On Monday, May 12, the United States pushed the Council of the International Civil Aviation Organization (ICAO), the aircraft safety watchdog, to vote behind closed doors to adopt a secret resolution convicting Russia of shooting-down Malaysia Airlines Flight MH17 on July 17, 2014.
Unlike the Dutch show trial which in November 2022 convicted two Russians and a Ukrainian of the same crime, the ICAO reached its verdict without the appearance of an open proceeding or of openly tested evidence. It’s a put-up job.
William Raillant-Clark, the ICAO communications chief at the Montreal headquarters, was asked to provide a text of the resolution and identification of the countries voting for, against, abstaining, and absent. Raillant-Clark replied: “In accordance with the Council’s Rules of Procedure, the vote was taken by secret ballot.” He refused to disclose the resolution itself; the numbers of votes without the names of the countries; or the reason for keeping everything but the conviction of Russia secret. He answered: “The Council’s considerations based on reason of law and fact, will be issued in the coming weeks.”
The spokesman was then asked for a copy of ICAO’s Rules of Procedure. He refuses to answer.
The decision of ICAO to go to war with Russia, using its aviation safety mandate to cover up the evidence of what really happened to MH17, destroys the organization for the future. It follows the destruction of the global organization for the safety of nuclear power generation, the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA); the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons (OPCW); the International Committee of the Red Cross; and the Secretary-General of the United Nations, Antonio Guterres.
In his 48-minute speech in Riyadh, President Donald Trump was applauded many times for rewriting the past of US wars in the Middle East, and also the future of US wars in the region, and elsewhere. From the Arab point of view, the outcome of these wars has been the destruction of Arab national ideology by Jewish national ideology, and independently, the success of Arab oil money.
All that remains of the former is the Yemen resistance of Ansar Allah and the Houthis. “We had 52 days of thunder and lightning like they’ve never seen before,” Trump claimed. “This was a swift, ferocious, decisive and extremely successful use of military force…” And Iran: “The biggest and most destructive of these forces is the regime in Iran, which has caused unthinkable suffering in Syria, Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Yemen and beyond. There could be no sharper contrast with the path you have pursued on the Arabian Peninsula, than the disaster unfolding right across in the Gulf of Iran.” “if Iran’s leadership rejects this olive branch and continues to attack their neighbors,” Trump proposed “o inflict massive maximum pressure, drive Iranian oil exports to zero, like I did before.”
For the past of the war against Russia, Trump repeated the falsehood that “[US withdrawal from Kabul, August 30, 2021] is probably why Putin decided to go into Ukraine, something he never would have done if I were president.”
For the future, Trump said he was sending his men to Istanbul – Secretary of State Marco Rubio, Keith Kellogg, Steven Witkoff. “Talks are being held in Turkey later this week, probably on Thursday and they could produce some pretty good results. Our people are going to be going there, Marco’s going to be going there. Others are going to be going, and we’ll see if we can get it done.” Trump’s earlier hint that he might go himself has been removed.
Enroute to Qatar, about noon on Wednesday, Moscow time, Trump was asked if he would meet President Vladimir Putin in Turkey; he replied that he might and that he might not. “[Putin] would like me to be there and that’s a possibility if we could end the war I’d be thinking about it. So we have a very full situation now, that doesn’t mean I wouldn’t do it to save a lot of lives and come back. But, uh, yeah, I think they’re thinking about something. I don’t know that he would be there if I’m not there.”
Trump has arranged for Zelensky to meet Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan and wait in Ankara for Trump to appear. Zelensky has already said he has agreed with Erdogan, Trump and the European allies on the formula – “full and unconditional ceasefire” first, negotiations to follow. Zelensky’s ultimatum is that he will go to Istanbul with Trump if Putin comes — “Putin is the one who determines everything in Russia, so he is the one who has to resolve the war. This is his war. Therefore, the negotiations should be with him.”
Responding to Zelensky’s challenge, Peskov said: ““We respond only to Putin’s statements.” Russian officials do not refer to Zelensky by a title because his current rule by martial law is not recognized, and because new elections to replace him are a Russian condition for denazification of the Ukraine. New elections are also on the Russian term sheet sent to Trump for tabling in Istanbul.
