘This makes it more likely that families can be reunited. Moreover, it allows the national police to establish an extensive DNA database. This will help gather evidence of child abductions, which will support prosecution of war crimes by courts including the International Criminal Court.’
‘And that’s crucial,’ Roos stresses. ‘There’s a good reason that the International Criminal Court in The Hague has issued international arrest warrants for President Putin and Maria Lvova-Belova, Russian Commissioner for Children’s Rights, specifically for the unlawful deportation and transfer of Ukrainian children.’
‘In Putin’s narrative, Moscow only conceded on these issues because NATO had assured the Kremlin that it would not expand ‘one inch eastward’. US Secretary of State James Baker uttered these much-quoted words on 9 February 1990. (They were not, as is sometimes claimed, made by US President George H.W. Bush, who had ultimately responsibility for American policy.) Baker’s main aim was to allay Soviet fears of a larger, unified Germany by offering assurances that neither NATO command structures nor NATO troops would be transferred to the ‘territory of the former GDR’. Yet Baker’s ‘not one inch eastward’ formula would have made it impossible to apply NATO security guarantees (especially Article 5) to the whole of Germany. Bush therefore suggested to Chancellor Helmut Kohl that he should, in the future, speak of a ‘special military status’ for the GDR. A meeting in Camp David on 24/25 February 1990 confirmed this wording. Special provisions and obligations as regards the GDR territory were subsequently included in the text of the Two Plus Four Treaty (under Articles 4 and 5), which formally re-established German unity. This treaty placed significant restrictions on the deployment of foreign NATO troops and nuclear weapons on East German soil.’
‘To be clear, then, the talks in February 1990 were never about NATO expansion into Eastern Europe. They were confined to the specific issue of NATO’s defence in the wake of German unification – and the two issues should not be conflated. It is also important to remember that the Warsaw Pact was still in existence during these talks, so NATO enlargement was a moot point.’
Gorbachev supported German reunification on the basis that NATO would not move one inch eastward. Whatever changed afterwards, and NATO has greatly expanded in an obvious attempt to intimidate Russia, is no excuse for the fact that the original promises made in multiple meetings have been broken – and not by Russia.
Thanks.
For a comprehensive dive into the historical context see Iain Davis website articles.
After the Berlin Wall ‘event’ and subsequent negotiations Russia was given assurances that NATO would not move ‘one inch’ eastward. Since then, as we know, NATO has migrated east through the former Soviet bloc.
I followed Iain Davis when he first started, and we had some email exchanges.
However, Iain Davis did a hit piece on Putin where he accused him of ordering the Russian apartment bombings of 1999.
The article could have come from any of the main stream media as it was so scathing against Putin to fit in with Iain Davis warped view that Putin is in on the “Great Reset” (as well as Xi of China).
All the evidence Davis cites on the bombings is circumstantial.
He describes Putin as a “relatively obscure political non-entity” even though Putin was Russia’s Prime Minister at the time.
Like most “conspiracy theorists” (I hate using the term, but it is apt in this case) Davis seems to think that most if not all Islamic terrorist attacks are “false flags” carried out by the security services.
He can’t seem to accept that Russia also has an Islamic terrorist problem.
Davis even admits that he doesn’t think the Manchester Arena bombing actually happened.
It’s a shame that the alternative media is riddled with people like Davis, Riley Waggaman (aka Edward Slavsquat), Catte Black of offGuardian etc. etc. etc. who do some good work then spoil it with an absolute stinker of an article.
I stopped following Iain as there are so many other geopolitical analysts out there with a much better handle on world events.
I just don’t have the time to follow people with fringe views who try to out do each other with fantastical ideas just to increase their revenue.
“…along with a whole slew of falsehoods…”
From these words, as I just knew this was going to be a balanced, informed analysis – I stopped reading.
Yep, likewise!
Yep, can’t afford to have your preconceived notions challenged, can you. Reminds of Ed Millipede.
Do you perhaps mean those preconceived notions that we have rammed down our throats 24×7 by every branch of government and MSM, those pre-conceived notions?
Along with a whole slew of falsehoods is exactly how the BBC, CNN, MSNBC will dismiss anyone questioning the MSM narrative.
Surely, we are a bit more nuanced on here, not just blanket dismissive.
A leader who cancels elections (an argument exists its acceptable in war time), outlaws all opposition, outlaws questioning media and voices, outlaws the language of a section of the nations people and their religion, has the trappings, it must be said, of a Dictator.
Gonzalez Lira said if they got him he would be killed, and he was.
No, I mean the preconceived notions you have in your brain prior to exploring alternative view points. “I just stopped reading”… when a different narrative is presented indicates a profound and deep inflexible ignorance which is not interested in truth. It is the most shameful hallmark of the left. It shows you are not interested in facts and that you are incapable of changing your mind. You encounter it time and again with creationists and ecoloons.
