The readout from the President’s press secretary:
Today, President Trump and President Putin spoke about the need for peace and a ceasefire in the Ukraine war. Both leaders agreed this conflict needs to end with a lasting peace. They also stressed the need for improved bilateral relations between the United States and Russia. The blood and treasure that both Ukraine and Russia have been spending in this war would be better spent on the needs of their people.
This conflict should never have started and should have been ended long ago with sincere and good faith peace efforts. The leaders agreed that the movement to peace will begin with an energy and infrastructure ceasefire, as well as technical negotiations on implementation of a maritime ceasefire in the Black Sea, full ceasefire and permanent peace. These negotiations will begin immediately in the Middle East.
The leaders spoke broadly about the Middle East as a region of potential cooperation to prevent future conflicts. They further discussed the need to stop proliferation of strategic weapons and will engage with others to ensure the broadest possible application. The two leaders shared the view that Iran should never be in a position to destroy Israel.
The two leaders agreed that a future with an improved bilateral relationship between the United States and Russia has huge upside. This includes enormous economic deals and geopolitical stability when peace has been achieved.
President Trump’s comment on Truth Social:
My phone conversation today with President Putin of Russia was a very good and productive one. We agreed to an immediate Ceasefire on all Energy and Infrastructure, with an understanding that we will be working quickly to have a Complete Ceasefire and, ultimately, an END to this very horrible War between Russia and Ukraine. This War would have never started if I were President! Many elements of a Contract for Peace were discussed, including the fact that thousands of soldiers are being killed, and both President Putin and President Zelenskyy would like to see it end. That process is now in full force and effect, and we will, hopefully, for the sake of Humanity, get the job done!
The full statement from the Kremlin on the call:
“The leaders continued a detailed and frank exchange of views on the situation around Ukraine. Vladimir Putin expressed his gratitude to Donald Trump for seeking to promote the noble goal of ending hostilities and human losses.
Reaffirming his fundamental commitment to a peaceful resolution of the conflict, the Russian president declared his readiness to work together with American partners on a thorough examination of possible ways of a settlement, which should be comprehensive, sustainable, and long-term in nature. And, of course, take into account the unconditional need to eliminate the root causes of the crisis and Russia’s legitimate security interests.
In the context of the United States President’s initiative to introduce a 30-day ceasefire, the Russian side has identified several essential points concerning effective control over a possible ceasefire along the entire line of contact, the need to halt forced mobilization in Ukraine and the rearmament of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. The serious risks associated with the inability to negotiate on the part of the Kyiv regime, which has already repeatedly sabotaged and violated the agreements reached, have also been noted. Attention has been drawn to the barbaric crimes of a terrorist nature committed by Ukrainian militants against the civilian population of the Kursk region.
It was emphasized that the key condition for preventing the escalation of the conflict and working towards its resolution through political and diplomatic means should be the complete cessation of foreign military assistance and the provision of intelligence to Kyiv.
In connection with Donald Trump’s recent appeal to save the lives of Ukrainian servicemen surrounded in the Kursk region, Vladimir Putin confirmed that the Russian side is ready to be guided by humanitarian considerations and, in case of surrender, guarantees the life and decent treatment of AFU soldiers in accordance with Russian laws and norms of international law.
During the conversation, Donald Trump put forward a proposal for the parties to the conflict to mutually refuse to strike energy infrastructure facilities for 30 days. Vladimir Putin responded positively to this initiative and immediately gave the Russian military a corresponding command.
The Russian president also reacted constructively to the idea expressed by Donald Trump of implementing a well-known initiative concerning the safety of navigation in the waters of the Black Sea. It was agreed to start negotiations to further elaborate the specific details of such an arrangement.
Vladimir Putin said that on March 19, the Russian and Ukrainian sides would exchange prisoners – 175 for 175 people. In addition, 23 severely wounded Ukrainian servicemen who are undergoing treatment in Russian medical institutions will be handed over as a goodwill gesture.
The leaders confirmed their intention to continue efforts to achieve a Ukrainian settlement bilaterally, including taking into account the above-mentioned proposals by the US President. Russian and American expert groups are being set up for this purpose.
Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump touched upon other issues on the international agenda, including the situation in the Middle East and the Red Sea region. Joint efforts will be made to stabilize the situation in crisis spots and establish cooperation on nuclear non-proliferation and global security issues. This, in turn, will contribute to improving the overall atmosphere of US-Russian relations. One positive example is the solidarity vote in the UN on the resolution on the Ukrainian conflict.
Mutual interest was expressed in normalizing bilateral relations in light of the specific responsibility of Russia and the United States to ensure security and stability in the world. In this context, a wide range of areas was considered in which our countries could establish cooperation. A number of ideas were discussed, which are aimed at developing mutually beneficial cooperation in the economy and energy sector in the future.
Donald Trump supported Vladimir Putin’s idea to organize hockey matches in the United States and Russia between Russian and American players playing in the NHL and KHL.
The presidents agreed to remain in contact on all issues raised.”
Comment: The Kremlin readout is far more detailed than anything coming from Washington. It lays out the Russian position that a ceasefire will require far more details about how it would work along the entire line of contact. That’s an important and realistic point. A ceasefire will not come about at the mere declaration of a ceasefire. It also lays out the unrealistic conditions of a total cessation of Western military and intelligence aid to Ukraine and an end to Ukraine’s mobilization efforts before a ceasefire can be implemented. Trump desperately wants to be the peacemaker in this war, but I doubt he’s fooled by this. He probably knows Putin is interested in a victory, not a peace. He may not admit it, but he knows it.
Concerning the thirty day ceasefire, notice the different wording. Trump talks about a “ceasefire on all energy and infrastructure.” The Kremlin statement specified a ceasefire on energy infrastructure for thirty days, not on energy AND infrastructure. The Kremlin noted that Putin “immediately gave the Russian military a corresponding command.” I assume that means he doesn’t intend to target Ukrainian energy infrastructure. I believe this was an attempt to force Ukraine to pause her drone strikes on Russia’s oil and gas infrastructure. Those strikes must be having an effect on Russia’s economy and war effort. I doubt this effort to stop the attacks on Russian oil and gas targets will work unless Trump threatens to cut off intelligence and materiel support to Ukraine.
Both the White House spokesperson statement and Trump’s own comment paint a rosey picture of the situation. However, shortly after the phone call, Secretary of Treasury, Scott Bessent, talked about Trump’s instructions to him about sanctions. “And President Trump has instructed me that if we need to, we will go to a 10 with sanctions to bring president Putin to the table. But I’m optimistic that he will be able to get him to the table without increasing the sanctions. But all options are on the table to increase and go to maximum energy sanctions on Russia if needed.” Perhaps Trump does realize Putin is trying to play him, that Putin has no intentions on ending the war on anything other than his terms.
Trump is not Krasnov.
TTG
Shortly after Trump got off the phone with Putin. 150 Russian Shahed UAVs were launched, some striking Ukrainian energy infrastructure and a hospital.
And Putin reportedly made Trump wait two hours while he (Putin) was addressing a roomful oligarchs. Russian TV commentators were laughing that Trump had to wait for Putin to pick up.
TTG goes all Rashomon on us!
James – but “Putin has no intentions on ending the war on anything other than his terms,” the judgement at the end of the article, is surely correct.
Those terms have been set since the start of the SMO. Very publicly and very often. If those terms were not met and in full public disillusionment would be so great, and the Security Council and military would be so dissatisfied, that the Putin administration would probably fall.
And why would he wish to alter those terms? He’s led his country through three wearing years against all the combined West can throw at him. All he’s seen from our politicians and media has been a tsunami of hatred, contempt and lies. He’s still getting that from most of the West. Trump’s still providing arms and intelligence that are leading to the killing of his soldiers and the Europeans are talking of doing that indefinitely. What incentive, from all that, does he have to change course now?
His people are behind him. His military are with him all the way. And he’s on the final stretch. So that statement at the end of the article doesn’t seem to me to be “going Rashomon.” Far as I can see it’s the plain truth. “Putin has no intentions on ending the war on anything other than his terms” and all we in the West can now do is wait to see how he does it.
Looks like being interesting, that. After all this time we still don’t know how he’ll deal with the problem of remnant Ukraine.