“We remember the 2019 summit in Paris,” Foreign Ministry spokesman Maria Zakharova has posted, referring to the last and only meeting Putin has had with Zelensky, “for Vladimir Zelensky’s provocative negotiating tactic when he suddenly refused to approve the outcome document despite the fact that it was already drafted and coordinated by the parties involved, including Kiev. He asked to remove the provision on the separation of forces along the entire line of contact and insisted on replacing it with a provision which provided for the separation of forces in three sections only. However, he failed to deliver even on these commitments which he had articulated himself… Today, these same countries are pushing [Zelensky] for a 30-day truce to give Kiev a respite and enable it to restore its military capabilities to be able to continue confronting Russia.”
Until hours ago, the Russian lineup in Istanbul appeared to be the same as with Rubio, Witkoff, and the now sacked Michael Waltz in Riyadh in February – Sergei Lavrov, Yury Ushakov, Kirill Dmitriev. Lavrov may have conveyed this in a telephone call with his Turkish counterpart on Tuesday night. On Wednesday afternoon, however, Lavrov was reported by Kommersant as not participating in Istanbul.
Since then Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov cautioned: “The Americans are well aware of our position. We remain in contact. However, this is not the word [coordination] to use in this particular case,” After meeting with the Turkish ambassador in Moscow on Monday, Ryabkov told Tass: “The topics are the same that we have talked about repeatedly, which has been on the agenda lately.: how can we ensure a reliable, sustainable settlement of the situation, first of all addressing the primary sources of this conflict, resolving issues related to the denazification of the Kiev regime, ensuring recognition of the realities that have recently developed on earth, including the entry of new territories into the Russian Federation.”
When politicians fight wars to truce or ceasefire, there’s a mistake they often make. That is to give up escalation dominance, escalation control, to the adversary so that he gains confidence that when he is ready, he will resume fighting in a much stronger position than he was at the truce. In short, ceasefire doesn’t deter the resumption of fighting; it doesn’t make for ceaseforce.
As President Vladimir Putin prepares for Istanbul-II — the resumption of negotiations with the Ukraine proposed for May 15 — he has announced that he understands the difference better now than he did at Istanbul-I in March 2022. The Russian General Staff and the intelligence services believe so.
The aim of “serious negotiations”, Putin read from a statement, “is to eliminate the root causes of the conflict and to achieve a long-term last peace…in the course of these negotiations it will become possible to agree on some kind of new truce and a new ceasefire. And a real ceasefire that…would be the first step, I repeat, towards a long-term, sustainable peace, rather than a prelude to continuing armed conflict after the Ukrainian armed forces have been rearmed, re-equipped…Who needs such peace?”
The President took no questions from the press assembled to listen to him at 2 am on Sunday morning.
While Putin was addressing the departing heads of government and of state who had joined in the Moscow celebration of Victory Day, the strategic Russian ally who was absent, Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi, sent Putin a message of his own after his brief war with Pakistan.
Through his air force chief, Air Marshal A.K. Bhakti, briefing the press later on the same day, May 11, the message was: “[It is] time to convey a message to our adversaries…We have the capability to target every system at these bases, and more. However, it was only a measured response to install good wisdom to our adversary to deter further escalation.”
In this podcast, Nima Alkhorshid, Ray McGovern and I discuss the tipping of the strategic balance which Russia is aiming to achieve against the Zelensky regime in Kiev and those who finance, arm and instruct it – Donald Trump, Friedrich Merz, Emmanuel Macron, and Keir Starmer. In parallel, Modi believes he has achieved this strategic tipping in the dismantling of Pakistan as a platform for China to threaten war against India in the future; we discuss whether the Indians are right to claim a strategic victory against China, too.
These are big questions for discussion. The answers are surprising, and although they are recognized in Moscow, they are not yet for public discussion. Click to watch.
