The Black Sea Ceasefire--Connected To War On Iran, Plus
This is a bit complicated. I was listening today to Alexander Mercouris speaking about the confusing events surrounding the so-called Black Sea ceasefire, which is supposed to guarantee the free flow of agricultural products (primarily) from the Black Sea. That’s the official version. However Ukraine objects strongly. The reason is that, in addition to the provision regarding agricultural products there is a provision that would ensure that ships heading to Ukraine ports (mostly Odessa) are not carrying military supplies. Russia would participate in inspections to enforce that provision. In other words, Trump—in order to get even a partial ceasefire—has removed sanctions on Russian agricultural products, including all the financial and insurance arrangements that are part of export business. But he has also, in effect, established a partial arms embargo on Ukraine.
Black Sea negotiations are a distraction. Looks like the Russians are trying to chip away at the SWIFT ban. American Trump supporters will be happy. They haven’t been able to buy AK-platform guns for 3 years! Serious shortage - not even kidding!
Now, Mercouris doesn’t seem to see the importance of the arms embargo aspect of this deal. He does see what PP, above, sees. These are major concessions that Russia is extracting from Trump—whom Mercouris correctly sees as being in a huge rush to reconcile with Russia. But Mercouris sees this as forcing the Euros to make these concessions and says that the US is not, itself, giving anything up. Again, he’s right that Trump is forcing the Euros to come along, however, I see this as part of a gamble on Trump’s part. This is where it gets complicated.
As I’ve been writing recently, Trump’s goal in reconciling with Russia is to detach Russia from Iran. Presumably to induce Russia to, essentially, give the US a free hand to attack Iran—if the threats don’t work. That’s what these concessions to Russia are all about. The concessions are inducements and, at the same time, threats—sanctions could always be re-imposed. Trump has given Iran a two month ultimatum, and that’s why he’s in such a rush to reconcile with Russia and will give up virtually any concession that Russia demands.
Now, why do I say that Trump is gambling by making valuable concessions to Russia, and that—unlike Mercouris says—these concessions are not simply on the Euros? I believe that Trump has not actually given up on the overall US strategy of placing Russia in a subordinate position so that the “Main Enemy”, China, can be subdued. That was the strategy of Trump 1.0 and I can think of no reason to suppose that Trump 2.0 has changed its strategy. The complication this time around is in the Middle East, which is far closer to chaos than the last time around, with Israel under great pressure. The Israel Lobby that owns Trump is insisting that Trump must deal with Iran first and foremost, because unless Iran can be cowed the resistance to the Jewish Supremacy Project will remain alive. Again, there is a complication. Iran has become the keystone for Putin’s vision of a BRICS world economy that preserves Russian access to the global economy, free from the threat of Anglo-Zionist inspired blockades of the Black, Baltic, and Arctic seas.
Trump’s gamble is that he can snooker Putin into taking the concessions and cutting Iran loose. Then, having pulled off regime change in Iran by military means if necessary, Trump will once again be in a position to pressure Putin—this time, to cooperate against China, as originally planned. My bet is that Putin understands all this. He will take any concessions, but won’t change Russia’s strategic planning, which is based on BRICS. He won’t sell out either Iran or China. What form his support for Iran will take remains to be seen, and it must certainly be a matter of great concern to US military planners.
OK, now a short digression. Russia is reported to have issued a sort of ultimatum of its own. In effect, Russia is telling Trump that they’ll continue talking about ceasefires and so forth—but only for a limited time. If Trump can’t come up with a Ukraine deal on Russia’s timeline Russia will forge ahead in a big way. Again, Trump is under a lot of pressure:
Kommersant, one of Russia’s most respected publications: Putin is giving the West & Ukraine a short window to accept the four Eastern oblasts as permanent Russian territory. If no deal, the West risks having Kharkiv, Dnipro, Mykolaiv & Odessa included in subsequent demands.
Back to the main topic.
Trump’s dangerous clown NSA, Mike Waltz, has made an interesting admission. Waltz states that Euro navies cannot defend themselves against Houthi missiles. That’s an admission that the Houthis most certainly have formidable capabilities, and is in line with statements from US naval personnel who have been stationed in the Red Sea region. Most analysts believe that Iran’s anti-ship (and other) missiles are significantly more advanced than those the Houthis currently possess.
In other words: The low-cost anti-shipping weapons Iran provides/smuggles to Yemen require ships with the Aegis combat system at its full capacity to reliably defend against.
A capability beyond that of European ships, according to Waltz
This should suggest that Trump is playing with fire, probably in multiple ways.
Onward.
The regime friendly media is claiming that the Signal fiasco is no big deal, that there were no damaging revelations. That’s only true if you think that the revelation of deliberately planned war crimes is no big deal. It turns out that the US targeted an important Yemeni official by waiting for him to enter his girl friend’s apartment building—and then destroying the entire building. That’s a war crime, even if it is Anglo-Zionist SOP. The term “decapitation strike” suggests surgical precision, but in fact it’s not at all.
Trump says US strikes on Yemen are successful
"Good war crime bro"
Also, recall that Bondi and others are likening the people they deport to “terrorists,” claiming that they led “riots”, “violent protests,” and etc. That’s also not true.
The Trump administration is now deporting people for simply writing op-eds calling for the boycott of Israel.
Boycotts are the most peaceful form of protest that there is. So y’all can all stop lying saying this is about “violent protests.” Clearly that’s another lie, as the case of this Turkish medical student at Tufts shows—it’s purely about speech:
Ominously, one has to suppose that the nationwide jihad on criticism of Israel’s Jewish Supremacy Project has as a major goal the suppression of criticism of Trump’s foreign policy. That suggests that war may well be in the works and this is all prep for war.
Yeah, makes total sense. It may be a Uniparty state we live in, but that doesn't mean you can trust just anyone.
NEW: Though Waltz insists, “I wasn’t talking to [Goldberg],” a US intel official told me **Waltz was a source for Goldberg while on HPSCI.** “There’s no need for an investigation to figure out how he was added to the chat.Goldberg was in his address book b/c he’s been talking to him”
— Paul Sperry (@paulsperry_) March 26, 2025
This is all becoming very surreal. At the end of Orwell's "Animal Farm" the reader can no longer tell the difference between the pigs and the farmers who they supplanted. When I listen to Hesgeth, Waltz and Gabbard, I hear little difference between them and Hillary cackling over the killing of Gadhafi. They are starting to look and sound Deep State. Even Sleepy Kash Patel was ranting on about Iran the other day as if destroying the mullahs was part of the FBI job spec. I hope Putin twists the knife and keeps Trump and the Euros bogged down in Ukraine as long as possible. It's the biggest help he can give to Iran apart from giving them advanced missile technology.