It seems clear now that the Ukrainians accepted a ceasefire with baseline concessions attached that Trump hopes will entice Russian to the table--to hammer out a permanent settlement. But Russia may also insist on further negotiations (with the US) *before* any ceasefire and talks. Doctorow points to the recent Ukraine drone attacks on civilian targets as a reason that Russia could advance for not stopping before complete demilitarization. Putin will be under great pressure to reject this initial US offer, but will want to keep doors open if Trump's offer looks remotely plausible and in good faith. Trump obviously thinks he has made significant moves to demonstrate his good faith--voting with Russia at the UN, cutting off aid to Ukraine for a time (and to what extent going forward remains unclear), cooperating with Russia re Syria, etc. But Putin can't afford to put all his eggs in the Trump basket, so will be cautious and could reject Trump's offer at this point. If possible, Putin would probably prefer to continue talking rather than simply reject the offer. Trump, otoh, is pressuring for quick movement for his own reasons. Putin, by continuing talking, could provide Trump with some cover, some plausible appearance of progress.
Listening to Doctorow/Nap now. Just heard Waltz saying that they got into *substantive details* for a permanent peace. So clearly there's more going on here than we know. My view: Trump really needs to end this, if only for domestic political reasons.
Doctorow is adamant that the US is NOT neutral, is not simply an honest broker.
Doctorow believes Putin will say, Yes, but ...
Doctorow: Putin will say, No ceasefire until all Ukrainians driven out of Russia (Kursk), at a minimum. What happens after that? My view: That would depend on what Ukraine has conceded up front, including enforcement. But it could also depend on further territorial gains.
Doctorow: Trump has sent clear signals to Russia that the US wants a major reset.
Me: Russia has to be cautious going forward, because after Trump ...?
Can anyone name anybody else who could've survived, politically speaking, the events of January 6, coupled with four or more court cases and two assassination attempts?
This is not a stupid man. This man has set the narrative for our country for over nine years. Trump speaks and the world reacts. In my opinion, the strength of the movement he leads has shredded Obama's plan to fundamentally change the United States. He's a lot like Reagan and he's leaving an indelible mark in a way Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden, McConnell, McCain and Romney could only dream
Trump can't afford to lose his support. If he does, he's finished; he's a lame duck. We don't know what secret talks he's had with Putin. They've met each other and sized each other up.
Look at the way he schooled Zelensky on live TV. Trump has put his reputation on the line stating that he wants to be a president for peace. He didn't have to run again. He could've announced he wouldn't run again and I believe the powers that be would've been only too happy to publicly guarantee he wouldn't face prosecution because they'd be only too happy to be allowed to go back to ruining this country, and, this world.
We all know how good the media and Deep State are at setting false narratives. If Trump turns off the rich Jews who have so much influence, he risks bringing down all he's trying to do. As Ray said, he knows who is enemies are. I'll add he knows where the bodies are hidden and he knows there are landmines.
I don't regard Trump as a god; he's got his faults and I'm not saying he's playing 4D chess. I suspect he's pretty good at poker.
Potential to align Russia, Ukraine, and US on peace plans while locking out the EU who will kick and scream to continue war mongering. They aren't gonna like it. However, Trump (as we know) doesn't care what the EU thinks.
Anyone else wonder if VVP was sending a message by showing up in army fatigues today? Granted he was visiting troops, but after last week showdown in the Oval Office, it seemed to take on more significance?
Also, why would anyone, especially the Rusdians,trust any guarantee the Ukranians make, as Zelensky can always ignore or double cross, as long as he is in nominal power?
Thanks. Lavrov confirms what I've been stressing--that the talks have gone far beyond simply Ukraine and that the Middle East has always been #2 on the agenda for each meeting.
It's interesting perhaps because if Lavrov is saying it
the Russia China Iran the entire East and a majority of the world
are thinking it
This is the first confirmation I have seen on Putin's thoughts on Gaza
The speach in it's entirety also confirms my long standing suspicion that Russia China
want to do things ' by the book ' meaning in line with UN and UN resolutions
Upholding the UN is the only manner of world peace available unfortunately Biden administration spent the last 4 years undermining the UN hopefully Trump will turn that around, but it appears he is continuing down Biden's foolish and wayward path
President Putin is always underlining when he speaks about this region that the solution is impossible without a Palestinian state and without a reliable security arrangement for Israel.