As if it wasn’t already clear, the mainstream media led by Reuters, a Russia warfighting propaganda platform based in New York, have just announced that when President Donald Trump says he is for peace with Russia, he is either winking at his Defense Secretary Peter Hegseth or blinking at President Vladimir Putin.
Or else the coordination between the President’s mouth and his eyes fails from time to time and he cannot control his officials, staff, and advisors because they can’t follow when he contradicts himself.
Reporting on a Trump and Pentagon order for the US to halt arms deliveries to Ukraine, through the Polish hub at Rzeszow, and then retraction of the order and resumption of the delivery flights, Reuters says infighting is rife within the White House and the Pentagon, and that either Trump is unaware or he is unable to control it.
“The cancelations,” according to Reuters, “came after Trump wrapped up a January 30 Oval Office meeting about Ukraine that included Hegseth and other top national security officials, according to three sources familiar with the situation. During the meeting, the idea of stopping Ukraine aid came up, said two people with knowledge of the meeting, but the president issued no instruction to stop aid to Ukraine. The president was unaware of Hegseth’s order, as were other top national security officials in the meeting, according to two sources briefed on the private White House discussions and another with direct knowledge of the matter. Asked to comment on this report, the White House told Reuters that Hegseth had followed a directive from Trump to pause aid to Ukraine, which it said was the administration’s position at the time. It did not explain why, according to those who spoke to Reuters, top national security officials in the normal decision making process didn’t know about the order or why it was so swiftly reversed.”
The January 30 Oval Office meeting was secret. The official White House schedule for that day reveals only that Trump held a press briefing in the morning on the fatal helicopter and airliner crash over Washington the night before; lunched with Vice President JD Vance; and then signed executive orders for the rest of the afternoon.
What Vance decided that day with Trump isn’t revealed by Reuters’s sources, some of whom have been fired from their Pentagon and National Security Council posts.
According to the news agency, “three sources familiar with the situation said Hegseth misinterpreted discussions with the president about Ukraine policy and aid shipments without elaborating further. Four other people briefed on the situation said a small cadre of staffers inside the Pentagon, many of whom have never held a government job and who have for years spoken out against U.S. aid to Ukraine, advised Hegseth to consider pausing aid to the country. Two people familiar with the matter denied there was a true cutoff in aid. One of them described it as a logistical pause…It’s unclear if Trump subsequently questioned or reprimanded Hegseth. One source with direct knowledge of the matter said National Security Adviser [Michael] Waltz ultimately intervened to reverse the cancelations. Waltz was forced out on Thursday and is expected to be nominated as U.S. ambassador to the United Nations…At least one of the staffers who had previously pushed for the administration to pull back its support for Kyiv, Dan Caldwell, was escorted out of the Pentagon for a leak he claims never happened. Caldwell, a veteran, served as one of Hegseth’s chief advisers, including on Ukraine.”
For more on Trump’s peace-is-war inside his own administration, the Caldwell sacking, and the Ozymandias strategy for outcome, read this.
The Reuters story has been amplified by the Russia warfighters in Washington, London, and Kiev to persuade Trump to escalate against Russia, not withdraw. “Despite the brief pause in February and the longer one that began in early March,” Reuters reports, “the Trump administration has resumed sending the last of the aid approved under U.S. President Joe Biden. No new policy has been announced.”
“This expose[s] a chaotic decision-making process and an unclear chain of command within former US President Donald Trump’s administration,” concludes Euromaidan Press, a Kiev propaganda outlet.
In this podcast with Nima Alkhorshid and Graham Fuller, we discuss how this is now playing out on all fronts – Russia and Ukraine, Iran, Yemen, and even Canada.
With the last of these, Trump has forced newly elected Prime Minister Mark Carney to make a public capitulation. Twitching with nerves in the Oval Office on Tuesday (May 6), Carney did not challenge Trump as he repeated his threat to annex Canada, insult Carney’s predecessor prime minister, Justin Trudeau; claim personal credit for the outcome of the Canadian election; and falsify the resource and goods trade between the US and Canada. Trump also arranged a diplomatic snub for Carney when his aircraft landed.
