by John Helmer, Moscow 
  @bears_with

On December 17, 2021, the Russian Foreign Ministry proposed two treaties of non-aggression and mutual assured security to stop the US and NATO alliance’s road to war against Russia.

This was the draft pact with the US; this was the draft pact with NATO.  This is how to read them.  

When the treaty provisions were summarily dismissed without discussion by the Biden Administration of the time and its NATO allies, the Russian special military operation against the US and NATO in the Ukraine was inevitable.  It began sixty-nine days later.

Article 4 of the proposed treaty with NATO appeared to require the alliance to withdraw its territorial reach eastwards towards Russia to its borders at the cutoff date of May 27, 1997. “The Russian Federation and all the Parties that were member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization as of 27 May 1997, respectively, shall not deploy military forces and weaponry on the territory of any of the other States in Europe in addition to the forces stationed on that territory as of 27 May 1997. With the consent of all the Parties such deployments can take place in exceptional cases to eliminate a threat to security of one or more Parties.”  

This appeared to mean that Russia was insisting NATO withdraw to its borders of May 27, 1997. In practice, unless Moscow agreed in “exceptional cases”, this excluded the NATO members who have joined up since then — Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia and Slovenia (2004); Albania and Croatia (2009); Montenegro (2017); and North Macedonia (2020).  

Article 6 of the pact added the undertaking, as of the end of 2021: “All member States of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization commit themselves to refrain from any further enlargement of NATO, including the accession of Ukraine as well as other States.”  Since then Finland joined NATO in 2022;    Sweden followed in 2023.  

The two draft treaties remain the Foreign Ministry’s, the General Staff’s, and President Vladimir Putin’s roadmap for the peace settlement with the US and NATO to follow the end-of-war armistice in the Ukraine. This has been repeated many times over.

On Monday this week, President Donald Trump and President Emmanuel Macron discussed a framework for what they called peace in Europe. This, they told the press,   involved US military “backing” (Trump’s term) for a European “assurance force” (Macron’s term) deployed on Ukrainian territory in what the Russians are calling a demilitarized zone and the Europeans, a  disengagement zone. Macron told Trump that British Prime Minister Sir Keir Starmer would confirm his backing when he meets Trump on Thursday.

The Financial Times, a Japanese-owned propaganda organ in London, attempted to change the meaning of the obvious. It reported a single anonymous “French official” to say “there was ‘no definitive agreement’ on the nature of US back-up in Ukraine given the discussions were at a preliminary stage.” The newspaper also recruited a retired French diplomat to add that Macron “did make progress on that front even if Trump remained quite elusive.”  

Russian officials have repeatedly rejected the presence in these new Ukrainian zones of troops from the countries which have fought Russia on the battlefield since 2022. But the Russians also say that a compromise may be negotiable between the Russian framework of December 17, 2021, and the present positions of the Russian Army advancing towards the Dnieper River and of the US and NATO war staffs retreating to Lvov and Rzeszów, in Poland.

An essay by Yevgeny Krutikov, published this week in Vzglyad,  the Kremlin-funded security analysis platform, suggests senior officials at the Security Council believe in the possibility of arms withdrawal from the current battlefield and of military deconfliction with Russia  – without attempting the impossible, the dismantling of the NATO membership to the 1997 cutoff.

At its simplest, this would mean the withdrawal of American troops, long-range missiles and nuclear ordnance (bombs, missile warheads, targeting systems) to the lines of 1997. This would leave in place NATO security guarantees for the post-1997 member states and their territories, combined with Russian non-aggression guarantees.  

(more…)

by Editor - Tuesday, February 25th, 2025
No Comments »

by John Helmer, Moscow 
  @bears_with

Compos mentis was missing in the Oval Office on Monday morning. French President Emmanuel Macron recognized it, and was so pleased, he repeatedly said: “Thank you, dear Donald”.

The answers to press questions given by President Donald Trump, sitting beside Macron, revealed that Trump doesn’t understand what end-of-war terms President Vladimir Putin has announced, nor the substance of the conversations, back channel and front in Riyadh, which have been going on between the Russians and Trump’s representatives. 

