by Jean-Marc Bovy, Geneva
@bears_with
Do you remember Sergei Skripal, that double agent poisoned in Great Britain, they said, by the Russian secret services? What has become of them, Sergei and his daughter Yulia, since they survived one of the most violent poisons that there are? Why don’t we see them any longer? And there are other troublesome questions which only a great adventurer of investigating in troubled waters could tackle.
(more…)
by John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with
In this discussion on Thursday morning, Chennai time, two leading Indian military analysts, Lieutenant General (retd) Ravi Shankar and Brigadier (retd) Arun Saghal, explain that the 30-day ceasefire which the Americans and British have proposed for the Ukraine battlefield should follow as one of the outcomes of the end-of-war negotiations, and not be a precondition for talks.
Otherwise, the ceasefire proposal is nothing more than a smoke barrage to cover US and NATO reinforcement and resupply of the Ukrainian forces which are now surrounded or in retreat.
Click to listen to the hour-long podcast.
Several hours later in the Moscow afternoon, President Vladimir Putin confirmed the Russian order is negotiations before ceasefire. Putin proposed that President Donald Trump telephone him to get the details directly from the horse’s mouth.
“On Ukraine’s readiness to cease the hostilities” — Putin said this is an American scheme to relieve the Ukrainian forces before they are routed and capitulate. “The US-Ukraine meeting in Saudi Arabia [March 11] may look like the Ukrainian side made this decision under pressure from the United States.” Without agreement on military terms, it was a deception, Putin went on. “What will we do about the incursion section in the Kursk Region? What would that mean if we cease fire for 30 days? Does this mean that everyone who is in there will just walk out without a fight? Do we have to let them go after they committed numerous heinous crimes against civilians? Or will the Ukrainian leadership issue a command for them to lay down their arms and just surrender? How will this happen? It is not clear.”
“How will other issues along the entire contact line be solved? It is almost 2,000 kilometres long. As you know, Russian troops are advancing in almost all areas of combat contact. Conditions are also very favourable there for us to block rather large units there. So, how would these 30 days be used? For forced mobilisation to continue in Ukraine? For more weapons to be supplied there? For retraining the mobilised units? Or would none of this be done?”
“All these issues must be meticulously worked upon by both sides. The idea itself is right, and, of course, we support it. However, there are issues that must be discussed. I think we must talk them over with our American colleagues and partners, perhaps have a telephone conversation with President Trump and discuss them with him. However, the idea to put an end to this conflict by peaceful means gets our full support.”
(more…)
by John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with
“As for the situation in Syria,”, the spokesman for President Vladimir Putin announced on Monday, “violence is taking place there, which cannot but cause our deep concern. This concern is shared in many countries of the world, in international organizations, including the United Nations.” On Tuesday, he added that “Russia supports the stabilization of Syria because of the need to maintain the security of the entire region…Syria is now too explosive a region, which may affect other countries. That is why Russia wants to see Syria prosperous, predictable, and friendly.”
This was stating the obvious. The Kremlin was also not stating a Russian policy.
The Russian Foreign Ministry tried to say more than the obvious. In its statement of March 7, the Ministry explained that “alarmed by the sharp aggravation of the situation in Syria…we call on all authoritative Syrian leaders who can influence the further development of the situation on the ground to do everything possible to end the bloodshed and prevent civilian casualties as soon as possible…We reaffirm our principled position in support of the sovereignty, unity and territorial integrity of the Syrian Arab Republic. We hope that all states that have an impact on the situation in Syria will contribute to its normalization. We are committed to close coordination with foreign partners in the interests of the speedy de-escalation of the situation.”
As a policy, this was ambiguous on whether Russia recognizes Ahmed Al-Sharaa as president of the government which has replaced Bashir al-Assad by force. The Ministry term, “authoritative Syrian leaders”, avoids the problem of what the new president’s real name is, since it is suspected that al-Sharaa is not his real family name, nor is it Abu Mohammed al-Jolani, which is a nom de guerre.
The Ministry term is also a plural one, intimating that now, soon or later, Russian policy will recognize other Syrian leaders. These may include Qadri Jamil, a Syrian Kurd, educated in Moscow whose proto-communist political party has been backed by the Russians for more than a decade. This week Jamil was the first Syrian political leader to be received officialy at the Foreign Ministry in Moscow. The communiqué issued by Deputy Foreign Minister Mikhail Bogdanov indicated Russian support for the Syrian Kurds based primarily in the northeast.