By Lieutenant General P.R. Shankar & Brigadier Arun Sahgal, introduced by John Helmer @bears_with
On April 22, an Islamic terrorist group, backed by Pakistan’s Inter-Services Intelligence (ISI), attacked Indian civilians in Pahalgam, Kashmir, killing 26 and wounding 20.
“Although the civilian government in Islamabad has denied involvement,” reports Chatham House, the semi-official British think tank, “there is precedent for attacks on India taking place during periods when the Pakistani military feels it is being marginalized. In 1999, an attempt at rapprochement between the civilian governments in Islamabad and New Delhi – referred to the Lahore bus diplomacy – was derailed after Pakistani military-backed militants launched attacks in the Kargil area of Kashmir, leading both countries to war for the fourth time.”
“The attack comes at a time when the Pakistani military is on the back foot following a string of terrorist attacks inside Pakistan and eroding public support for the army following the arrest and imprisonment of former prime minister Imran Khan and the persecution of his supporters. Pakistani army chief Asim Munir has sought to reaffirm the importance of the military to the preservation of the Pakistani state.”
The semi-official New York think tank, Council on Foreign Relations, noted “this terrorist attack is the worst in the state since the car bombing in 2019 in which a bus of Indian paramilitary soldiers was targeted in Pulwama, killing forty people. Furthermore, this attack was one of the worst targeting of civilians—ordinary tourists—in more than two decades.”
“India-Pakistan relations have been relatively restrained for the last few years, and the border has been stable. This attack could change that situation,” the Council warned. “India holds Pakistan squarely responsible for the continued ability of LeT [Lashkar-e-Taiba] to carry out attacks. The civilian government in Pakistan, however, has denied responsibility. But despite the government’s denial, there has been a pattern of terrorist attacks occurring on Indian soil when the Pakistan military feels excluded from the geopolitical conversations. Current events could have given such an impetus: U.S. President Donald Trump has been in office for less than a hundred days, and in that short period, not only has Indian Prime Minister Narendra Modi visited Washington, but U.S. Vice President JD Vance was in New Delhi at the time of the attack.”
“President Trump made a strong statement of ‘full support’ for India on the social media platform Truth Social, stating the United States ‘stands strong with India against terrorism.’ But when it comes to Kashmir, India prefers to assert its sovereignty unilaterally…the Indian government is under pressure from the Indian public and media to have a robust response, which could also include military action. Modi has portrayed himself and his government as tough on security, and his government has been showcasing Kashmir as a stable region, safe for its residents and tourists. Exacerbating the tensions, the Pakistani government has declared that if India does block the [Indus] river waters, it would consider it an ‘act of war.’”
An Australian think tank, tilting against India, has reported the “strategic objectives” for Pakistan in the Pahalgam operation. “Modi knows that not responding to the attack will embolden a newly-resurgent parliamentary opposition, which has already sought to portray the development as a failure of his Kashmir policy. But more importantly, he knows – especially given the pan-India casualties of the attack – that anything short of a visibly strong reaction will fail to assuage the Indian public. At the same time, if Delhi does opt for a muscular response, it risks inadvertently raising the international profile of the Kashmir dispute, something the Modi government has desperately sought to avoid over the past decade.”
The Australian government is an active participant in the Quad, an anti-China alliance with the Japanese, US and Indian governments. Japan’s Foreign Ministry took India’s side during the 2019 Kashmir incident. It has changed its tune this time.
China has responded in three steps. At first, on April 23 the Foreign Ministry spokesman in Beijing said: “We strongly condemn the attack. China firmly opposes all forms of terrorism.” On April 27, after Foreign Minister Wang Yi spoke by telephone with Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister and Foreign Minister Muhammad Ishaq Dar, Wang announced: “As an ironclad friend and an all-weather strategic cooperative partner, China fully understands Pakistan’s legitimate security concerns and supports Pakistan in safeguarding its sovereignty and security interests.” He went on to say: “China advocates for a swift and fair investigation and believes that conflict does not serve the fundamental interests of either India or Pakistan, nor does it benefit regional peace and stability. China hopes both sides will remain restrained, move toward each other, and work together to de-escalate the situation.”
