[1]
By John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with [2]
The third round of Russia-Ukraine negotiations in Istanbul came and went in just one hour, and the Russian plan to continue the meeting on Thursday was dropped [3].
A face-to-face meeting between the two delegation heads, Vladimir Medinsky for Russia, Rustem Umerov for the Ukraine, was held before the plenary session; it lasted for less than 30 minutes. They were then joined by the Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan; the three talked for 15 minutes [4]. In Kiev it was officially denied that Umerov spoke with Medinsky before Fidan joined [5] them. Fidan then formally opened the session of the delegations, declaring “the ultimate goal of the negotiations in Istanbul is to reach a ceasefire for which Turkey has the necessary infrastructure to track compliance.” Between 7:51 pm and 9:39 pm the proceedings were open and shut.
For the Ukrainian side, Umerov read [6] from a brief handwritten note that “we are ready for a ceasefire right now and for the start of substantive peace negotiations. It is up to both sides to agree to this fundamental step toward peace. The ceasefire must be genuine — it must include a complete halt to attacks on civilian and critical infrastructure. Real steps are possible, and each side must demonstrate a constructive and realistic approach.”
More voluble in Kiev, Vladimir Zelensky posted a statement on Telegram reporting a fresh exchange of prisoners of war; he ignored the Istanbul outcome [7].
The deadlock which the Russians had proposed to break with the “new idea, new concept” which Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov discussed with Secretary of State Marco Rubio on July 10 [8] was dismissed by the Ukrainian side. Instead, it was agreed, as Medinsky announced in his press conference, “to form three working groups that will work online”. The Ukrainians, he said [4], agreed only to “consider this proposal.” Umerov didn’t say so.
According to Fidan’s later statement [9], there was agreement to think about the working groups, but no agreement to start them. “The delegations also discussed possible steps to intensify technical discussions on the ceasefire and align their positions. They also agreed to explore the idea of establishing working groups on political, humanitarian, and military matters.”
Manouvres there were; surprises there were not.
A Russian source comments; “So next contacts are downgraded to working groups so that’s the end of talks. Now guns, drones, and missiles will do the talking.”
In Washington there was no direct reaction. The White House is concentrating [10] on Trump’s departure on Friday to meet King Charles III and Prime Minister Keir Starmer in Scotland.
At the same time, on Trump’s order Tulsi Gabbard, the Director of National Intelligence (DNI), launched from the White House press room a series of accusations against both President Vladimir Putin and former President Barack Obama for plotting against the US. “Putin’s principal interests”, according [11] to Gabbard, “relating to the 2016 election were to undermine faith in the US democratic process, not showing any preference of a certain candidate. Putin chose not to leak the most damaging and compromising material on Hillary Clinton prior to the election; instead planning to release it after the election to weaken what Moscow viewed would be an inevitable Clinton presidency…The material about Hillary Clinton that Putin chose not to release before the election, included possible criminal acts.”
Obama, she accused, of a conspiracy “to subvert the will of the American people…essentially…a years-long coup against President Trump.”
In the new podcast with Nima Alkhorshid, the discussion focuses on the Russian goal to secure Trump’s agreement to a ceasefire for a single short-term objective – regime change in Kiev by nationwide elections to replace Zelensky. The silence in Kiev and also in Washington, which has followed the session in Istanbul, confirms that Zelensky knows this and is reinforcing his power at home and abroad, in order to save himself.
Listen to the hour-long podcast here [12]:
[13]Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wS40olu8paQ [12]
Ahead of the Istanbul talks, leading Ukrainian politician in opposition, Oleg Tsarev [14], wrote on his Telegram platform that he was expecting “three options. The first is mutual attacks at the meeting and further escalation, based on the fact that Kiev receives weapons, money and is ready to fight further. The second is a calm discussion at the meeting of some behind-the-scenes agreements, which can be finally fixed by the 50 days allotted by Trump. And the third is an ostentatious performance for Trump – both sides, though for different reasons: discussion of terms in the two memoranda, 11-points [actually 22 points in the Ukraine term sheet] and 33-points [the Russian term sheet] and the continuation of the war as it is going.”