Nor how he’s going to quieten those pesky Europoodles. All hat and no cattle, true, but they’re kicking up a hell of a racket at the moment. Not just the Russians but the entire planet by now must be finding the noise irritating.
EO,
I was making a reference to the 1950 Akira Kurosawa film which tells a single story three times from the point of view of three different characters – because the title of TTG’s posting was “Three views of the Trump-Putin phone call”.
I agree with TTG’s assessment that “Putin has no intentions on ending the war on anything other than his terms” and I agree with your assessment of why that is – I actually agree with you completely.
Sorry. I applied the message of the film to the last sentence of TTG’s article and was clearly wrong to do so.
On the Trump-Putin call Mercouris has a detailed look at the background. Just been running through it and find his conclusion the same as TTG’s.
Mercouris also refers to Ian Proud, the ex-diplomat who has extensive knowledge of Russian affairs and of British diplomacy in Moscow. Or lack of it. Proud in a video here:-
https://thepeacemonger.substack.com/p/what-next-for-europe-as-trump-pivots
Proud looks at the Trump-Putin discussions from the point of view of a feet on the ground working diplomat. What I take from him, if I’ve got him right, is that Putin isn’t just stringing Trump along while he gets on with neutralising Ukraine. He’s taking the whole business of restoring relations with the US very seriously indeed and that on a practical level too.
As for Europe, Proud gives central importance to the information war we’ve been exposed to, the “massive choking cloak of propaganda that we live with”.
That’s what I’ve been thinking in England since ’22. We spend an inordinate amount of money on information war. It has been a failure when it comes to convincing the rest of the world. It has been stunningly successful when it comes to our own people. Anti-Trump and anti-Russia is now deep in the bone, so much so that it’s difficult to see how we in Europe can avoid drifting into a sullen and unproductive Cold War II.
In this connection a copiously referenced article in The National Interest examines current European policy.
“Despite all this, powerful vested interests lobby for rapid militarization of Europe and the deployment of a “coalition of the willing” in Ukraine, even if it risks dangerous escalation and prolongs the war. Even though European leaders have responded with brave fighting talk, they are surely aware that European states are not capable of shifting the balance of forces in Ukraine. A European coalition would be too weak to stand on its two feet.”
“Europe’s leaders are seemingly unwilling to discuss these complex problems. They stick to a simple discourse in which Europe must not “appease” Russian aggression. In recent years, Europe has been stuck in a reactive posture, always one step behind events. This is an obvious legacy of Europe’s long reliance on the U.S. security umbrella. European elites have grown unaccustomed to thinking strategically about hard security in unemotional and non-ideological terms.”
But I remember back during the Brexit dispute, when the question of a “European Army” was being raised, finding references to the state of the various European armies, with one report on the state of the German Armed Forces, stating it would take twenty years to get the German army back to being a fully equipped and trained army. Since then defence cuts have been the rule as hard pressed European economies struggle to finance their armed forces at all. This National Interest article is therefore scarcely news!
Important to have it spelt out though. Spell out the paucity of American troops and pre-positioned equipment in Europe as well – haven’t yet seen that done – and the inadequacy of NATO forces in Europe to deal with any serious war is apparent.
It was apparent in 2022. Apart from the Ukrainian army itself, that army large but nowhere near large or powerful enough, there were no NATO forces in this theatre or deployable in this theatre capable of challenging Russia and there still are not. The sanctions war was the only shot in our locker and that misfiring, continuance of the military war was only insisted on in order to “bleed” the Russians, not to defeat them. It’s bled us instead.
Proud mentions the “massive choking cloak of propaganda that we live beneath”. (incorrectly transcribed above.) It had to be massive, to cloak these obvious facts.
Now that an American President, no less, is seeking an end to the carnage European insistence on its continuation merely because of lobby pressure – and because European leaders can think of no other way of saving face – is not only self-destructive. It must inevitably lead to further loss of life and territory in Ukraine.
“While it may be painful and distasteful, the way out of European fear and hesitancy is diplomacy and compromise. This means reestablishing direct contact with Moscow. Europe’s leaders owe their electorates an overdue reality check on the Ukraine war. Bluffs and empty threats must not be allowed to close the current narrow opening for a diplomatic end to this war.”