On May 1, China’s Ambassador to Islamabad Jiang Zaidong went to Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif to emphasize the priority of an investigation of the attack over military retaliation and escalation. “China understands Pakistan’s legitimate security concerns,” Jiang said, “and expressed China’s support for a prompt and impartial investigation into the incident and called on both India and Pakistan to exercise restraint, meet each other halfway, properly manage differences, and jointly safeguard regional peace and stability.”
The Russian Government response to the Indo-Pakistan conflict has been muted; also slow to become public. There were meetings on April 28 at the Foreign Ministry in Moscow at the level of the Indian and Pakistani ambassadors. The communiqués were slightly different. In the note on his meeting with Indian Ambassador Vinay Kumar, Deputy Foreign Minister Andrei Rudenko said he had held a discussion, gave no advice, but hinted that Russia is on India’s side – “following the terrorist attack near Pahalgam in Kashmir Russia’s readiness to counter the global terrorist threat together with India was reaffirmed.”
Following Rudenko’s meeting with Pakistan’s Ambassador, Muhammad Khalid Jamali, “the Russian side called on both parties to exercise restraint and engage in constructive dialogue aimed at peacefully resolving their discrepancies.” Jamali later told Tass, the state news agency, that Pakistan is asking for Russian mediation in the conflict.
After several days of discussion behind the scenes, on May 3 Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov spoke by telephone with his Indian counterpart, Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar. “The foreign ministers discussed topical issues of Russian-Indian interaction as well as the exasperation of Indian-Pakistani relations following the terrorist act in Pahalgam. Sergey Lavrov called to settle the differences between New Delhi and Islamabad by political and diplomatic means on a bilateral basis in conformity with the 1972 Simla Agreement and the 1999 Lahore Declaration. The ministers also discussed the timetable of the upcoming contacts at the top and high levels.”
The last sentence is a reference to the plan for President Vladimir Putin to visit India this month; the timing has yet to be confirmed. Prime Minister Modi had been invited to attend the Victory Day celebration this week in Moscow, but he had declined, nominating in his place Defense Minister Rajnath Singh. Singh has now been substituted by a deputy, Sanjay Seth, the minister of state for defense.
The next day, May 4, Lavrov announced he had received a telephone call from Pakistan’s Deputy Prime Minister Dar, also Foreign Minister, Mohammad Ishaq Dar. The Russian communiqué says they discussed the Kashmir conflict, but added a telltale disclaimer in the last line. “The Russian side stressed its readiness to contribute to a political settlement of the situation triggered by the April 22 terrorist attack in the Pahalgam area, should both Islamabad and New Delhi be interested.”
This is the Russian hint that India has not requested Russian mediation, and that for this reason, as Lavrov told Jaishankar the day before, it will not get between the two sides who should the “settle the differences between New Delhi and Islamabad…on a bilateral basis.”
This leaves Modi in escalation control; that’s to say, escalation dominance.
After the Victory Day celebration later this week, President Vladimir Putin has agreed to hold a summit meeting with President Donald Trump. “The Americans have repeatedly asked for a summit and the Kremlin has finally decided,” according to a reliable Moscow source, “that there is no need to spurn the extended hand.”
The source believes Abu Dhabi, in the United Arab Emirates (UAE), is the likely location. Preparatory discussions were held last week in Moscow when Putin telephoned the UAE President, Sheikh Mohammed bin Zayed Al Nahyan. The Kremlin communiqué claimed “the current state of Russia-UAE relations…constitute a strategic partnership and…enables ongoing dialogue even on the most sensitive international issues.” That was on May 1. The next day Putin met with Saif bin Zayed Al Nahyan, one of the President’s sons and his personal security chief, titled deputy prime minister.
The Moscow source says “the messages have been sent that it will not be a conclusive deal, only a meeting. This is a climb-down from the previous, public Russian position that a lot of work needs to be done first, before a presidential summit, by specialists. The Russians have understood there are no specialists on the US side yet, and the opportunity is right to shake hands first, then work out the details later.”