In the 28-minute morning presser, Trump spoke in repeated slogans except for a handful of new briefing points he was given by his staff:  the President stressed he has no points of difference with the French, the other Europeans, or NATO on how to negotiate an end to the Ukraine war. “There was great unity in that room”, Trump claimed of the first round of meetings with the Macron delegation, which included a videolink to other G7 leaders. 

“Take back some of the land”, Trump then claimed after being asked what end-of-war terms in the Ukraine he has discussed with Macron. “We’ll see if we get some land back”, Trump  repeated.  

Asked if he planned to go to Moscow on May 9, Trump revealed he does not know the significance of the May 9 celebration in Russia. “If this all gets settled out, sure I would go, and he could come here, too. I don’t know Ninth of May, no – I, err, that’s pretty soon. At the appropriate time I would go to Moscow…Within weeks. I think we could end it within weeks if we’re smart. If we’re not smart, it’ll keep going…”  Trump revealed, however, that he has given up his effort to hold a summit meeting with Putin without preparatory agreement of terms for an end of the Ukraine war.  

In the Oval Office, and in a simultaneous social media post, Trump repeated his interest in getting “payback” for US war spending in the Ukraine by negotiating a “rare earths” agreement.  “I emphasized”, the media post said, “the importance of the vital ‘Critical Minerals and Rare-Earths Deal’ between the United States and Ukraine, which we hope will be signed very soon! This deal, which is an ‘Economic Partnership’, will ensure the American people recoup the Tens of Billions of Dollars and Military Equipment sent to Ukraine, while also helping Ukraine’s economy grow as this Brutal and Savage War comes to an end. At the same time, I am in serious discussions with President Vladimir Putin of Russia concerning the ending of the War, and also major Economic Development transactions which will take place between the United States and Russia. Talks are proceeding very well!”  

In repeating to Macron his preoccupation with “rare earths”, Trump revealed in the Oval Office that he has no idea of the geography of the minerals he is negotiating to take over, so that “we get our money back over a period of time. But it is also beneficial to their economy, to them as a country.” Trump does not comprehend that the minerals — “rare earths and other things”, he called them — are mostly located, no longer in Ukraine but in the four new provinces of Russia and on the seabed off Russian Crimea. 

Trump also revealed he has no idea of how his proposed US investment in the minerals would be protected and by whom. 

Reporters pressed to see if the minerals agreement is subterfuge for a US security pledge to the Kiev regime, substituting for NATO membership.  Asked explicitly if the minerals deal will engage a US security guarantee for the Ukraine, Trump answered: “Well, uhh, it’ll be — Europe is going to make sure nothing happens. I don’t think it’s going to be much of a problem. I think once we settle, ahhh, there’s going to be no more war in Ukraine. You’re not go – uhhh, it’s not going to be a very big problem. That’s going to be the least of it.”

Several hours later, when the French president was asked at the second press conference after the talks had concluded, Macron hinted at a division and combination of military “deterrence capacity” between European and US forces which, he said, is a “turning point in my view, and one of the great areas of progress we have made during this trip.” Trump was uncomprehending; he did not remember what Macron had been saying over lunch. 

From evidence in Moscow of talks on Trump’s priority “major Economic Development transactions”, Putin has promoted his negotiator, Kirill Dmitriev,  to ministerial rank with the title “Special Representative of the President of Russia for Investment and Economic Cooperation with Foreign Countries.”  The text of the decree was signed on Sunday evening.  

The Kremlin was asked if Dmitriev has been promoted to ministerial rank, and if in future negotiations with the Americans he will be equal in precedence with Foreign Minister Lavrov and Presidential Assistant Yury Ushakov, the Kremlin spokesman said: “I don’t know.”

Dmitriev was talkative in Riyadh on February 18 on the prospects for the return to Russia of US businesses, product brand-names, and investors. But on the US agreement with Kiev for takeover of coal, iron ore, oil, gas and other resources in Novorossiya and the Crimea, Dmitriev has been silent.Late on Monday evening at his country residence, Putin called in a reporter to respond to the Oval Office record. “We would be ready to offer [cooperation] and our American partners, when I say partners, I mean not only administrative and government structures, but also companies – if they showed interest in working together… We would be happy to work with any foreign partners, including those of American ones. Yes, by the way, as for the new territories, the same thing: we are ready to attract foreign partners, and the so-called new our historical territories, who have returned to the Russian Federation, there are also reserves certain. We are ready with our foreign partners, including with American ones, work there too.” 