…………………..
TTG – hope it’s OK to add this addendum. Mercouris draws attention to that article. It’s a powerful statement of the true position. Pity it appears in an American publication and not a European. The Europoodles could do with a dash of reality from somewhere. Particularly Starmer and Macron.
EO,
Putin had better start calling up more conscripts and prepare to become a little more ruthless, meaning prepared to wage total war. Ukraine must be destroyed. I am convinced of that now. It is a corrupt sh!t hole and there is no way that Russia can permit a place populated by such belligerent whore apes to remain on its borders.
The whore ape’s pimps (Euros and US neocons) will seek to escalate, even sending in their own troops, as Ukraine’s own military is ground down. Putin cannot give the Euros time to prepare. He must demolish Ukraine now. Make it a fait accompli ASAP.
Trump, unfortunately, is the dupe on this one. He wants peace, but has to work with Russia, who understands there can be no peace with rabid whore apes and who, contrary to western propaganda, is in the strong position. The Euros do not want peace either and their rabid whore apes will keep fighting as long as the payoff keeps coming (+ the apes are too stupid to know how to do anything else. The smart ones left already).
If Trump were truly smart, he’d feed the apes false intel while coordinating with the Russians to achieve final victory. Otherwise, the best he can do is wash his hands of the sh!t show and let the chips fall where they may.
Not the impression I’ve received. The street fighter types and mercs are pretty flaky. You might have a point there though I wouldn’t put it in quite those terms. But those Ukrainian regulars are good soldiers. Seen some comments from the Russian side too, acknowledging their grit and skill.
This war wasn’t lost because the Ukrainians didn’t have good soldiers. It was lost, amongst a multitude of other reasons, because they didn’t have enough of them. Not “apes”, those regulars, Eric, and we do them a real injustice if we call them such.
Nor the mass of the Ukrainian people either. I’d hate it if you judged my country by the trash the politicians and press put out. That goes for Ukraine as well.
Putin, like Bibi, need a war to go on for personal political reasons. He will play Trump like a toy drum, but he cannot afford to deal with what would come after this war. Both men are using this to stifle internal dissent and so far it is working.
Eventually Trump will realize he will get nowhere with Putin. Trump will then make an angry turn vs NATO/Ukraine blaming them, as he does not want to upset future deals with his co-sociopathic soul mate Putin.
al – yes, Trump’s a “sociopath”. So are Starmer and Merz and the other politicians of the West. Supporting and assisting the genocide and ethnic cleansing in the ME is sociopathic. Fact. Unless you think it’s normal, seeing the shattered bodies of civilians all over the place and entire communities destroyed.
And since the majorities in both American parties are for that genocide and ethnic cleansing, plus a large portion of the American electorate from Evangelicals to Mormons, it’s not a fact that’s going to change. We have psychos in smart suits in charge both in Europe and the States and that’s the reality we live in.
But even psychos can be realistic or they can be dumb. You have to remember that when looking at another disaster area the politicians of the West took us and the unfortunate Ukrainians into.
Biden was a dumb psycho. He took his country, and the entire West with it, into a war there was no possibility of winning. Trumps a more realistic psycho. He’s taken one look at the murderous shambles we’ve turned Ukraine into, sees it’s costing us all a fortune we don’t have, and is trying to get his country out of it.
Which would you prefer? A dumb psycho or a realist psycho? Other options exist only in dreamland.
A short article in The Hill shows US mainstream opinion on this aspect of American foreign policy starting to shift. “Biden screwed up. Trump will try to clean up the mess” isn’t something you’d have seen much of a year or so ago.
“Sadly, Trump is right on Ukraine”
https://thehill.com/opinion/5198022-ukraine-conflict-disinformation/
A few problems with the article. Kuperman inevitably repeats a little of the disinformation he himself deprecates. But the mere fact that it was published does show reality starting to break through in the States.
Important view 1: Europe’s opinion isn’t asked for nor are they involved. Neither is Ukraine’s.
Not reported: The German government under Merz agreed to a Trillion euro of deficit spending. I wonder who is going to pay for that?