The two states were created by the decision of the General Assembly in 1948. And the decision basically conditioned the creation and existence of one state against the creation and existence of another.
Now, everybody who wants a Palestinian state speaks about 1967 borders. Which is very different from 1948 borders which were supposed to be the borders of Israel and of Palestine. If you take a look at the map now – 1967 borders is like a galaxy compared to what you have and the West Bank is all in settlements.
The latest development I saw so many reports that Israelis decided to annex in a specific way the West Bank by taking it under total control without sending Palestinians out but concentrating them in several municipalities (not in camps).
We discussed the joint comprehensive action program on the Iran nuclear issue. We are in favor of restoring the original program from which the Americans dropped during the first Trump government. There are some contacts on the European side.
We would be in favor of resuming the format which developed the original deal endorsed by the Security Council (which is France, Germany, UK, US, Russia, China) and Iran.
We'll see how it goes. But what is worrying is that there are some indications that the Americans would like this new deal to be accompanied by political conditions, insisting that there should be some verifiable arrangement for Iran not to support groups in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Syria, anywhere, which I don't think is going to fly. Look, all countries in the Gulf have influence beyond the borders of their kingdoms, emirates, Northern Africa. They undertake quite a number of humanitarian, economic programs. They mediate a lot.
Sudan, for example. The domestic crisis in Sudan is being handled one way or another by some players in the Gulf. So to say that everybody has this right to project influence except Iran, I don't think it's realistic.
Please note, Trump has still taken ownership of the war on Russia. In a very real way that adds weight to Doctorow's general argument because he's so heavily invested now that he can't afford to walk away--he needs to resolve it. That's the logical argument.
I would like to think there is something to Doctorow's speculation. There is no way to know for sure at this time. What we do know is what Zelensky just said about not being willing to cede ANY territory to Russia:
But then in this same article we see evidence supporting Doctorow in the sense that there is an apparent disconnect between Zelensky and the Ukrainian negotiating team:
"As for Zelensky's new proclamation that he won't cede territory, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters just after the Ukraine-US talks in Saudi Arabia that discussions with Kiev's delegations included "territorial concessions" as part of a negotiated settlement. "
So, some hope. Maybe it is best to apply the "48 hour rule" when it comes to this stuff. Tough to do in the times of the Internet. With Trump, maybe it should be the 48 day rule :).
D, I stand by the comments that I made here yesterday and am still very disappointed, however, I am willing to concede that the best approach to DJT, as you suggest, is wait 48 hours and then give it the smell test. I’d be more than happy to admit that my judgment was both premature and inaccurate. Besides, if you put enough barbecue sauce on crow it tastes a lot like chicken :-)
A few years ago, I read a very interesting book. It was the autobiography of admiral, William Standly, they admiral in the 1930s had been chief of naval operations and was responsible for trying to get the navy in shape for a war that he thought was coming.
He was recalled duty after Pearl Harbor to be a part of the Pearl Harbor investigation personally by President Roosevelt .
He was then picked by President Roosevelt to be the ambassador to the Soviet union during the middle part of World War II , he was there from 1942 to around 19:44 I think after D-Day.
During his time there he had extensive dealings with Molotov and Stalin and he figured out very well how to negotiate with those guys . he kept running correspondence with President Roosevelt, trying to explain to him how to deal with these people and Roosevelt never listen to him.
His autobiography explains in detail how he approached dealing with the Soviets or in reality the Russians he said there really wasn’t any difference. His book should be required by the state department for anyone going to Russia to deal with them.
Nobody in the current state department environment before Trump or during Trump has ever practiced what the admiral tried to teach Roosevelt about in dealing with the Russians .
There is never going to be any trust between our country and the Russian Federation unless we are forthright, and our word means something .
You can forget about Putin and Russia agreeing to any kind of cease-fire that’s not going to happen. They’re winning the war and they’re just going to go on and finish it.
I don’t believe for a minute Trump has any deal going with Putin.
We certainly cannot go in to fight Russia in Ukraine at this point even with NATO we don’t have the resources to stage in army to fight in the field. Russia technology wise is way ahead of us in missile technology with their hypersonic missiles and their kinetic energy bombs. We don’t have either one.
I believe at this point Trump is trying to sell fools gold to the American public and to NATO.
