The fight for control of Ukraine’s nuclear reactors

How serious is Donald Trump about US ownership of Kyiv’s nuclear power plants?

By Chas Newkey-Burden, The Week UK,
https://theweek.com/world-news/the-fight-for-control-of-ukraines-nuclear-reactors

First, Donald Trump made a pitch for Ukraine’s critical minerals; now, the US president seems to want to own the war-torn nation’s nuclear power plants.

But there’s a lot of confusion over what Trump would do if he did take control of the plants – and if he actually even wants to.

How many nuclear power plants in Ukraine?

Ukraine has four nuclear power plants. The most significant one – and the largest in Europe – is Zaporizhzhia, which was seized by Russia in the first weeks of the war. And it’s this plant, in particular, that’s become Trump’s “new craving” in his “transactional approach to bringing peace”, said Politico.

What is Trump demanding?

As a demand, it’s Trump “at his most confusing”, said The Guardian. If the current frontlines in Ukraine were “frozen” in a ceasefire or peace deal, it would be “difficult to see” how Zaporizhzhia could be operated by the US while it’s “surrounded by Russian occupiers”. Besides, Ukraine is “not thought willing” to “renounce” ownership.

It’s “unclear” whether the US is actually looking to own Ukraine’s atomic power, said the Financial Times. A US account of a recent call between Kyiv and Washington suggested so, but Zelenskyy said the discussion only touched on the US helping to “recover” and modernise the Zaporizhzhia plant.

Why would Trump want control?

Trump’s minerals deal with Ukraine is “back on” but “can only go ahead if the materials can be extracted”, said The Telegraph. This “takes a lot of energy – something which the Zaporizhzhia plant could provide”.

Energy analysts have also noted that the US could have another “economic interest” in the plant, said The New York Times. Zaporizhzhia uses fuel and technology supplied by Westinghouse, an American nuclear technology company.

But still, the idea has “a catch” for “the man who coined the art of the deal”, said Reuters: “it would be years” before there is “even a hope of it making a return on investment”. So, the proposal could simply be the US “testing out various ideas to see what works”, as Trump “seeks to hammer out a lasting peace deal”.

What might happen next?

Control over the plant is “likely to remain a legal and logistical challenge”, said The Associated Press. And, of course, control over the land Zaporizhzhia stands on is a “highly divisive issue for both warring sides”.

It’s “unclear” what Trump could “offer to Russia to get it to hand over the plant”, said the NYT. Moscow is likely to demand something meaningful in return, such as “the lifting of Western sanctions that have hurt its economy”.

If Ukraine does regain control of Zaporizhzhia, the “more likely” alternative to US ownership is a “joint venture” – an investment fund for the ageing plant, which “both parties could contribute to and benefit from”, said The Telegraph. This is essentially the same concept that “formed the basis” of the minerals deal.

March 24, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Trump: best protection for Ukraine’s nuclear power is US takeover.

President Trump has told President Zelensky that an American takeover of
nuclear power in Ukraine would offer the “best protection” for the
country’s infrastructure. The White House said Trump had “moved
beyond” the minerals deal for American companies to extract oil, gas and
rare metals that had been proposed as a way to protect Ukraine from future
Russian aggression. That deal was suspended after Zelensky’s disastrous
meeting last month with Trump and JD Vance, the vice-president, in the Oval
Office. It envisaged US control over natural resources and infrastructure
such as ports, but did not mention nuclear power.

Times 19th March 2025 https://www.thetimes.com/world/russia-ukraine-war/article/trump-best-protection-for-ukraines-nuclear-power-is-us-takeover-9l0xsxqjj

March 23, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

‘Never forget’: Pacific countries remember nuclear test legacy as weapons ban treaty debated.

Supporters of the UN treaty prohibiting nuclear weapons gathered this month in New York to call for wider ratification

Jon Letman, Guardian, 21 Mar 25

Growing up in the Pacific nation of Kiribati, Oemwa Johnson heard her grandfather’s stories about nuclear explosions he witnessed in the 1950s. The blasts gave off ferocious heat and blinding light. He told her people were not consulted or given protective gear against bombs detonated by the US and UK at Kiritimati Island, now part of Kiribati, decades ago.

People in Kiribati suffered grave health consequences as a result of exposure to radiation from the tests in the late 1950s and early 1960s, a legacy they say continues to this day. Johnson says there’s a lack of accountability and awareness of how nuclear testing by foreign countries has harmed her people and homeland.

“It doesn’t matter if they’re very small island nations, their stories matter,” the 24-year-old says.

Between 1946 and 1996, the US, the UK and France conducted more than 300 underwater and atmospheric nuclear tests in the Pacific region, according to Pace University International Disarmament Institute. Kiribati, French Polynesia, and the Republic of the Marshall Islands were among the most affected.

For decades the countries have called for justice for the ongoing environmental and health impacts of nuclear weapons development. The push intensified this month as supporters of the UN treaty on the prohibition of nuclear weapons (TPNW) – including many from Pacific nations – met to discuss the treaty and call for wider ratification.

The treaty imposes a ban on developing, testing, stockpiling, using or threatening to use nuclear weapons – or helping other countries in such activities. It entered into force in 2021 and has 98 countries as parties or signatories. In the Pacific region 11 countries have backed the treaty. Treaty supporters want universal global support but many countries – including the US, the UK and France – oppose the treaty.