The White House press spokesman has announced Trump “will travel to Saudi Arabia, Qatar and the United Arab Emirates [in this order] from May 13th, until May 16th.”
“It’s a display of the Russian hand of friendship and mutual security,” the Moscow source adds. “The Americans are offering nothing concrete but we believe Trump is disposed to giving Russia the security steps it needs.”
The source says the Kremlin is “neither surprised nor disappointed” at Trump’s May 1 tweet declaring that “many of our allies and friends are celebrating May 8th as Victory Day, but we did more than any other Country, by far, in producing a victorious result on World War II.” “It shows you how foolish the Kremlin faction was which has advocated inviting Trump to Red Square for May 9. Putin will give Trump his PR opportunity – but in the sand, not in Red Square.”
The shift in the Moscow consensus – from resistance on the part of the General Staff, the intelligence agencies, and the Foreign Ministry – has followed remarks by Vice President JD Vance. “It’s going to be up to them [Russia and Ukraine] to come to agreement and stop this brutal, brutal conflict,” he said on Friday (May 2). “It’s not going anywhere right [now]. It’s not going to end any time soon…Look, I am optimistic, but it’s hard to say…confident because the Russians and the Ukrainians – they’re the ones who have to take the final step. We got ‘em talkin’. We got ‘em offering peace proposals. We got the minerals deal done. I think we’re in a place where they’ve got to say we’re done with the fighting…but only Russia and Ukraine can make that decision. That’s not something even President Trump can do for ‘em.”
In Moscow this is interpreted as acceptance by Washington that the war will continue on Russia’s terms – slow advance westward, no massed offensive – and that it’s now up to “direct” negotiations between Russia and Ukraine to reach an agreement. “This is a double signal prompting Putin”, another Moscow source says, “to agree to a summit meeting with Trump now without preconditions and without pressure to agree on the Kellogg or Witkoff term sheets. In all likelihood, this will be a feel-good summit. No negotiations at all.”
The source adds a caution. “The planned meeting may be derailed at the last minute if the Ukrainians violate the Victory Day ceasefire [between May 8 and 11], and if Trump is either shown to be incapable of controlling the Kiev regime, or duplicitous in aiding the violations. If the Ukrainians do not observe it, the Russians will hit back hard, very hard, and then ask Trump if he still wants to meet. It might go to the wire.”
“When war and revolution come, remember the long years in which the storm was rising, and don’t blame the thunderbolt”.
That warning appeared in the Chicago Tribune in November 24, 1895. It was written by Clarence Darrow, then a young city lawyer working for railroads and also for unions in the years which followed the bitter, violent battles for limited work hours and higher wages. The Chicago union struggle initiated the May Day strike for protest and celebration between 1881 and 1886.
Today the US is one of the few countries in the world not to recognize the holiday, moving “Labour Day” from the spring to the fall to erase the history. Darrow (1857-1938) was to become the greatest courtroom lawyer in American history; today he is almost forgotten.
Retired US Army General Keith Kellogg, the White House negotiator with the Ukrainian-European alliance, announced yesterday that for the terms of peacemaking on the Ukrainian battlefield, “the president has this one right on the money, and that’s where we want to go to.”
Right on the money is exactly where President Donald Trump aims to be – the money of the NATO allies into his pockets and into those of his family, friends, their social clubs and think tanks, and Trump’s largest campaign contributors.
Listen to the full hour discussion with Chris Cook by clicking here.
In the new podcast with Nima Alkhorshid, here is the breaking news of the sides in the war changing the appearance of their negotiating positions, starting with President Donald Trump and the reply from President Vladimir Putin.
President Donald Trump has pulled a fast one against the US Constitution, if not quite and not yet a coup d’état.
“We have an idea of coups being external military assaults on the government,” a US constitutional law professor has reported. “But self-coups take place within the government, from within the executive branch in particular.”