I AGREE, WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH PREVIOUS ARTICLES WHICH INDICATE TRUMP NOW OWNS THE UKRAINE WAR AND THE WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST TWO THINGS. HE SAID HE DIDN’T WANT AND THAT HE WOULD DO ANYTHING HE COULD GET OUT OF AND YET HE’S NOT DOING SO.
My confidence in Trump‘s foreign policy is not very high, and I am baffled by his absolute obsession with tariffs. I’d like to know if he is actually thought this out enough. Why do we want to be in wars at this point? we should be making peace with the Russians pull out of the Middle East and let them fight it out. Whatever right now I see nothing but a debacle ahead.
There's no question but that Trump has taken full ownership now.
Also, it's entirely possible that Doctorow could be correct about what Trump is trying to do, but that Putin could still decide against buying in on it--to many past breaches of faith.
A couple of things. First, Stalin was a sociopath dictator with the accompanying paranoia. He likely had a few of the same type around him, but most of his underlings would ask "how high" when told to jump. This would be extremely difficult to negotiate/deal with as I'm sure the Admiral realized. Putin, while a complete authoritarian, appears to actually care about the people of Russia. I believe he wants a deal and being no dummy he knows he holds most if not all the cards. And Trump is no dummy either, so he is dealing with the hand, or lack of, dealt to him. I've read other threads on Substack that discuss a new new world order with Russia and the USA setting much of the tone. Both leaders would probably prefer this as it cuts a completely decayed Europe out of the equation. England, the BOE, and their money handlers, the Rothschilds get to move to the trash bin of history. But not without the subsequent death spasms. Personally, I see great advantage to this.
As for tariffs, this is the best idea a president has talked about since McKinley. Anyone who believes Free Trade exists has not worked in any manufacturing, mining, building nor any hands on productive jobs. The wealth of the US middle class has been so exfiltrated from this country, that many productive people have turned to suicide including fentanyl. We have to get this turned around quickly or England here we come. This country did very well before the Income Tax amendment was passed. England and the bankers got that amendment done and the US has not been better off for it. Here is a Forbes article about tariffs.
And lastly, I was recently reading about Lincoln and his creation of "greenbacks" really upsetting the Brits (bankers). In short, they could not control a country that created its own currency instead of borrowing from banks. Can't find the source at the moment.
Cheer up, things are going our way. There is much fighting to be done and it will take a long time. But our direction has changed for the better.
Mr. McIntyre thank you for your insight on this topic especially the origins of US disregard of the Soviet and/or Russian people. Though FDR was elected to his 4th term to begin Jan. 1945, insiders knew he would die soon so his VP would be pres. for most of 4 yrs. FDR's 3rd term VP had been Henry Wallace and he was the favorite of delegates to the 1944 Dem. convention. But insiders wanted a warmonger which Henry Wallace was not, so they hijacked the convention and installed little known global terrorist Harry Truman who of course became pres. in April 1945 and 4 months later dropped 2 atom bombs on Japanese civilians. Today this would be known as a terrorist act. In defeating Hitler the Soviets had lost 25 million of its citizens along with living under German occupation for over a year. Stalin had been a US ally. But for no apparent reason, Truman determined that USSR/Russia was evil and needed to be defeated. Truman was so serious about this that in 1946 he fired his Sec. of Commerce for suggesting detente w. Soviet/Russia. Truman of course set up the massive "post WWII architecture" binding US taxpayers to permanent global subservience to protect the world from USSR/Russia. I conclude that Russia was never the problem, but that US fat cats needed a permanent bad guy as an excuse to bleed US taxpayers and for 80 years that's what has happened.
Well, Susan, let me say that a good part of your analysis is correct. The interesting thing about Truman is that he was never brought in and briefed on the Manhattan project until later on.
I believe we can date the beginnings of the military industrial complex during World War II and post World War II. As for the bombings of Japan, they’re still a lot of controversy pro and con on whether we should’ve dropped those bombs. Several years ago I read a very good book on this by an author name. Richard Frank name of the book was downfall and it talked about the last months World War II and the reasons for dropping the bomb and maybe reasons for not it was even controversial among the war committee, whether to do it. There is certainly a lot of evidence out there that Japan was ready to surrender and that the bombs really weren’t necessary. The Contra argument that was that the war plans drawn up to invade Japan would’ve required 1 million men the Crux of it was what would the casualty rate be?