After the concluding press statements from Medinsky and Umerov, Tsarev said [14]: “The Ukrainian side offered the Russian meeting of Putin and Zelensky by the end of August…Clever move. There are no agreements on anything. For Putin to meet with Zelensky makes no sense. Zelensky wants to get a HYIP [high-yield investment program]. But if you refuse, it turns out inconvenient for Trump, [so he will say] Russia is disrupting the negotiations.”
Russian sources in a position to know say Lavrov’s “new idea, new concept” is, on the one hand, an acknowledgement that bridging the differences between the 33-point Russian term sheet [15] and the 22-point Ukrainian one [16] is impossible to negotiate with the Ukrainians so long as Zelensky holds power.
On the other hand, it’s a proposal for Trump to remove Zelensky in exchange for a ceasefire for enough time to create a new regime by elections, and for US delay in all arms deliveries in the meantime. In short, end-of-war negotiations after Zelensky – and a summit meeting for Trump to celebrate his ceasefire with Putin and Chinese President Xi Jinping on September 3 [17].
[18]President Xi reviews the military parade in Tienanmen Square, Beijing, in 2015 for the 70th anniversary of China’s Victory Day [19]. President Putin attended; the US was represented by its ambassador at the time, Max Baucus.
According to one of the Russian sources, “Russians are showing diplomatic maturity and statecraft and the Army is gaining ground from strength to strength. They are not rejecting Trump. They shouldn’t. But they are not giving up on him. They are being pragmatic. I believe Trump will be see-sawing between the European narrative and the reality on the ground. Reality will prevail. The question is what tipping point. MI6 is burying Zelensky but that might be because Brits want to install their own Nazi who won’t give up [on fighting the war against Russia]. So Zelensky is on the precipice. What this means is that Russians will agree to go to a ceasefire . And that will clear the way for the Trump-Putin meeting. But no terms [of the 33-point memorandum] will be explicitly agreed with the US. Everything from now on will be implicit. That’s why Europeans are going crazy over Zelensky. They must be fearful of an agreement.”
A military source comments: “Most Russians are tired of the Ukrainians and would be just as happy to shut the whole Zelensky regime down. So, who is the target audience for Putin’s reluctance to do that? Is it in Ukraine? After three years of war, there is still no mass resistance among the [Ukrainian] population who continue to do little except take individual measures — draft dodging, border hopping. Clearly, they will not stop supporting the war as a society until their society, which is racist in Russia warfighting and bent on stealing from each other, cannot function. Putin’s strategy appears to be to work around the edges. That’s like using a stake to stab a vampire in its hands, arms and legs, instead of driving it through the monster’s heart. Yes, they’ll keep pushing the fighting at the front and bombing the rear to induce a Ukrainian surrender. To the Ukrainians and their US and European allies, this is a demonstration of military capability without the political will to employ it decisively, once again.”
According to Tsarev [14], Russian public opinion is increasingly impatient at the damage to their transport infrastructure which the daily Ukrainian drone attacks are causing, especially to rail and airport travel for Russians going on their summer holidays. The interruptions of scheduled rail and airline flights, especially in the Moscow region,are pushing Russians to travel by car, and this is leading to record-breaking traffic jams at points like the Crimean Bridge. “By small forces and at minimal cost, the enemy paralyzes the work of our transport infrastructure, and we are suffering large losses. It’s quite serious. And it’s too bad if we don’t find a way to counteract it.”
In the podcast discussion we also referred to the list of new weapons for delivery to Kiev, paid for by the Europeans, which has been published by former prime minister, now Defense Minister Denis Shmygal. Here is his list:
[20]Source: https://x.com/Denys_Shmyhal/status/1947306889915842761 [21]
[22]Source: https://x.com/Denys_Shmyhal/status/1947334865415794928 [23]
[24]Source: https://x.com/Denys_Shmyhal/status/1945523875770413380 [25]
On the meaning of Trump’s 50-day deadline for Putin to come to terms, Nima aired an excerpt the State Department briefing of July 22. Here is the transcript [26].
“QUESTION: … On Ukraine, if I may. Does the Secretary have any expectations from upcoming talks in Istanbul given its timing, its format? Are you guys even part of it?