(more…)

by Editor - Monday, February 24th, 2025
No Comments »

by John Helmer, Moscow 
  @bears_with

Without reservation! No ifs, no buts!

When the British Government announced the fabrication that Russia had attacked on British soil with a chemical weapon called Novichok, Keir Starmer, then a Labour Party shadow minister, announced he was sure of the government’s evidence. The attack, Starmer said, “deserves to be condemned by all of us without reservation – without reservation”.

The evidence presented in the House of Commons by then-Prime Minister Theresa May was —  Starmer told the BBC on March 16, 2018 —  “the right conclusion, and for that reason, I think it is very important that we support the action the Prime Minister laid out on Wednesday [March 14, 2018].”  

May had told parliament “there is no alternative conclusion other than that the Russian State was culpable for the attempted murder of Mr Skripal and his daughter – and for threatening the lives of other British citizens in Salisbury, including Detective Sergeant Nick Bailey. This represents an unlawful use of force by the Russian State against the United Kingdom. And as I set out on Monday it has taken place against the backdrop of a well-established pattern of Russian State aggression across Europe and beyond. It must therefore be met with a full and robust response – beyond the actions we have already taken since the murder of Mr Litvinenko and to counter this pattern of Russian aggression elsewhere.”  

Starmer repeated what May said, word for word. The Russian attack on the Skripals, according to Starmer, was “not for the first time. As a lawyer I represented Marina Litvinenko and it was my privilege to bring a case on her behalf against Russia for that atrocious murder ten, eleven years ago now. This is not the first time. It needs to be called out with no ifs, no buts. And we need strong action as set out by the Prime Minister on Wednesday.”  

The Marina Litvineko case in the High Court in 2014 had been to press May’s government to go beyond a coroner’s inquest into the cause of the polonium poisoning death of her husband, Alexander Litvinenko, in London in November 2006. Instead, the widow Litvinenko and British officials wanted to close the inquest and instead open a public inquiry so that the case against Russia could be fully publicized,  but the MI6 evidence that Litvinenko had planned to buy the polonium from Moscow kept secret.*

In fact, Starmer was not one of the lawyers representing Marina Litvinenko in the High Court review of January 21-22, 2014; the judgement was reported on February 11, 2014, here.    Starmer’s name is also missing from the list of lawyers representing Mrs Litvinenko in the High Court proceeding six months earlier.  

Starmer was more than big-noting himself on the BBC. The docket of Marina Litvinenko’s cases in the High Court reveals Starmer was a liar.   

Slight reservation! Two ifs!

Donald Trump — in March 2018 president for the first time — was more reserved than Starmer.   On March 14, Trump told reporters at the White House: “Well, it seems to me – I’m speaking to Theresa May today — it sounds to me like it would be Russia, based on all the evidence they have. I don’t know if they have come to a conclusion…But she’s calling me today…but Theresa May is going to be speaking to me today. It sounds to me like they believe it was Russia, and I would certainly take that finding as fact. As soon as we get the facts straight, if we agree with them, we will condemn Russia or whoever it may be.”  

Now prime minister, Starmer will be meeting Trump at the White House later this week, as Trump is publicly signalling that he is re-evaluating the evidence of Russian culpability in the run-up to the start of the Special Military Operation in the Ukraine. The American ifs and buts have begun to count against the unreserved warfighting propaganda by the British.

There is also a hint from Secretary of State Marco Rubio, following his talks with Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov in Riyadh on February 18,  that the British evidence of Novichok is also being reopened behind closed doors.

Rubio was asked by a reporter whether his agreement to restore diplomatic operations with the Russians meant “that you consider the Skripal case or the Crimea annexation to be closed or no longer issues?  Because I think – you mentioned Keir Starmer is going to be in Washington next week.  I can imagine that the Brits won’t be particularly pleased by that.”  