Based on what happened on evil Jim and some of the other islands Guam of course , the fighting was so horrific that the Japanese were willing to die to the last man it made the war planners paused to wonder if invasion happened on the Japanese homeland Islands would fight the same way. Would we be looking at a 50% casualty rate? We will never know the truth on this.
As for the Cold War, you’re entirely correct. Several years ago, Michael Crichton wrote a book called state of fear. in that book, he stated that the Cold War with Russia was a state of fear that was sold to us the United States citizen in a psychological op and propaganda away, so that we would hate these people to know end and painted them as totally evil. I believe that was never the truth yeah you had about 10% of the people in leadership who were members of the communist party. Everyone was a communist, but they lived under a totalitarian regime where there was no choice.
It is amazing to think the amount of money that this country spent on defense post World War II because of our short sighted thinking about the Russian people. For instance in 1960 during the presidential campaign and absolutely absurd piece of information was put out that there was a missile gap that we the United States were behind the Russians and nuclear missile capability . The real facts were it was the Russians, who were behind us so what that did was caused another arms race that was not necessary.
The Soviet union finally collapsed simply because Reagan started another race and bankrupted them. They were spending almost 50% of their GDP on the military, not the country.
We have had plenty of opportunity in the last 35 years to make the Russians, at least our ally, but what have we done? We have tried to reset everything to another Cold War because of the industrial military complex. There have been numerous occasions when Putin has reached out to try to come to some type of terms on things, and we have rejected it or lied or betrayed our own word repeatedly.
So in the context of the Ukraine war, why are the Russians going to trust us on anything people forget that the CIA overthrew the elected government of Ukraine in 2014. The CIA since 1950 has overthrown in excess of 70 legitimately elected governments in the world for their own purposes. The excuse always used is that those governments were leaning toward communism or whatever. There’s a lot of history out there. A lot of people just don’t have any idea about.
Very good take. And don't forget Churchill was part of the triumvirate that settled the Europe part of the war. Again, here are the British that had hated the Russians for nearly 100 years or more. Check out some history of the Crimean War.
Reading about Churchill has made me even sicker about the UK monarchy-US elite endless war tag team. When Churchill traveled to US to see FDR in early 1940s he did so as the specially selected representative of King George VI, Nevil Chamberlain having resigned as PM. Thus Churchill was even less a representative of the people than the usual PM. After Truman dropped 2 a-bombs Churchill slobbered all over him, said how great it was that US and UK controlled the bomb because "we" would always use it for "good." Churchill also suggested that US and UK citizenship would one day merge. US elites love monarchies and would be happy to formally convert us to subjects of a monarchy. Details about the Crimean War will likely make me depressed. At minimum, UK is desperate to keep US and Russia apart because it will make them even less relevant.
I’m not trying to add to any depression, but I was recently in New Zealand. Great people and a beautiful country. A few tour guides we had mentioned the ANZACs in WW I. The Kiwi’s have a great reverence for the ANZACs as they lost 1/6 of their young men in the Gallipoli fiasco. And the Gallipoli attack was thought up and pushed by Mr Churchill. The English with their colonies had plenty of men to fight, but wasted them on such adventures even back to Khartoum. This worship of royalty has its price. Maybe that’s why the Rothschilds could gain so much power also.
And a good Scotch can help with depression if not overdone. 😉
The Gallipoli disaster was also a major precipitant for the 1916 Easter Rising in Ireland. Up to that point, young Irish men went into the British Army thinking they'd be made a "cut above" the yokels back home. Being fed into the meat grinder at Gallipoli in service of their masters disabused them of that notion, en masse and pretty-much overnight.
From "The Foggy Dew," now THE ballad of The Rising:
"‘twas better to die ‘neath an Irish sky than at Suvla or Sud-El-Bar..."
It seems clear now that the Ukrainians accepted a ceasefire with baseline concessions attached that Trump hopes will entice Russian to the table--to hammer out a permanent settlement. But Russia may also insist on further negotiations (with the US) *before* any ceasefire and talks. Doctorow points to the recent Ukraine drone attacks on civilian targets as a reason that Russia could advance for not stopping before complete demilitarization. Putin will be under great pressure to reject this initial US offer, but will want to keep doors open if Trump's offer looks remotely plausible and in good faith. Trump obviously thinks he has made significant moves to demonstrate his good faith--voting with Russia at the UN, cutting off aid to Ukraine for a time (and to what extent going forward remains unclear), cooperating with Russia re Syria, etc. But Putin can't afford to put all his eggs in the Trump basket, so will be cautious and could reject Trump's offer at this point. If possible, Putin would probably prefer to continue talking rather than simply reject the offer. Trump, otoh, is pressuring for quick movement for his own reasons. Putin, by continuing talking, could provide Trump with some cover, some plausible appearance of progress.