Also, from the JFK files:
https://x.com/ggreenwald/status/1902463553887519116
Looks like Russia is not so beat up and desperate after all. No hurry for a deal. Responded to peace talks with strength by intensifying attacks. Good for them. That’s the way you do it. Such a surprise that Ukrainian and deep state reports that Russia is on the ropes just might be greatly exaggerated. The US should walk away and let the Euros reap the whirlwind. They deserve it.
Eric Newhill,
Looks like the Russians are scared to death of continued Western military aid and intelligence support to Ukraine. And they definitely don’t want Ukraine to have thirty days of respite to refit, reorganize and redeploy even though they’d have the same thirty days of respite to refit, reorganize and redeploy.
TTG,
They got the US to admit to being a belligerent in a war on the border of the Russian Federation. Conducted by the man who opened our borders to all comers. President Autopen of the 81,000,000 votes.
Europe can step up with their own armies and own monies. Good luck to them on the continued effort to destroy Russia.
Fred,
Trump should assist Russia in finalizing victory over Ukraine. The world will be a better place without Ukraine and Putin will be grateful and more trusting. There is a lot of good the US and Russia can do together. Straightening out Europe would be one thing. Demolishing jihadis would be great. Keeping China in check is yet another.
TTG: “Looks like the Russians are scared to death of continued Western military aid and intelligence support to Ukraine.”
Such an odd PoV. The Russians don’t seem at all scared of anything that the USA has sent to Ukraine to be sprayed in their general direction.
I’d put it the other way: the Russians know that WITHOUT that aid Ukraine collapses very quickly. So why not make the withdrawal of that aid a condition of the ceasefire.
What does the Kremlin lose by making that demand?
Can’t say I know what Putin is thinking, but it would be logical for him to stall at least until the Kursk salient is fully re-taken. Perhaps that is all he’s stalling for. Time will tell.
I don’t see any of his statements as “stalling”.
He clearly believes that Russia is winning this war, and he clearly believes that there is no incentive for him to “compromise” merely for the sake of being A Jolly Good Fellow.
The Russians said before the SMO started that the core issue is their security concerns regarding NATO encroachment into Ukraine. Then they kept saying all throughout the SMO that the core issue is their security concerns regarding NATO encroachment into Ukraine.
And now that Trump is attempting to bring this war to an end the Russians are saying that this is an excellent idea, so long as their security concerns regarding NATO encroachment into Ukraine is accomodated.
Because – apparently – the Russians see that as a core issue.
I don’t know why, it is a complete mystery that has suddenly blindsided everyone in the west.
Go figure, heh?
Yeah, Right,
I lack your confidence in reading Putin’s mind. I’m not at all sure he still thinks the original objectives of the SMO are still attainable.
To me, it’s just as likely he’s simply trying to get the best of the the situation that he can and is carefully probing his limits with Trump, who Putin may suspect is not be capable of becoming angry with anyone who praises him, or, perhaps, has managed to assume the role of the approving father figure he never had with him.
I would not be in the least bit surprised if this ended with both sides, tired of the war, simply stopped fighting without anybody’s red-lines being agreed to. Not an uncommon way for stalemates to end.
The beauty of this disagreement is that we are absolutely certain of knowing – and I think sooner, rather than later – whether the optimist in me is correct, or the pessimist in you.
TTG: “that Putin has no intentions on ending the war on anything other than his terms”
I have always been under the impression that leaders go to war to achieve a political aim.
If they don’t achieve that aim (and, often, they do not) then they have lost that war and would have been better off never starting it to begin with.
If they do achieve that aim (and, occasionally, they do) then they can honestly say they have won that war.
The cost may be uncomfortably high, or it may be remarkably low. It may have taken longer than originally envisioned, or maybe finished with remarkable speed.
Whatever.
But if you go to war to achieve a clear and understood goal (and why else go to war?) then you have won if that goal is achieved.
Which is a long-winded way of pointing out that your closing words indicate that Putin is comfortable that the war is all-but won, and he is the winner.
Yeah, Right,
If Putin thought he had the war won and he achieved his goals, he would be moving towards a quick ceasefire, a peace treaty and an ending of Western sanctions. He knows he hasn’t achieved his goals so he must keep fighting.