MS BRUCE: I can’t necessarily speak to the Secretary’s thoughts dynamically, but I know that our ambassador to NATO had some – a number of remarks to make that he made this morning on television regarding the talks – again, this would be Istanbul. He – first of all, I can tell you that we’re aware of the scheduling of a third round of talks being negotiated between the two parties. We continue to encourage direct talks between Russia and Ukraine in pursuit of a comprehensive ceasefire and eventual negotiated peace settlement.
The ambassador – [US NATO] Ambassador [Matthew] Whitaker in this case – said: ‘I’m encouraged that both sides are going to sit down again and negotiate, because that’s the only way this is going to be resolved. Getting both sides to the table, like getting to – getting both sides to the table is going to happen this week, is important; it is an important next step, and I think that’s all because of the leverage that the United States of America and President Trump continues to apply.’
He also noted that, as we’ve said repeatedly, constructive, good-faith dialogue is the only path to ending this war. That has been a hallmark of Secretary Rubio’s remarks, that only the two parties can make the difference in deciding to stop this. And the President supports any mechanism that leads to a just, durable, and lasting peace.
QUESTION: Yesterday marked one week since the President gave them seven weeks. Are you guys doing any assessment? At this point, do you think this one-week window already allows you to draw any conclusion about their behavior?
MS BRUCE: I would caution, when the President notes a block of time or a window, that it could be any time in that window. We’ve already seen that in one instance [Iran]. There is – at the same time, with negotiations – as I mentioned before without going into the details – if there’s a genuine negotiation happening and it is in – it’s in motion, then things can change rapidly; that the day you set up a window, two days later it can be different because of the conversations that have been had.
So it’s never a static – for most of us, if we make a plan, it’s kind of a static plan for us. We have an appointment and we choose that day for the appointment next month. That’s not the case here. These are opportunities that the President speaks about, which is part of an important aspect of his leadership and what – what the person who we’re speaking with should know that there might be some options, but it’s not the only thing he’s looking at. It’s not the only dynamic that matters, and it’s – we’ve seen him give windows before, and he’s acted very quickly within a block, and I think that’s why it matters.
He knows – he’s said very – often, many times, he’s not happy with what’s happening and the choices that Russia is indulging in.”
At the conclusion of the podcast, we discussed the allegations of indictable treason, sedition and coup plotting which Trump Administration officials are now making against President Barack Obama and his national security officials in December 2016, following their defeat by Trump in the election of November 2016, and before Trump’s first term began in January 2017.
Trump himself has avoided alleging the capital-punishment offence of treason. Instead, he has spoken [27] of the 20-year imprisonment offence of sedition. “We’re going to add that to all the stuff that we found. It just confirms it. But what we found is even more so. Now we found absolute — this isn’t like evidence or this is like proof, irrefutable proof, that Obama was seditious. That Obama led — was trying to lead a coup. And it was with Hillary Clinton, with all these other people.”
For the difference between treason, sedition and related crimes against the state, click to read this [28]. For prosecuting a conspiracy of treason, words, meetings and plotting aren’t enough – actions, including the organization of force for hostile action against the state, are required, together with the intention to betray the state to an enemy [29]. Here is how the US Code defines sedition:
[30]Source: https://codes.findlaw.com/us/title-18-crimes-and-criminal-procedure/18-usc-sect-2384/ [31]
In an initial Russian reaction to the new Trump campaign by the Vzglyad publication, analyst Yevgeny Krutikov claims [32] that presidents have constitutional immunity from prosecution for offences committed while they are in office. This is not so, as the record of presidential impeachment trials has shown, especially the two Trump faced in his first term [33].
On the other hand, Krutikov’s conclusion is that “the American state operates in a regime of behind-the-scenes deals and intrigues. And this is not stability, but stagnation and maintenance of the regime of oligarchic power, that is, in the words of supporters of the MAGA movement, the ‘deep state.’ On the other hand, rocking the current system is not beneficial to Trump himself… It looks like all this is just the beginning of a scandal. The scale of which, with further development, may overshadow both Watergate and the Bill Clinton case with the shaking of the constitutional foundations of the modern United States.”