Listening to Doctorow/Nap now. Just heard Waltz saying that they got into *substantive details* for a permanent peace. So clearly there's more going on here than we know. My view: Trump really needs to end this, if only for domestic political reasons.
Doctorow is adamant that the US is NOT neutral, is not simply an honest broker.
Doctorow believes Putin will say, Yes, but ...
Doctorow: Putin will say, No ceasefire until all Ukrainians driven out of Russia (Kursk), at a minimum. What happens after that? My view: That would depend on what Ukraine has conceded up front, including enforcement. But it could also depend on further territorial gains.
Doctorow: Trump has sent clear signals to Russia that the US wants a major reset.
Me: Russia has to be cautious going forward, because after Trump ...?
Thanks.
A couple of thoughts.
Can anyone name anybody else who could've survived, politically speaking, the events of January 6, coupled with four or more court cases and two assassination attempts?
This is not a stupid man. This man has set the narrative for our country for over nine years. Trump speaks and the world reacts. In my opinion, the strength of the movement he leads has shredded Obama's plan to fundamentally change the United States. He's a lot like Reagan and he's leaving an indelible mark in a way Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Biden, McConnell, McCain and Romney could only dream
Trump can't afford to lose his support. If he does, he's finished; he's a lame duck. We don't know what secret talks he's had with Putin. They've met each other and sized each other up.
Look at the way he schooled Zelensky on live TV. Trump has put his reputation on the line stating that he wants to be a president for peace. He didn't have to run again. He could've announced he wouldn't run again and I believe the powers that be would've been only too happy to publicly guarantee he wouldn't face prosecution because they'd be only too happy to be allowed to go back to ruining this country, and, this world.
We all know how good the media and Deep State are at setting false narratives. If Trump turns off the rich Jews who have so much influence, he risks bringing down all he's trying to do. As Ray said, he knows who is enemies are. I'll add he knows where the bodies are hidden and he knows there are landmines.
I don't regard Trump as a god; he's got his faults and I'm not saying he's playing 4D chess. I suspect he's pretty good at poker.
Potential to align Russia, Ukraine, and US on peace plans while locking out the EU who will kick and scream to continue war mongering. They aren't gonna like it. However, Trump (as we know) doesn't care what the EU thinks.
Anyone else wonder if VVP was sending a message by showing up in army fatigues today? Granted he was visiting troops, but after last week showdown in the Oval Office, it seemed to take on more significance?
Also, why would anyone, especially the Rusdians,trust any guarantee the Ukranians make, as Zelensky can always ignore or double cross, as long as he is in nominal power?
None of this makes sense
I thought Lavrov comments were interesting
It appears Russia is thoroughly behind the 1967 border in Gaza
and in Support of Iran
Maybe Israel is pressuring Trump not to give Russia a win without a deal on Iran
or maybe this is creeping into the Ukraine negotiations souring them
Basically it seems US is apparently demanding Iran can be Iran but not if they have
any influence nor provide any humanitarian aide or other aide (weapons etc.)
to surrounding Palestine Lebanon or others
and the US has the right to go in and Verify that
https://youtu.be/ICvOkguQsk4?t=4388
Link cued in to Russia Gaza Lavrov comments
Thanks. Lavrov confirms what I've been stressing--that the talks have gone far beyond simply Ukraine and that the Middle East has always been #2 on the agenda for each meeting.
It's interesting perhaps because if Lavrov is saying it
the Russia China Iran the entire East and a majority of the world
are thinking it
This is the first confirmation I have seen on Putin's thoughts on Gaza
The speach in it's entirety also confirms my long standing suspicion that Russia China
want to do things ' by the book ' meaning in line with UN and UN resolutions
Upholding the UN is the only manner of world peace available unfortunately Biden administration spent the last 4 years undermining the UN hopefully Trump will turn that around, but it appears he is continuing down Biden's foolish and wayward path
transript provided by Russia
https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2002637/
President Putin is always underlining when he speaks about this region that the solution is impossible without a Palestinian state and without a reliable security arrangement for Israel.