We all know that the BBC is biased. But they exhibit exactly the same inflexibility as the “I just stopped reading” mindset, especially on subjects like Covid and AGW. They won’t listen to an alternative. They “just stopped reading”! The collective mind is closed!
Your penultimate paragraph applies to Putin as much as anyone.
From the name of the author I kknew it was going to be unbalanced.
Trump has tried to highlight that the Middle East is made up of different sects of various Islamic Countries who hate each other as much as they hate Israel and that is why peace is so hard to achieve.
Israel has long talked about flooding Europe with refugees…..No thanks, even regarding the kids (they still grow up) better for them to be in other Arab Nations.
The sale “multicultural” situation in Ukraine, which was a region never a Country with various “owners” in the past has a variety of language groups and cultural groups. The 17% ethnic Russians have been poorly treated in past times.
Multiculturalism = conflict and war as history shows.
Worth a fiver to thank Mr Rons for this piece.
Have a look over at National Review to find serious Americans struggling with how to deal with T.
https://www.nationalreview.com/2025/02/donald-trumps-dislike-for-ukraine-is-deeply-personal/
A stroke of genius by Trump re Gaza? His plan to seize Gaza and terraform it? A great idea?
The article is less powerful than it could be because it is based on ‘old elite’ thinking and a dislike for Trump.
Put on the ‘new elite’ thinking cap where the previous regimes sat at the centre of a patronage network and you can see that Trump may be determined to roll back that patronage. Think DOGE and USAID – and perhaps that Putin may be awful but Ukraine is corrupted beyond rescue. If Trump believes that the Ukraine is corrupted then including them in negotiations will make reaching a deal much, much, harder. So Ukraine gets side-lined and calls for inclusion are just ‘old elite’ ways of politics.
Also Trump doesn’t like getting slagged off, Vance seemed to get away with it with the passage of time.
“I’m grateful that Trump exists and won a second term. Good riddance to all the DEI nonsense, too, and I’m glad J.D. Vance said what he did in Munich’
Indeed.
As for the rest, all sides are simply scoping out their positions.
Let us not forget President Trump’s fiery exchanges with ‘Rocket man’ that ended in rapprochement
Vapourings, at the moment, are otiose.
With real world spectacles on, President Trump et al, either by accident or intent, have almost certainly made President Zelensky unassailable in any forthcoming election.
A stroke of outrageous good fortune or a bold calculated negotiating manoeuvre……
‘This week, when Trump made it clear he wanted to oust Volodymyr Zelensky and in favour of a more obedient leader – someone Russia could stomach – Ukrainians rallied behind their President. We flooded social media with supportive messages, shutting down Kremlin-backed claims that Zelensky had lost legitimacy. Even the opposition, Zelensky’s biggest haters, took his side.
This is a rare moment. Normally, Ukrainian presidents – Zelensky included – get torn apart in the court of public opinion for messing up domestic politics. But there’s one line that cannot be crossed: foreign powers, such as Vladimir Putin or Trump, don’t get to decide who leads Ukraine. The legitimacy of the Ukrainian government is the exclusive prerogative of the Ukrainian people, and at least 69 per cent of Ukrainians think Zelensky should stay in power until martial law ends – without holding fresh elections.’
The Spectator 21 Feb. 2025
Pathetic nonsense and another good reason not to read The Spectator. Zelensky won the presidency because he promised peace. And since doing his about-face on that topic he has been shovelling the billions the West has given him into his own pockets and those of his ‘business partners’.
‘During February 5-10, 2024, the Kyiv International Institute of Sociology (KIIS) conducted an all-Ukrainian public opinion survey “Omnibus”, to which a question was added about whether presidential elections should be held, as well as whether V. Zelenskyi should compete for this position for the second time.
In December 2023, 84% of Ukrainians believed that it was not time to hold elections and it was necessary to postpone this issue. Along with this, we can observe the emergence of narratives that from May 2024, President V. Zelenskyi may lose his legitimacy. Therefore, in February 2024, we asked a question in a slightly different format, namely, which scenario from the point of view of the Ukrainians themselves is more correct after May 2024.
The vast majority of Ukrainians – 69% – believe that V. Zelenskyi should serve as President until the end of martial law . Believe that elections should be held – 15%
https://www.kiis.com.ua/?lang=eng&cat=reports&id=1371&page=1&utm_medium=email&utm_source=CampaignMonitor_Editorial&utm_campaign=UKRN%20%2020250221%20%20House%20Ads%20%20HT+CID_bf09a0b0a5ef31d02143fd8e90c65df4
Yes, and who controls all of Ukrainian media? Who has silenced all opposition parties?