I have no doubt that Putin would jump at the opportunity for a “quick ceasefire” PROVIDED that this is but the prelude to getting what he wants.
But, honestly, just listen to yourself:
TTG: “a peace treaty and an ending of Western sanctions.”
*sigh*
You are saying he started this war with the ultimate goal of forcing an end to sanctions that were only imposed because he started this war.
Hello. Earth to TTG. Come in, TTG.
That’s clearly not a goal worthy of starting a war over since, clearly, he could achieve that goal simply by not starting the war.
Look, I have no doubt – none whatsoever – that Putin would jump at the chance to a quick ceasefire followed by a treaty of non-alignment by Ukraine AND A COMPREHENSIVE SECURITY TREATY BETWEEN THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION AND THE USA.
Because that is why he started this SMO, and from his PoV he isn’t stopping until that’s what is on offer.
But it isn’t on offer because the USA is still in denial about both its own decline and Russia’s growing power, and because far too many people in the west have sunk up to their eyeballs in the Sunk Cost Fallacy.
Yeah, Right,
You’re the only one suggesting that ending sanctions was an original goal. I’m saying the sanctions won’t end until there is a peace treaty. His goals included the neutralization of Ukraine and even a return to NATO’s pre-1990 borders. He got none of that and sanctions as an added bonus. Unless he goes for total mobilization, the best he’s going to get with military force is a frozen conflict. And that’s not going to end the sanctions.
TTG: “You’re the only one suggesting that ending sanctions was an original goal.”
I have said no such thing.
TTG: “I’m saying the sanctions won’t end until there is a peace treaty.”
That’s not what you said in your previous post, so I would be grateful if you stopped moving the goalposts.
What YOU said is that IF Putin thought he was winning the war THEN he would agree to “a quick ceasefire, a peace treaty and an ending of Western sanctions”.
The addition of the conditional “if” at the begging of your sentence made that an altogether different proposition i.e. you have now moved the goalposts once I pointed out how nonsensical your statement was.
“His goals included the neutralization of Ukraine and even a return to NATO’s pre-1990 borders. He got none of that and sanctions as an added bonus.”
TTG, the fat lady hasn’t sung yet. Putin is going to achieve all of those goals plus more.
TTG: “Unless he goes for total mobilization, the best he’s going to get with military force is a frozen conflict.”
I am perfectly willing to wager a $100US donation to your web site that your confidence in a Korea-like stalemate is completely and totally misguided.
What are you willing to put up?
Yeah, Right,
I think you’re being willfully obtuse. If this war is concluded with a peace treaty, the sanctions will end. Ending sanctions will either be part of the treaty, most likely, or will soon follow. If Putin thought he was winning, he’s go for the ceasefire, a peace treaty and the ending of sanctions. He doesn’t yet hold a winning hand having not met any of his original goals.
I have no special insight as to whether this war will end as a frozen conflict, but I see that as a real possibility. Ukraine will not concede that her territories now occupied by Russia are now Russian territory. Even China doesn’t recognize Russian territorial claims. So I don’t see how a real peace treaty is possible. A frozen conflict will still allow Western support to flow into Ukraine. I can even see Western militaries flocking to Ukrainian drone schools to learn this new way of war once the shooting stops. Russia would not be happy with a frozen conflict for those reasons alone, let alone not achieving any of her original goals. On second thought, I don’t think russia will for for a frozen conflict at all. She’s going to have to bite the bullet and fully mobilize.
TTG & YR,
We should all be clear that the US had slapped heavy sanctions on Russia, for sketchy unsubstantiated reasons, like “election interference”, prior to 2/2022. The neocon/Euro hostility and trend would have been clear to Putin and by the time the decision was made to invade Ukraine, it can be assumed that Putin figured he had nothing to lose because the west was gunning for his country anyhow.
It was also clear to Russia that Ukraine was/is a hotbed of western focused corruption and belligerent morons ready and willing to do whatever the west asked of them; an intolerable situation similar to having Mexico and its cartels on our border (and to a much lesser degree, Canada).
Then there was Ukraine and its Nazis making trouble with ethnic Russians in the Donbas.