The two states were created by the decision of the General Assembly in 1948. And the decision basically conditioned the creation and existence of one state against the creation and existence of another.
Now, everybody who wants a Palestinian state speaks about 1967 borders. Which is very different from 1948 borders which were supposed to be the borders of Israel and of Palestine. If you take a look at the map now – 1967 borders is like a galaxy compared to what you have and the West Bank is all in settlements.
The latest development I saw so many reports that Israelis decided to annex in a specific way the West Bank by taking it under total control without sending Palestinians out but concentrating them in several municipalities (not in camps).
We discussed the joint comprehensive action program on the Iran nuclear issue. We are in favor of restoring the original program from which the Americans dropped during the first Trump government. There are some contacts on the European side.
We would be in favor of resuming the format which developed the original deal endorsed by the Security Council (which is France, Germany, UK, US, Russia, China) and Iran.
We'll see how it goes. But what is worrying is that there are some indications that the Americans would like this new deal to be accompanied by political conditions, insisting that there should be some verifiable arrangement for Iran not to support groups in Iraq, in Lebanon, in Syria, anywhere, which I don't think is going to fly. Look, all countries in the Gulf have influence beyond the borders of their kingdoms, emirates, Northern Africa. They undertake quite a number of humanitarian, economic programs. They mediate a lot.
Sudan, for example. The domestic crisis in Sudan is being handled one way or another by some players in the Gulf. So to say that everybody has this right to project influence except Iran, I don't think it's realistic.
Please note, Trump has still taken ownership of the war on Russia. In a very real way that adds weight to Doctorow's general argument because he's so heavily invested now that he can't afford to walk away--he needs to resolve it. That's the logical argument.
I would like to think there is something to Doctorow's speculation. There is no way to know for sure at this time. What we do know is what Zelensky just said about not being willing to cede ANY territory to Russia:
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/moscow-studying-30-day-truce-plan-while-making-steady-battlefield-gains-meantime
But then in this same article we see evidence supporting Doctorow in the sense that there is an apparent disconnect between Zelensky and the Ukrainian negotiating team:
"As for Zelensky's new proclamation that he won't cede territory, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters just after the Ukraine-US talks in Saudi Arabia that discussions with Kiev's delegations included "territorial concessions" as part of a negotiated settlement. "
So, some hope. Maybe it is best to apply the "48 hour rule" when it comes to this stuff. Tough to do in the times of the Internet. With Trump, maybe it should be the 48 day rule :).
Yep. The green goblin will be done and sidelined to the EU.
What a fantastic thought!
D, I stand by the comments that I made here yesterday and am still very disappointed, however, I am willing to concede that the best approach to DJT, as you suggest, is wait 48 hours and then give it the smell test. I’d be more than happy to admit that my judgment was both premature and inaccurate. Besides, if you put enough barbecue sauce on crow it tastes a lot like chicken :-)
A few years ago, I read a very interesting book. It was the autobiography of admiral, William Standly, they admiral in the 1930s had been chief of naval operations and was responsible for trying to get the navy in shape for a war that he thought was coming.
He was recalled duty after Pearl Harbor to be a part of the Pearl Harbor investigation personally by President Roosevelt .
He was then picked by President Roosevelt to be the ambassador to the Soviet union during the middle part of World War II , he was there from 1942 to around 19:44 I think after D-Day.
During his time there he had extensive dealings with Molotov and Stalin and he figured out very well how to negotiate with those guys . he kept running correspondence with President Roosevelt, trying to explain to him how to deal with these people and Roosevelt never listen to him.
His autobiography explains in detail how he approached dealing with the Soviets or in reality the Russians he said there really wasn’t any difference. His book should be required by the state department for anyone going to Russia to deal with them.
Nobody in the current state department environment before Trump or during Trump has ever practiced what the admiral tried to teach Roosevelt about in dealing with the Russians .
There is never going to be any trust between our country and the Russian Federation unless we are forthright, and our word means something .
You can forget about Putin and Russia agreeing to any kind of cease-fire that’s not going to happen. They’re winning the war and they’re just going to go on and finish it.
I don’t believe for a minute Trump has any deal going with Putin.