Rubio hesitated over how to answer. “Yeah, again, I’m not – yeah, I’m not going to negotiate or talk through every element of the disruptions that exists – or have existed in our diplomatic relations and the mechanics of it.  Suffice to say that President Trump has pledged and intends to keep his promise to do everything he can to bring an end to this conflict.  We cannot do that unless we have at least some normalcy in the way our diplomatic missions operate in Moscow and in Washington, D.C…we’re going to work with them to see what’s possible within that context.”

Washington sources point out that Rubio’s deputy at State, Michael Waltz’s deputy at the National Security Council (NSC), and the new appointees at the Joint Chiefs of Staff and Pentagon are all special operations warfighters against Russia. They know the Skripal case and the Novichok story have been operations of the British Secret Intelligence Service (MI6) and the Ministry of Defence’s chemical warfare branch. What they and Rubio didn’t know a week ago is what Trump will answer when Starmer asks him to continue the spetsnaz war against Russia.

(more…)

by Editor - Sunday, February 23rd, 2025
No Comments »

by John Helmer, Moscow 
  @bears_with

In this new podcast Nima Alkhorshid takes the record of the Riyadh talks between Russia and the US to the next stage. 

What has the Russian side just learned of US capabilities, intentions, plans from the performances Secretary of State Marco Rubio, National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, and Steven Witkoff, representative of US money interests and the Trump family? 

As the debriefing debate continues in Moscow, what military, political and business tests will the Russians decide on next? What will Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov tell Russia’s allies in Johannesburg this week? What explanation will he give for President Vladimir Putin continuing to hold back on the battlefield? 

If delay and protraction in negotiation is the Russian tactic for driving President Donald Trump to impatience and then distraction, exploiting the faction fighting and lack of coordination in his administration, what confidence-building measures will State, Pentagon, CIA, and the White House propose to reciprocate what Putin has already demonstrated? 

Listen to the hour-long discussion here.   

(more…)

by Editor - Wednesday, February 19th, 2025
No Comments »

by John Helmer, Moscow 
  @bears_with

It was obvious from the slow descent of US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, stepping down the stairs from his aircraft, watching his shoes until they hit the ground in Riyadh, that the US side in Tuesday’s talks lacked a confident mandate from the White House for negotiations with the Russians.  

Rubio was there – inexperienced and nervous, as Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov exposed over the four and a half hours of their meeting – to arrange a grandstand display by President Donald Trump at the  summit meeting he wants with President Vladimir Putin. No more, no less. 

Rubio ended up with less. To the uncomprehending Trump, speaking at his own press conference in Florida fifteen hours later, Rubio and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz are unable to explain. 

(more…)

by Editor - Wednesday, February 19th, 2025
No Comments »

by John Helmer, Moscow 
  @bears_with

In today’s Dialogue Works podcast, Nima Alkhorshid steals a march on Tuesday’s talks between the Russian and American teams preparing for the summit meeting to follow between President Vladimir Putin and President Donald Trump. 

We look at the US team – the megalomaniac, the Confederates, the Family, and the moneymen – and at the Russian team (Foreign Minister Lavrov, Kremlin foreign policy advisor Ushakov, Russian Direct Investment Fund CEO Dmitriev) and discuss what temporary terms are possible for outcome; what permanent peace for the Ukraine, China, Iran,  and Palestine is probable, if any.

The Maryland State Board of Censors and the British Board of Film Classification warn this podcast is not for the vainly optimistic, falsely conscious, premature triumphalists, paid propagandists. This is the school of grim realism, not the Professor Mushheimer school of realism nor the Doctor Zero theatre of Russian PR.  

(more…)

by Editor - Tuesday, February 18th, 2025
No Comments »

by John Helmer, Moscow 
  @bears_with

Narendra Modi, the Prime Minister of India, is the first of President Vladimir Putin’s strategic allies to leave him to make whatever exit from the Ukraine war he can negotiate with President Donald Trump.

Modi did this by saying as little as he could about Russia last week in Washington while preparing his own military, energy supply, sea lane and land route agreements with the US; altogether, according to Indian sources in Moscow, they enlarge India’s role in the escalating  US war against China across the globe, and diminish Russia’s role significantly.