“A discussion was held,” Bogdanov said, “on the development of the situation in Syria, including the tragic events that occurred in the coastal areas of the country. At the same time, special emphasis was placed on the need to establish an inclusive political process with the participation of representatives of all ethno-confessional groups on the basis of initiatives of UN Security Council Resolution 2254 in the interests of ensuring the unity, territorial integrity and sovereignty of the Syrian Arab Republic. In this context, the importance of the agreement signed on March 10 in Damascus between the President of the transition period of Syria A.Sharaa and the commander of the Syrian Democratic Forces M. Abdi was noted.”
This is a reference to Mazloum Abdi (aka Mazloum Kobane) who has been the head of the Kurdish military forces, and who met with Al-Sharaa in Damascus on March 10; reportedly, they agreed on terms for Kurdish administrative autonomy. Jamil met Bogdanov to brief him the next day. Earlier in Damascus, on January 28, Bogdanov had met with al-Sharaa. The boilerplate of his communiqué indicated that al-Sharaa did not agree to “formalising pertinent arrangements” for the future of the Russian bases at Khmeimim and Tartus, but that the two sides would keep negotiating.
There is no public record that Bogdanov has met with other Syrians between al-Sharaa at the end of January and Jamil this week, following the start of the rebellion. There is also no record of who gave the orders for the opening of the Khmeimim base to the Alawite refugees over the weekend.
For what is happening at the bases in Syria, and Russian policymaking in Syria, listen to the 45-minute discussion with Chris Cook by clicking here:
(more…)
by John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with
There are four outcomes to beware in this game for players, and for kibitzers also.
The first is the Observer Effect. This is when the observer gets so close to the target, the target itself is rattled, loses visibility, acts unpredictably. Second is the Confusion Effect when the observer can’t tell the difference between the confusion observed externally, and the confusion occurring internally, between objective chaos and subjective incomprehension. Third is the Echo Chamber Effect which occurs when subordinates repeat what their leader says and dare say no more in case the leader changes his mind and they lose favour.
Finally, there is the Monica Lewinsky Effect. This is a particularity of the Oval Office of the US President. It happens to his subordinates and officials of allied governments when, no matter how much they doubt what the President is saying from above his desk, they must go under his desk to ingratiate his ego and swallow their doubt without gagging.
Listen to the hour-long discussion with Nima Alkhorshid and Ray McGovern analyzing the results of the Jeddah meeting between US and Ukrainian officials, and forecasting what the Russian response will be. Click to view here.
(more…)
by John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with
Last week I asked Lieutenant General (retired) P.R. Shankar to analyse India’s victorious war against Pakistan which in fourteen days, December 3-16, 1971, ended in the capitulation of the Pakistan Army and the creation of the new state of Bangladesh; and compare that with Russia’s Special Military Operation (SVO) against the Ukraine which began on February 24, 2022, and is continuing after 1,110 days.
The questions were: what lessons do you and Indian military and political analysts today draw from your victory in the war of 1971 which the Russians should apply to the Ukraine: intelligence; plans and readiness; the speed of operations; firepower and troop ratios; problems of coordination between military control and political command? Also, what lessons do you draw from the involvement of the Americans on the other side forcing end-of-war terms in exchange for money.
Listen to the podcast just published here.
(more…)
by John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with
President Donald Trump has asked President Vladimir Putin to assist him in arranging a grand Middle East peace deal. This, according to officials leaking to Bloomberg reporters, requires Iran to agree to dismantle its nuclear weapons programme, and also “Iran’s support for its allied groups such as Hamas and Hezbollah in the Middle East.”
The leakers, “people with knowledge of the situation, asking not to be identified”, according to Bloomberg, reportedly did not ask Putin to mediate the restoration of the Pahlavi monarchy.
The news agency story follows by three weeks the White House announcement on February 4 of “a National Security Presidential Memorandum (NSPM) restoring maximum pressure on the government of the Islamic Republic of Iran, denying Iran all paths to a nuclear weapon, and countering Iran’s malign influence abroad. The NSPM establishes that: Iran should be denied a nuclear weapon and intercontinental ballistic missiles; Iran’s terrorist network should be neutralized; and Iran’s aggressive development of missiles, as well as other asymmetric and conventional weapons capabilities, should be countered. The NSPM directs the Secretary of the Treasury to impose maximum economic pressure on the Government of Iran, including by sanctioning or imposing enforcement mechanisms on those acting in violation of existing sanctions.”