We certainly cannot go in to fight Russia in Ukraine at this point even with NATO we don’t have the resources to stage in army to fight in the field. Russia technology wise is way ahead of us in missile technology with their hypersonic missiles and their kinetic energy bombs. We don’t have either one.
I believe at this point Trump is trying to sell fools gold to the American public and to NATO.
I AGREE, WHOLEHEARTEDLY WITH PREVIOUS ARTICLES WHICH INDICATE TRUMP NOW OWNS THE UKRAINE WAR AND THE WAR IN THE MIDDLE EAST TWO THINGS. HE SAID HE DIDN’T WANT AND THAT HE WOULD DO ANYTHING HE COULD GET OUT OF AND YET HE’S NOT DOING SO.
My confidence in Trump‘s foreign policy is not very high, and I am baffled by his absolute obsession with tariffs. I’d like to know if he is actually thought this out enough. Why do we want to be in wars at this point? we should be making peace with the Russians pull out of the Middle East and let them fight it out. Whatever right now I see nothing but a debacle ahead.
There's no question but that Trump has taken full ownership now.
Also, it's entirely possible that Doctorow could be correct about what Trump is trying to do, but that Putin could still decide against buying in on it--to many past breaches of faith.
A couple of things. First, Stalin was a sociopath dictator with the accompanying paranoia. He likely had a few of the same type around him, but most of his underlings would ask "how high" when told to jump. This would be extremely difficult to negotiate/deal with as I'm sure the Admiral realized. Putin, while a complete authoritarian, appears to actually care about the people of Russia. I believe he wants a deal and being no dummy he knows he holds most if not all the cards. And Trump is no dummy either, so he is dealing with the hand, or lack of, dealt to him. I've read other threads on Substack that discuss a new new world order with Russia and the USA setting much of the tone. Both leaders would probably prefer this as it cuts a completely decayed Europe out of the equation. England, the BOE, and their money handlers, the Rothschilds get to move to the trash bin of history. But not without the subsequent death spasms. Personally, I see great advantage to this.
As for tariffs, this is the best idea a president has talked about since McKinley. Anyone who believes Free Trade exists has not worked in any manufacturing, mining, building nor any hands on productive jobs. The wealth of the US middle class has been so exfiltrated from this country, that many productive people have turned to suicide including fentanyl. We have to get this turned around quickly or England here we come. This country did very well before the Income Tax amendment was passed. England and the bankers got that amendment done and the US has not been better off for it. Here is a Forbes article about tariffs.
https://www.forbes.com/sites/briandomitrovic/2018/03/09/when-tariffs-worked/
And lastly, I was recently reading about Lincoln and his creation of "greenbacks" really upsetting the Brits (bankers). In short, they could not control a country that created its own currency instead of borrowing from banks. Can't find the source at the moment.
Cheer up, things are going our way. There is much fighting to be done and it will take a long time. But our direction has changed for the better.
Mr. McIntyre thank you for your insight on this topic especially the origins of US disregard of the Soviet and/or Russian people. Though FDR was elected to his 4th term to begin Jan. 1945, insiders knew he would die soon so his VP would be pres. for most of 4 yrs. FDR's 3rd term VP had been Henry Wallace and he was the favorite of delegates to the 1944 Dem. convention. But insiders wanted a warmonger which Henry Wallace was not, so they hijacked the convention and installed little known global terrorist Harry Truman who of course became pres. in April 1945 and 4 months later dropped 2 atom bombs on Japanese civilians. Today this would be known as a terrorist act. In defeating Hitler the Soviets had lost 25 million of its citizens along with living under German occupation for over a year. Stalin had been a US ally. But for no apparent reason, Truman determined that USSR/Russia was evil and needed to be defeated. Truman was so serious about this that in 1946 he fired his Sec. of Commerce for suggesting detente w. Soviet/Russia. Truman of course set up the massive "post WWII architecture" binding US taxpayers to permanent global subservience to protect the world from USSR/Russia. I conclude that Russia was never the problem, but that US fat cats needed a permanent bad guy as an excuse to bleed US taxpayers and for 80 years that's what has happened.
Well, Susan, let me say that a good part of your analysis is correct. The interesting thing about Truman is that he was never brought in and briefed on the Manhattan project until later on.