As soon as there are NATO affiliated peace keepers in Ukraine it defacto becomes a kind of NATO nation. Putin will then be able to go no further without triggering Ww3.So Putin will only allow this once he has secured his basic objectives which were the same demands at the beginning, except the more automous russian speaking regions now become part of Russia itself . Interestingly at least part of the Western object since 2014 to gain access to Ukraine mineral wealth by having a western aligned woke government is now obtained by America getting repayment for their war lend lease programme. The only way Ukraine is going to be rebuilt is through such payments so Zelenski might as well sign up. I am sure he will end up in prison or worse for such bad leadership, and maybe Boris Johnson could join him.
Not long ago Zelenski was inviting Blackrock, JP Morgan to buy everything up, presumably to rebuild ‘Smart Cities’. nothing says democracy better than a smart city!
NATO would need to cover around 800 miles of borderland and we just haven’t got the manpower. The author needs to get real about Russia giving up land it has gained in the war, after as Trump said — They started it, not quite, US & NATO started this in the usual way going back decades. Blowing up the Pipeline is another reason not to just hand back land, especially in the long attacked Donbas region.
Yes I agree about the lack of personnel, I think Starmer just wants his own Churchill moment. Our armed services are hopelessly run down. The early scrapping of the 2 amphibious assault ships is pathetic and will be deeply demoralising to the Marines. Problem is they haven’t got enough people to run everything anyway, but who would want to risk their life defending wokeism.
Any so-called peace-keepers will be immediately wiped out by the Russians and everybody knows it, which is why nobody is volunteering. And USA has already said NATO countries can forget Article 5 protection.
Why would he allow any peace keepers in. He is winning and has done most of the hard miles. He knows that his task will become easier because of the manpower shortages of the Ukrainian forces, NATO’s lack of leadership and firepower without USA and the lack of fortifications for most of the rest of the way to the Dniepr.
Putin will never accept NATO troops in Ukraine because it is unfinished business; unfinished for several centuries.
There is as yet no plan for Ukraine. Trump’s talks have been mainly about trade between USA and Russia and about how everyone should engage about Ukraine. His other concern is about the “investment” the US has made in Ukraine, how it is accounted for and how it is to be repaid, all very reasonable things for USA should be commenting on.I am not sure how quoting those two paragraphs at the end help. It was a historical context and laid out the Biden administration’s objectives. As far as I can see they are a long way form the view the current administration takes.
The objectives clearly failed as there is no way that Russia will lose the war, and NATO weapons are demonstrably outclassed in the Ukrainian theatre, as is their ability to replace losses. No-one seems to have clarified the statement that Europe would back Ukraine for as long as it takes. The USA has changed its tune; it is about time Europe looked at getting a new conductor too.
There is a great deal of unevidenced nonsense being posted on here.
‘Deloitte is monitoring the Government of Ukraine’s management of U.S. direct budget support funding to provide visibility over the use of this funding and identify gaps in processes, while KPMG is conducting financial statement audits intended to promote transparency and bolster stakeholder confidence in financial reporting.’
‘The PwC reviews (completed in April 2023, September 2023 and February 2024 respectively) confirmed that internal controls were operating as intended’
Ed Mountfield, VP Operations Policies and Country Services, World Bank, Draft Country Report Ukraine, Oversight of U.S. Direct Budget Support, 22 July 2024
Has anyone noticed how relieved Putin looks.
President Trump will have.
Not hard to see why:
‘Russian inflation is running close to 9 per cent, which renders the real Russian policy rate at something over 10 per cent – exceptionally high by any standards. These days only Brazil’s inflation-adjusted policy rate, currently just above 6 per cent, comes anywhere close to Russia’s…….resulted in unsustainably high wage growth. For most of last year, wage growth has been running close to 20 per cent, a rate unseen in the past 15 years, and a huge challenge to the Central Bank’s 4 per cent inflation target.
The consequence of such high interest rates is that the economy will slow, perhaps very sharply. Putin therefore faces an acute dilemma: to back the central bank’s effort to keep inflation low at the risk of a recession; or to keep the economy on fire and let inflation rip.
It is this dilemma that gives leverage to the incoming Trump administration. By acting to restrict Russia’s access to foreign exchange, the US can heap more pressure on the rouble and make Putin’s choice a more painful one.’
https://www.chathamhouse.org/2025/01/russias-economic-dilemmas-give-trump-important-leverage-negotiations-ukraine-will-he-use-it
‘2025 will be the last year Russia can rely on its massive stockpiles of Soviet-era conventional arms, including artillery, main battle tanks and armored vehicles.