The US officials briefing Bloomberg claim that after his big stick move, Trump made two small carrot moves in the direction of the Russians. On February 12, Trump told Putin on the telephone that he had a deal to end the war in the Ukraine if Putin would help with a deal to end Iran’s war in the Middle East.
Trump then told Secretary of State Marco Rubio to say more when he met in Riyadh with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on February 18. Whatever the Americans say they said, Lavrov omitted to mention it in the communiqué and press briefing in Riyadh.
During his subsequent meetings in Teheran on February 25, Lavrov was explicit – almost — in opposing Trump’s stick-wielding. “We underscored the inadmissibility of unilateral economic sanctions,” Lavrov announced after meetings with President Masoud Pezeshkian and Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi. “We will continue substantive and focused efforts to mitigate the adverse effects of these unlawful restrictions on the economies of Russia and Iran…We have discussed at length the developments around the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action. We remain convinced that the diplomatic resource is still there and should not be left unused. Instead, it should be engaged as effectively as possible and no threats or allusions to forceful solutions should be made. We are committed to continuing the search for acceptable solutions to the situation at hand which was created by our Western colleagues, not Iran.”
Since the refusal of Kremlin support for Iran’s military alliance with Bashar al-Assad’s government in Damascus last November and December, the subsequent recriminations between Teheran and Moscow have not been entirely or clearly resolved. For the record of the recriminations, click; for the attempt to resolve them in the January treaty signing, read this; for the continuing irresolution, look again.
On Friday, March 7, Trump said he believes Putin will do more for Trump’s Ukraine “deal” than the Kremlin is admitting publicly. “I think he’s going to be more generous than he has to be, and that’s pretty good.” Is this true? Is it an American attempt to sow suspicion and distrust in Moscow between the General Staff and the Kremlin? Is it also aimed at splitting the Iranians from the Russians?
Lavrov’s announcement after his meeting with President Pezeshkian was non-committal on the concessions Trump wants from Iran for denuclearization and withdrawal of support for Hamas, Hezbollah, and Ansar Allah (Houthis). “During the exchange of views on pressing global and regional issues, the focus was placed on the evolving situations in Syria, Lebanon, Afghanistan, the Palestinian-Israeli conflict zone, and matters pertaining to the Caspian region. The sides coordinated their positions regarding the state of affairs surrounding the Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action on the Iranian nuclear programme,” the Russian communiqué announced after Lavrov met with Pezeshkian.
“Coordination” is a camouflage term in the current Russian-Iranian relationship. It appears 71 times in the January pact Pezeshkian signed in Moscow with Putin. Its meaning, Russian sources believe, carries outer ambiguity, inner secrecy – also uncertainty under the pressure Trump is applying.
A Russian source in a position to know believes the strategic consensus in Moscow, and also at the Ukraine front, is that “the empire [US] won’t stop its war with Russia. But we need time to correct the tactical mistakes that have been made. Trump’s peace is going to be short-lived. Maybe five years, maybe eight. There’s no point fighting him at every step. We’ll try to get the best deal possible that leaves him thinking he looks good. After losing eight years, Russia wants to gain eight years.”
A military source comments that in the short run the more confusion Trump and his officials create, the more time the Russian General Staff has to accelerate the military offensive westward from the current line of contact towards Kiev. “The American learning disability is showing across the board,” he says. “The kettle is now on the boil in Sumy. The Ukrainians are cut off in Kursk and don’t have much more time left. East of the Dnieper, it’s apparent that Putin’s foot is off the brake.”
The US side is now calling time. National Security Advisor Michael Waltz has announced that he, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Steven Witkoff will return for negotiations with their Russian counterparts in Riyadh next week. The Kiev regime has announced they will be meeting the US delegation on Tuesday.
(more…)
by John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with
Someone has convinced President Donald Trump of two simple ideas.
The first is that because the US auto, aerospace, and artificial intelligence industries are heavily dependent for their supplies of lithium, titanium, and other rare earth minerals (REM) on two enemy states, China and Russia, they should be replaced as quickly as possible by a friendly source.
The second idea is that, in order to break this dependency, the cheapest solution is to take over the Ukrainian sources of these minerals and metals at zero cost of acquisition — zero cost because the Ukraine can be pressed to hand over its sources as payback for the US financing of the war against Russia.