“I have been in constant contact with both Russia and Ukraine.  I have also visited both countries,” Modi said beside Trump at the White House on February 13.   “And many people are mistaken and they feel that India is neutral.  I would like to clarify: India is not neutral.  We have taken a side, and we have taken the side of peace…Ultimately, you have to come to the negotiating table, and India has constantly made efforts that there are talks that take place where both parties are present.  It is only then that we will find a solution. The efforts being made by President Trump — I support them, I welcome them, and I would like that President Trump is successful as soon as possible so that the world is on the path to peace once again.”

This isn’t a statement of India’s support for Russia, according to Russian sources. It is not even India’s acknowledgement of the wars which the US and its allies are waging against Russia simultaneously on its western and eastern, northern and southern fronts. It’s India’s declaration that it aims to be on the US side in the multi-front war India is waging against China from the Pacific to the Indian Ocean. It is also a proclamation by Modi against the Arab, Iranian and Muslim resistance to the US and Israel on the Arabian Sea, the Red Sea, and the Persian Gulf.

 “The prime minister and I,” said Trump, “reaffirmed that strong cooperation among the United States, India, Australia, and Japan [the Quad], and it’s crucial really to maintaining peace and prosperity, tranquillity even, in the Indo-Pacific.”

“We will work together to enhance peace, stability, and prosperity in the Indo-Pacific,” Modi replied, “The Quad will play a special role in this.  During the Quad summit scheduled to be held in India this year, we will expand cooperation in new areas with our partner countries.”  

A veteran Indian source in Moscow explains: “Indians are very pleased with the anti-China stand of the US. The last two years of relations with Russians have been bruising for Indians and a lot of top oil and gas managers are exasperated with the Russians. They would do anything to stop doing business with the Russians – this is not because of the sanctions, it is the Russians themselves! [From Modi’s visit to Washington] there is the general take that we cannot be throwing our lot with Russians because they are so unreliable now and are junior to the Chinese. Putin might have brokered the Ladakh moment,   but all in all Indians prefer to deal with the US now. For now we know that the Americans call the shots.”

Russia has been relegated. In Delhi now, Quad is major league; the Shanghai Cooperation Organisation  and BRICS are minor league.

(more…)

by Editor - Sunday, February 16th, 2025
No Comments »

by John Helmer, Moscow 
  @bears_with

On arriving at the White House, it’s the first rule of American politics for the new president to overestimate his power, and for his staff and appointees to confer that exaggeration upon themselves.

The second rule for these novices and freshmen is to declare as much of this power as possible in public, and as quickly as they can. Their aim is to steal a march on their rivals within the new administration; box the Congress into a corner; and create faits accomplis to prevent the courts from injuncting and reversing. Also, believing the President of the United States to be next to God, he and his appointees enjoy the feeling of divinity, walking on water, tossing their rivals into hell, anticipating heavenly rewards on earth, etc. These rules are so simple, a child of four years old can understand and say them aloud; he has.   

Equally simple is the rule of the court and camp followers, the press first of all. Their aim is to truckle and ingratiate themselves with the new power, propagandizing the new exaggeration in exchange for patronage. This is a cold cash nexus.

(more…)

by Editor - Friday, February 14th, 2025
No Comments »

by John Helmer, Moscow 
  @bears_with

Playing pirates on the high seas was once a bankrupt king’s scheme, then an empire schoolboy’s game — first for the Portuguese, then the Dutch, then the British, and now the MAGA Americans.

From the Hollywood films he watched when he was in short pants, Donald Trump did not learn that the naval war the US waged from 1801 to 1805 against Yusuf Qaramanli, the Bey of Tripoli, and against his navy, the so-called Barbary pirates, ended in defeat for the US Navy — with the extra humiliation of US Navy ships captured and hostages taken.

Little Trump pretended that when he sang the Marines’ Hymn, he would be the “first to fight for right and freedom… From the Halls of Montezuma/To the shores of Tripoli… In the snow of far-off Northern lands/And in sunny tropic scenes.”  Now that he’s in long pants, Trump is singing the song with slightly different geography – from the Halls of Panama to the shores of Gaza, and in the snow of far-off Canada and Greenland.  