Without the force required for a putsch – not yet, because the Insurrection Act is in Trump’s reserve powers and may be invoked — the officials advising Trump’s actions claim Article II of the Constitution provides him with “unitary” executive power to freeze or impound funds legislated by the Congress, dismiss state employees, and order the armed services into action. Since February, the President’s lawyers have prepared for the Supreme Court majority Trump appointed in his first term — and will add to if he can soon — to rule that “as this Court observed just last Term, Congress cannot act on, and courts cannot examine, the President’s actions on subjects within his ‘conclusive and preclusive’ constitutional authority”—including the President’s ‘unrestricted power of removal’ with respect to ‘executive officers of the United States whom [the President] has appointed.’ ”
Last week, in a telephone interview with the Atlantic Monthly, Trump announced: “I run the country and the world”. In a follow-up face-to-face interview with the magazine on April 24, Trump told the Kiev regime and its European allies that he was ready to support them but not necessarily to accept that Vladimir Zelensky will continue in office.
He was also telling President Vladimir Putin to accept his terms for ending the war in the Ukraine, and not to tarry at testing his powers to escalate his military support on the Ukrainian battlefield and to add sanctions to stop Russian energy trade between China and India. .
Putin’s reply, announced on Monday (April 28), is a test of Trump’s powers. Declaring a new three-day ceasefire between May 8 and 11, Putin said that “in the event of any violations of the ceasefire by the Ukrainian side, the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation will give a proportionate and efficient response. The Russian side reiterates its willingness to enter peace talks without preconditions, with a view to eliminating the root causes behind the Ukraine crisis and establishing constructive interaction with international partners.”
In the first sentence, Putin told Trump to prove he can order the Zelensky regime to obey the ceasefire. If he can’t — if there are Ukrainian violations as there have been during the March 18-April 18 energy infrastructure ceasefire and the April 19-20 Easter ceasefire — Putin is saying that Trump’s term sheet, delivered last Friday by Steven Witkoff, is worthless.
In his second sentence, Putin told Trump to address the “root causes” with the NATO allies and other “international partners” by halting the NATO advance eastwards on all fronts, not only in the Ukraine; and by lifting the sanctions imposed on Russia and its partners since 2014. Without Trump’s demonstration that he controls the other powers, Putin is exposing Trump’s peace proposals as the continuation of war by other means.
Putin’s language was also directed domestically to those of his advisors who have recommended he accept what they concede to be Trump’s “bad deal”.
In the Kremlin debate, their reasons are that Russian military forces are unprepared for the offensive to achieve the Kiev regime’s capitulation; that the splitting between the US and the European powers has never been so favourable to Russian interests; that the Russian oligarchs want a return to business as usual; and because the intelligence assessment of Trump is so unstable, there is no telling what war plans Washington will follow in the sequence they have been signalling.
Retired Army General Keith Kellogg, who has retained his presidential appointment because he reflects powerful elements inside Trump’s circle, has dismissed Putin’s response.
“A three-day ceasefire is absurd,” Kellong told the White House outlet Fox News on Tuesday (April 29). “What the president wants is a permanent, comprehensive ceasefire — sea, air, land, infrastructure — for a minimum of 30 days, and then we can extend that.” Referring to what he said is Ukrainian agreement to a 22-point term sheet negotiated with the Europeans last week, Kellogg added: “When it comes to the Ukrainians, I’m very comfortable with where we are at right now…Russia is not winning this war. Russia has not made major advances in the last year and a half. They have not taken the city of Kiev, the capital. They haven’t pushed to the west of the Dnieper River, which is a major obstacle. They haven’t taken Odessa… They haven’t really moved anything. They’ve moved by metres, not by miles…President Trump has it exactly right, and where he wants to get to…The president has this one right on the money, and that’s where we want to go to.”
Before the podcast discussion later today with Nima Alkhorshid and Ray McGovern, follow the seven charts. Take note of the last one – this shows that despite growing disapproval by US voters of the President’s performance in office, most Americans think Trump’s policy towards Russia is “too friendly”. This sentiment is holding strong at all education levels, for blacks and Hispanics, and across all age groups, except for the middle-aged (50-64). The most anti-Russian Americans recorded in this new poll appear to be Harris voters and black protestants.