The someone who convinced Trump of these two ideas was Elon Musk (lead image).
His Tesla company is the largest consumer of lithium and producer of lithium batteries for electric vehicles in the US, with his annual tonnage exceeding the four next largest producers combined. Musk also is a large consumer of titanium, both for Tesla cars and for his SpaceX company’s rockets.
Also, in Musk’s plans for cornering the artificial intelligence (AI) market with his xAI company, rare earth metals (REM) are essential. In fact, these metals are not rare – it’s just that they exist in low concentrations which are difficult and expensive to extract. They are crucial components of the semiconductors which provide the computing power that drives AI. They possess uniquely powerful magnetic qualities and are excellent at conducting electricity and resisting heat.
The problem with these ideas is that China will not give up any of its resources to its US enemy, especially not in the conditions of trade war which Trump is threatening. Too, Russia is in kinetic war with the US on the Ukrainian battlefield, and will not allow either the US directly, or the regime it supports in Kiev, to obtain the REM.
The solution Musk and Trump have come up with is a proposal to stop insulting President Vladimir Putin in public and start negotiating terms for an end of war beginning with a scheme for taking the Ukrainian REM from Kiev as payback for the $350 billion Trump says the US has spent in the Ukraine since the war began.
The number is false; the idea of peace with Russia on these terms is a hustle.
Russia currently controls much of the Ukraine’s titanium, lithium, and REM, and the remainder of its mineable reserves are within easy shooting range. Russia’s own titanium, lithium, and REM reserves are much greater, but they are controlled for strategic reasons by state companies. No foreign investor would be allowed under Russia’s strategic minerals law — except to buy the offtake at the market price.
The Musk-Trump plan for peace with Russia and REM war with China, at zero cost to Musk, is a no-brainer. That’s to say, a scheme for simpletons.
However, as an international investor who knows both Moscow and Washington well points out, “there’s no shortage of American investors giving Musk billions to invest in colonizing the moon and then Mars. Why wouldn’t they invest in Ukraine? Musk has convinced Trump he should and they will .”
(more…)
by John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with
There is a bedrock of Russian public opinion on how the war in the Ukraine should end.
There is also a bedrock of American public opinion on whether President Donald Trump is to be believed when he speaks of ending the war under the new American “Golden Dome” of peace with Russia.
Between this rock and this hard place, there are the politics and the business of enlarging power and making money. According to Trump in his March 4 speech to Congress, he aims at “building the most powerful military of the future. As a first step, I am asking Congress to fund a state-of-the-art golden dome missile defence shield to protect our homeland — all made in the U.S.A.”
For “most powerful military of the future”, Trump means new hypersonic weapons for a first strike against Russian and Chinese nuclear forces. For his “golden dome”, Trump means first-strike capacity without fear of retaliation — without mutually assured destruction by the Russians and Chinese. The word for this isn’t peace – it’s a new US arms race.
In the recent statement by Howard Lutnick, Trump’s long time business friend and now US Commerce Secretary, Trump’s strategy for ending the current war on the Ukrainian battlefield means a cash dividend payable on a ceasefire at the frozen line of contact; this peace with Russia means business with Russia. “The President,” said Lutnick, “is going to figure out what are the tools he can use on Russia, and what are the tools he can use on Ukraine. Like any great mediator, he’s going to beat both sides down, to get them to the table…We’ve given three hundred billion dollars to the Ukraine. Is it difficult to see what side we’re on? Gimme a break…Let’s go force Russia into a reasonable peace deal…Enough already.”
Between the rock, the hard place, and the Golden Dome, there is plenty of hopeful, wishful thinking. This is understandable, especially at this time of Lent. It’s also religious faith. The Roman Catholic bishops of Europe have just issued their Lenten proclamation that “as Christians prepare to embark on the journey of Lent, a time of repentance and conversion leading to Easter, the feast of hope and new life, we continue to entrust Ukraine and Europe to our Lord Jesus Christ, through the intercession of Mary, the Queen of Peace.”