The sing-song idea is to prepare the Greenland shore for MAGA forays against the Russians moving eastward along their northern, Arctic shore; and with the Finns, Swedes, Norwegians and Danes to attack the Russians moving westward on the Baltic Sea to the Danish Straits. In MAGA strategy, this combination should stop the Russian oil and gas fleets from moving in either direction.

Unless the Russians fight back — and Trump retreats to sign a treaty of peace and amity. Just like Thomas Jefferson did with the Bey in 1805.  

(more…)

by Editor - Thursday, February 13th, 2025
No Comments »

by John Helmer, Moscow 
  @bears_with

For their daily bread, Russians pay much less than the citizens of the US, the European Union, and other bread-eating states in the warfighting alliance. 

At current prices, the Russian loaf of white bread is cheaper by almost seven times than the American; six times less than the Norwegian; four times less than the Italian and German; three times less than the French.  

In the war between armies marching on their stomachs, the Russian Army has already won hands down; that’s the farmers’, millers’, and bakers’ hands. 

On the home front, however, it is not this international comparison which counts for Russian consumers. They are suffering from the comparison they are obliged to make between the price they pay for bread today and the price last year, or before the Special Military Operation in February 2022. Before the war, between 2019 and 2021, the average rate of inflation for bread was between 5% and 7% per annum. In 2024, the bread price rose, according to the state statistics agency Rosstat, by 13.2%. In fact, according to published studies in Moscow, bread  inflation was double that rate at about 27% for the year.  

The sensitivity of voters to this inflation in food prices is so great, President Vladimir Putin and  Agriculture Ministry officials are trying to talk down the bread price and ask consumers to eat promises. According to Putin on February 7, “annual inflation stands at 9.5 percent, though as of February 3, this had reached 9.9 percent year-on-year. This presents a challenge, necessitating comprehensive measures to ensure balanced economic expansion.”  

In a meeting with Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, the President said inflation is a goods supply problem which can be solved by targeted state intervention, including subsidies to producers, restrictions on exports of Russian foodstuffs, and jawboning oligarchs and other business owners to hold their prices down temporarily.  “One paramount priority remains the development of a supply-side economy,” Putin said. “During the coronavirus pandemic, the Government executed highly effective sector-specific interventions. As previously discussed, including during meetings with the business community – whose representatives have advocated for this approach – we agreed with the Government to reinstate such sectoral coordination. We must assess the prospects of individual industries, identify priorities, and provide targeted support where required.”  

Deputy Agriculture Minister Maxim Titov explained last week that state intervention in the food sector will be limited to asking the supermarket retailers to limit their bread-price markups to the government’s announced rate of inflation.  “In principle,” Titov said,   “as we see the dynamics of the price of bread, the price increase for the grain group that exists today has already been recouped.”  

Titov also issued a radical warning disguised by a negative. “The cost of bread production is constantly growing,” he said, “but grain is not the main component in the cost of bread production.”  The deputy minister means that after two years of bumper wheat harvests for the farmers and record tonnage of flour from the millers, the real reason for bread price inflation isn’t supply side at all. Instead, as Moscow think-tank research confirms, it is profit-making by the bread-sellers. Their profit margin has been reported as several times the average profit margin of the producers.

This is profit rigging and price gouging, as Russians understand it. Deputy Minister Titov is pointing the finger at Magnit (Dixy), Pyaterochka (X5),  Mercury (Red & White, Bristol), and Lenta (Billa, Monetka), and to the oligarch groups of Alexander Vinokurov, Mikhail Fridman and Igor Kesaev who control them.  Lenta,  however, is part-controlled by the US private equity firm TPG Capital, based in Texas. Together, these four retailers have been steadily increasing their control over the entire Russian food retail marketplace; at present, they have a market share of more than 30%. 
Reluctant as ministry officials and Russian agro-industry experts are to admit it, the reason for the acceleration in the price of bread is wartime profiteering. As a military source warns, “the picture is getting clearer; the outlook is getting dimmer.”

(more…)

by Editor - Wednesday, February 12th, 2025
No Comments »