If the intensity of combat, and consequent Russian losses, follow the same pattern as 2022–2024, most stockpiles will be exhausted by the second half of the year, forcing Moscow to rely on newly manufactured arms rather than repaired and modernized ones.’
https://cepa.org/article/russias-year-of-truth-the-missing-military-hardware/
‘Russia cannot churn out more than 60 tanks a year, according to Pavel Luzin, a defence analyst with the Center for European Policy Analysis. The biggest problem is the manufacturing of turrets and guns, while complicated electronic components, such as infrared thermal imaging and targeting systems once made of European components are replaced with less reliable Chinese ones.’
President Trump will never admit it but the Biden Presidency’s successful strategy of weakening Russia economically and militarily has brought Putin to the table.
But, most of all, the heroism of Ukrainian arms, the destruction of thousands of Russian armoured vehicles, has brought Putin to the table and the pie of the day, cut it any way you like, is a humble one……
I think that Trump’s apparently strange approach to the West’s Pro Ukraine response is that Robert Kennedy Jnr has his ear. RFK jnr paints a very different picture to the accepted narrative: https://youtu.be/uNC3N93YYNE?si=Xrsslcnlp4tqkdsI
Perhaps he is also listening to Jeffrey Sachs as well: https://youtu.be/RiK6DijNLGE?si=9XntmqlUO4DpSzVd
“Ukraine has been systematically destroying Russian Soviet-era materiel to such an extent that the threat posed by Russia has been dramatically diminished”
Hmmm. Don’t forget, Mr Rons, that Ukraine has also been systematically destroying Western military equipment. That’s not to criticise Ukraine, just to point out that Western countries including the UK have also denuded their defence arsenals to supply the war.
“However, for this free-market conservative it’s been Trump’s mercantilism and belief in tariffs that sticks in my craw.”
A free market conservative, Mr Rons, is not the same thing as a free market globalist. One sided “free trade” just enriches the side who isn’t practising free trade. Free trade has to be balanced on both sides. In fact, even then, its merits depend on the Law of Comparative Advantage, which is itself questionable in an age of fiat currencies and floating exchange rates.
‘The Polish military is now the largest in Europe and the third- largest in NATO (behind the USA and Türkiye).
Poland has ordered 180 South Korean K2 tanks and 366 Abrams tanks (116 ex-USMC M1A1 FEP and 250 new M1A2 SEPv3 tanks, along with 26 M88A2 recovery vehicles and 17 M1074 bridge-layers).
Both the Abrams and K2 tanks are intended to become the country’s primary MBTs shortly, since all Soviet-era tanks are to be retired as soon as possible.
The Leopard 2 tanks (2A4, 2A5, 2PL—247 in total by 2026) are expected to meet the same fate, albeit much later, and some of these tanks will likely go into reserve.
The overall framework agreement covers the acquisition of 1,366 MBTs in total.
Despite industrial problems and severe delays, a modernisation programme for the Leopard 2 tanks to the Leopard 2PL standard is ongoing.
The current plan is for the last modernised Leopard 2s to be delivered to the army by 2027, seven years after the originally scheduled date.
Regarding the K2 tanks, deliveries are planned to be completed in 2025.
Putin invaded Ukraine.
Putin is a dictator.
Never appease aggressive dictators like Putin because it will embolden him and other aggressive dictators (e.g. Xi in China) to be aggressive.
Never reward bad behaviour.
And how many countries has USA invaded? As Noam Chomsky stated in this video from 2003, every US President since Eisenhower could be indicted on war crimes – and the same can be said for all US Presidents since 2003, including Trump: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5BXtgq0Nhsc.
We know you take dictation from Putin (or you are a useful idiot (or just an idiot)). But how many countries has the USA invaded and remained in situ?
A very interesting question. USA is still in eastern Syria, siphoning off that country’s oil, which was one reason Assad was unable to maintain any sort of economy there. The other reason was that CIA (allegedly together with MI6) was funding the ISS and Al Qaeda terrorists occupying the industrial centre around Idlib in the west. But USA has 800 military bases around the world and the world has 195 countries, so you tell me where USA is no longer ‘in situ’. Actually, Russia and China have no US bases, except directly on their borders (I count NATO as simply being a European extension of US’s military). And how many Russian or Chinese military bases are there in USA or on its border? Zero. So who is a threat to whom in our wonderful world?
Disappointing to see this in the Daily Sceptic, this is the narrative that our government is going along with and wants us to believe, something that I am very Sceptical of. Why don’t they just say – we want to get rid of Putin by any means even if that means going to war – then see if anybody wants to vote for it. If the Democrats had said that in the U.S., Trump might have got even more votes, most people do not want war with Russia.