I believe we can date the beginnings of the military industrial complex during World War II and post World War II. As for the bombings of Japan, they’re still a lot of controversy pro and con on whether we should’ve dropped those bombs. Several years ago I read a very good book on this by an author name. Richard Frank name of the book was downfall and it talked about the last months World War II and the reasons for dropping the bomb and maybe reasons for not it was even controversial among the war committee, whether to do it. There is certainly a lot of evidence out there that Japan was ready to surrender and that the bombs really weren’t necessary. The Contra argument that was that the war plans drawn up to invade Japan would’ve required 1 million men the Crux of it was what would the casualty rate be?
Based on what happened on evil Jim and some of the other islands Guam of course , the fighting was so horrific that the Japanese were willing to die to the last man it made the war planners paused to wonder if invasion happened on the Japanese homeland Islands would fight the same way. Would we be looking at a 50% casualty rate? We will never know the truth on this.
As for the Cold War, you’re entirely correct. Several years ago, Michael Crichton wrote a book called state of fear. in that book, he stated that the Cold War with Russia was a state of fear that was sold to us the United States citizen in a psychological op and propaganda away, so that we would hate these people to know end and painted them as totally evil. I believe that was never the truth yeah you had about 10% of the people in leadership who were members of the communist party. Everyone was a communist, but they lived under a totalitarian regime where there was no choice.
It is amazing to think the amount of money that this country spent on defense post World War II because of our short sighted thinking about the Russian people. For instance in 1960 during the presidential campaign and absolutely absurd piece of information was put out that there was a missile gap that we the United States were behind the Russians and nuclear missile capability . The real facts were it was the Russians, who were behind us so what that did was caused another arms race that was not necessary.
The Soviet union finally collapsed simply because Reagan started another race and bankrupted them. They were spending almost 50% of their GDP on the military, not the country.
We have had plenty of opportunity in the last 35 years to make the Russians, at least our ally, but what have we done? We have tried to reset everything to another Cold War because of the industrial military complex. There have been numerous occasions when Putin has reached out to try to come to some type of terms on things, and we have rejected it or lied or betrayed our own word repeatedly.
So in the context of the Ukraine war, why are the Russians going to trust us on anything people forget that the CIA overthrew the elected government of Ukraine in 2014. The CIA since 1950 has overthrown in excess of 70 legitimately elected governments in the world for their own purposes. The excuse always used is that those governments were leaning toward communism or whatever. There’s a lot of history out there. A lot of people just don’t have any idea about.
Very good take. And don't forget Churchill was part of the triumvirate that settled the Europe part of the war. Again, here are the British that had hated the Russians for nearly 100 years or more. Check out some history of the Crimean War.
Reading about Churchill has made me even sicker about the UK monarchy-US elite endless war tag team. When Churchill traveled to US to see FDR in early 1940s he did so as the specially selected representative of King George VI, Nevil Chamberlain having resigned as PM. Thus Churchill was even less a representative of the people than the usual PM. After Truman dropped 2 a-bombs Churchill slobbered all over him, said how great it was that US and UK controlled the bomb because "we" would always use it for "good." Churchill also suggested that US and UK citizenship would one day merge. US elites love monarchies and would be happy to formally convert us to subjects of a monarchy. Details about the Crimean War will likely make me depressed. At minimum, UK is desperate to keep US and Russia apart because it will make them even less relevant.
I’m not trying to add to any depression, but I was recently in New Zealand. Great people and a beautiful country. A few tour guides we had mentioned the ANZACs in WW I. The Kiwi’s have a great reverence for the ANZACs as they lost 1/6 of their young men in the Gallipoli fiasco. And the Gallipoli attack was thought up and pushed by Mr Churchill. The English with their colonies had plenty of men to fight, but wasted them on such adventures even back to Khartoum. This worship of royalty has its price. Maybe that’s why the Rothschilds could gain so much power also.
And a good Scotch can help with depression if not overdone. 😉
The Gallipoli disaster was also a major precipitant for the 1916 Easter Rising in Ireland. Up to that point, young Irish men went into the British Army thinking they'd be made a "cut above" the yokels back home. Being fed into the meat grinder at Gallipoli in service of their masters disabused them of that notion, en masse and pretty-much overnight.
From "The Foggy Dew," now THE ballad of The Rising:
"‘twas better to die ‘neath an Irish sky than at Suvla or Sud-El-Bar..."