The original goal was clearly to eliminate any threat posed by the hot mess next door. Reclaiming historic territory, restoring the glory of Russia, etc, etc blah blah that Putin himself occasionally spouts and that the neocons repeat, is just so much political gas. The deep state/democrats/neocons love them some corruption and some war and some stupid apes who will do damage all over the globe while lending plausible deniability to to the US. It’s like a mafia scheme, complete with lots of money under the table for the bosses. I digress.
I have been curious about the level of pain experienced by Russia due to sanctions and war. Of course, our host says it’s been devastating. The party line is well known and not interesting. The anti-west/antisocial rabble rousers (like LJ) say it’s merely a nuisance, at the most. I long figured it was somewhere in the middle, but now I’m leaning toward somewhere closer to the nuisance end of the spectrum. We’ll see.
While those who are aligned with deep state corruption via Ukraine, promote endless war, celebrate assistance to [reformed, limited geography, lol] jihadis and other evils (TTG being one such) will never admit they were wrong, if indeed they are, there will be a point sometime fairly soon, when the truth of the matter will be obvious honest rational people (not the deep state); whatever that truth ultimately is revealed to be.
A scathing dismissal of the “Coalition of the Willing” from Dr Richard North.
“Ukraine: motley of the unwilling”
By Richard North – March 21, 2025″
https://www.turbulenttimes.co.uk/news/front-page/ukraine-motley-of-the-unwilling/
Ever since the Falklands, probably before for all I know, British politicians cherish the hope that giving the electorate a good war to get behind will up their poll ratings. Same in the States of course. When there’s a war on we automatically get behind the team and wave our flags with the best of them. Not to do so is unpatriotic, possible treasonous. Only quislings or agents of influence stop to ask whether it’s a just war or not, or even a useful.
In England, the practice of doing a photo-op in battledress or at some Command HQ in the hope of upping ratings is called using the “Falklands Factor”. One intrepid politician hopped on a tank in Latvia recently and we saw her stemming the Russian threat up round that way. I don’t think American politicians do that sort of thing so much. Ours do. Maybe a cultural thing.
Dr North identifies the Falklands factor that’s given Starmer a lift in the polls recently and finds it insufficient. “As he edges closer to disaster, one wonders what it will take to realise that he is out of his depth with a scheme that is now most unlikely to deliver him any electoral brownie points.”
………………………………………
This, however, from the same article, took me back to the “Summer Offensive”:-
” … the Telegraph goes on to quote a “senior RAF source” who says that air cover the British can supply would have been discussed at the meeting because in the event British soldiers go into Ukraine, “there will be a requirement for top cover”.
“We would never send British troops out on the ground without giving them air cover …,”
We now know that to a great extent the Ukrainian war was micro-managed by our own generals. Shorthand, the Milley/Cavoli/Radakin trio. The Ukrainian General Staff itself had doubts about that “Summer Offensive”. They wanted their forces further north, to cope with a menacing and ultimately successful Russian advance there. But that Summer Offensive still went ahead.
It was difficult to see the point of that offensive at the time. Assume it had worked. Assume the Kiev forces had got to the Azov Sea. Assume they had even managed to blockade Crimea, as so many puff pieces in the British press were encouraging us to hope. Assume, even, that they had taken Crimea. Did we think that in that case the Russians would simply have packed up their toys and gone home? Ludicrous.
Even at the time it was obvious this was a PR offensive, to persuade the western electorates that it was worth continuing to feed money and weapons in, rather than an offensive with any meaningful strategic purpose.
The chain-smoking Colonel Trukhan was also contemptuous about that offensive. It could never have worked, he stated. To breach what was then called the Surovikin Line we’d have needed, he said, greatly increased numbers of men and equipment. A pointless offensive anyway, he observed, because had we assembled enough to breach those formidable defences, or looked like doing so, tactical nuclear would have been used.
But even aside from such apocalyptic considerations, a pointless offensive. Trukhan mentioned that it would be impossible to breach that line without adequate air cover and comprehensive AD. Which the Kiev forces did not have.
“We would never send British troops out on the ground without giving them air cover …” But we did with Ukrainian troops. Time and time again, not only the Summer Offensive.
This was, for our politicians and military, always a PR war and never mind how many proxies died.