Because the bishops are as unconfident of Mary’s mediation and Christ’s intervention, as they are of Trump’s, they say they are still for holy war against “Russia the aggressor”, and for British and French guns to enforce it. “Amid deepening geopolitical complexities and the unpredictability of actions taken by some members of the international community,” the bishops say, meaning the US and Trump, “we call on the European Union and its Member States to remain united in their commitment to supporting Ukraine and its people. Russia’s invasion of Ukraine is a blatant violation of international law… A comprehensive, just and lasting peace in Ukraine can only be achieved through negotiations. Any credible and sincere dialogue effort should be supported by continued strong transatlantic and global solidarity and it must involve the victim of the aggression: Ukraine. We firmly reject any attempts to distort the reality of this aggression. In order to be sustainable and just, a future peace accord must fully respect international law and be underpinned by effective security guarantees to prevent the conflict from re-erupting.”
Under their mitres, when the bishops are saying complexity, unpredictability, and distortion of reality, they are thinking Trump.
Reviving the crusade against the Russian infidels is also what the regimes of the UK and Europe want. But the public belief in this crusade is waning, especially in the UK, creating another rock-and-hard- place squeeze for Prime Minister Keir Starmer; his military, intelligence and other Deep State institutions; the City business lobby; and the British media.
The Russian response is as sceptical of Trump as it is of the combination of Europe’s rulers and their bishops.
In nationwide polling in the second half of January, the Levada Centre of Moscow reported the high level of support for President Vladimir Putin, is qualified by the conviction of the majority of voters that the end of the war terms must not (repeat not) concede the return of the four new regions – Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhye. “Although there is talk of Russia’s interest in rare metals and other resources in the depths these provinces, in some industrial enterprises, etc., [public opinion is] not about the material side. Russian society is showing what Lenin called the’ national pride of the Great Russians’. The level of solidarity is very high…What would the majority want? They are for peace, but their peace plan is that it stops at the point when they can feel victory.”
Listen to the new podcast here.
(more…)
by John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with
How to make losing the war in the Ukraine look like a win – this is President Donald Trump’s purpose in presenting himself and his administration as in favour of peace and of cashback to the United States. If he succeeds, he won’t appear to be running away from the battlefield, as the Ford Administration did in Saigon in April 1975, and the Biden Administration in Kabul in August 2021.
This is a hustle – it is an attempt by a combination of threats and rewards to convert a political and military defeat into a ready money profit; call the process peacemaking, Trump himself the peacemaker, and the outcome peace.
Trump believes this will be easier to negotiate with President Vladimir Putin than the military terms for an end-of-war armistice, capitulation by the Ukrainian military, and demilitarization of what remains of Ukrainian territory. About these issues, no US official has had anything certain to say yet. A money-for-peace deal is also simpler to manage than the creation of a new mutual security architecture for Russia, Europe and NATO which was first proposed by the Russian Foreign Ministry in December 2021.
“Lemme me tell ya wha’ the set-up was,” said Howard Lutnick, one of Trump’s chief hustlers and now US Commerce Secretary. Lutnick has explained that what the plan is, and what has been and still is expected from Vladimir Zelensky in Kiev. “The President wants peace…Like any great mediator, he’s going to beat both sides down, to get them to the table…We’ve given three hundred billion dollars to the Ukraine. Is it difficult to see what side we’re on. Gimme a break…Let’s go force Russia into a reasonable peace deal….Enough already.”
With Dimitri Lascaris we discuss each of the elements of this hustle as it is being applied to French President Emmanuel Macron and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer, and then turned into economic war against Canada.The podcast runs for an hour. We focus on Canada starting at Minute 33:50. Click to view and listen. The Youtube version is here.
(more…)
by John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with
In this unique discussion held yesterday, two senior Indian strategists spell out how they see the current European and US debate over how the Ukraine war may end.
Indian Army Brigadier (retired) Arun Saghal is one of the leading intelligence analysts in India. With a PhD from Allahabad University, he was the founding Director of the Office of Net Assessment, a unit of the Indian Integrated Defence Staff for preparing long-term strategic analyses and forecasts. He has also served as a consultant to the National Security Council, the principal advisor to the Prime Ministry on military and security policy. Dr Saghal has also played leading roles in the Indian Centre for Strategic Studies and Simulation (Cs3) and the Institute for Defence Studies and Analyses.
Chaired by the Lieutenant General P.R. Shankar, retired from heading the Indian Army’s artillery forces, click to view and listen to the hour-long discussion.
(more…)
| S | M | T | W | T | F | S |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| « Aug | ||||||
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | |
| 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 | 11 | 12 | 13 |
| 14 | 15 | 16 | 17 | 18 | 19 | 20 |
| 21 | 22 | 23 | 24 | 25 | 26 | 27 |
| 28 | 29 | 30 | ||||