The nine nuclear armed countries argue that nuclear weapons are critical to their security. Likewise, Nato nations, Japan, South Korea and others are not yet party to the treaty. Australia, where the UK conducted nuclear tests in the 1950s, has not ratified the TPNW despite the prime minister, Anthony Albanese, saying in 2018 that Australia would do so the treaty when his party was in power…………………………..

‘Nuclear risks rising’

Against this backdrop, politicians, activists and other representatives gathered at UN headquarters in New York this month for week-long discussions on how to secure more support for the TPNW.

Hinamoeura Morgant-Cross, a representative of the French Polynesia assembly, was among the parliamentarians. She says her family was significantly affected by French nuclear detonations at Moruroa and Fangataufa atolls between 1966 and 1996. Morgant-Cross told the forum high rates of radiation-induced cancer in her family had motivated her to become an anti-nuclear activist and assembly member.

https://08b406e171edb907f2e5d1d6bf352e34.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-41/html/container.html

“It started with my grandma with thyroid cancer,” she said. “Then her first daughter – my auntie – with thyroid cancer. She also got breast cancer. My mom and my sister have thyroid disease. I got chronic leukemia when I was 24 years old. I’m still fighting against this leukemia.”

New Zealand’s UN representative in Geneva, Deborah Geels, stressed the treaty’s “special importance in the Pacific”, warning: “Tensions between nuclear-armed states and nuclear risk are rising, and no region is immune – even the South Pacific.”……………………………….. more https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/mar/21/never-forget-pacific-countries-remember-nuclear-test-legacy-as-weapons-ban-treaty-debated

March 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | OCEANIA, politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

‘Vandals in the White House’ no longer reliable allies of Australia, former defence force chief says

Henry Belot and Ben Doherty, Guardian, 21 Mar 25

Chris Barrie says Donald Trump’s second term is ‘irrecoverable’, but stops short of calling for end to Aukus pact.

A former Australian defence force chief has warned “the vandals in the White House” are no longer reliable allies and urged the Australian government to reassess its strategic partnership with the United States.

Retired admiral Chris Barrie spent four decades in the Royal Australian Navy and was made a Commander of the Legion of Merit by the US government in 2002. He is now an honorary professor at the Australian National University.

“What is happening with the vandals in the White House is similar to what happened to Australia in 1942 with the fall of Singapore,” Barrie said. “I don’t consider America to be a reliable ally, as I used to.

“Frankly, I think it is time we reconsidered our priorities and think carefully about our defence needs, now that we are having a more independent posture … Our future is now in a much more precarious state than it was on 19 January.

“Trump 1.0 was bad enough. But Trump 2.0 is irrecoverable.”

Barrie said it was “too soon” to say whether Australia should end its multibillion-dollar Aukus partnership, but raised concerns about a lack of guarantee that nuclear-powered submarines would actually be delivered. He also warned about an apparent lack of a back-up option.

Pillar One of the Aukus deal – which would see the US sell Australia nuclear-powered submarines before the Aukus-class submarines were built in Australia – is coming under increasing industry scrutiny and political criticism, with growing concerns the US will not be able, or will refuse, to sell boats to Australia, and continuing cost and time overruns in the development of the Aukus submarines.

“Let’s define why we really need nuclear submarines in the first instance, given a new independent defence posture for Australia,” Barrie said. “If they still make sense in that context, fine. But they might not. There might be alternatives. There might be alternatives with conventional submarines if we didn’t want to go any further than the Malacca Straits.”

Barrie’s warning comes after former foreign affairs minister Bob Carr said Australia would face a “colossal surrender of sovereignty” if promised US nuclear-powered submarines did not arrive under Australian control.

Carr, the foreign affairs minister between 2012 and 2013, said the Aukus deal highlighted the larger issue of American unreliability in its security alliance with Australia.

“The US is utterly not a reliable ally. No one could see it in those terms,” he said. “[President] Trump is wilful and cavalier and so is his heir-apparent, JD Vance: they are laughing at alliance partners, whom they’ve almost studiously disowned.”………………………. https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2025/mar/21/vandals-in-the-white-house-no-longer-reliable-allies-to-australia-former-defence-force-chief-says-ntwnfb?CMP=share_btn_url

March 22, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

The Phony Ceasefire

European leaders, who’ve staked their reputations on not losing in Ukraine, can apparently see no other way than to scaremonger a Russian threat and meet it by unnecessarily militarizing the continent. They need their publics to support this.

Knowing well in advance that Russia would reject it, the U.S. and Ukraine announced with fanfare that its ceasefire deal was in “Russia’s court” in what was an exercise of pure public relations, writes Joe Lauria.

by Joe Lauria, Consortium News, 16 Mar 25 more https://consortiumnews.com/2025/03/16/the-phony-ceasefire/

Nothing could have been clearer than Russia’s repeated conditions for a permanent end of the war, rather than a temporary ceasefire: Ukraine’s neutrality, its demilitarization and denazification, the inclusion of four Russian-speaking oblasts into the Russian Federation and treaties establishing a new security architecture in Europe.

Equally clear was Ukraine’s utter rejection of these conditions, demanding instead the return of every inch of its territory, including Crimea, and Ukraine’s membership in NATO.

It is the reason the two sides are still fighting a war. It is a war, however, that Ukraine is badly losing. Obscuring that fact is an important aim of Ukraine and its European allies to keep their publics onside.

But it isn’t only their publics that need convincing to continue supporting Ukraine, but the president of the United States too.

After the Oval Office dustup, in which Donald Trump and J.D. Vance laid it on the line to Zelensky in public, the Europeans held two summits. At both they made loud noises about continuing to support Zelensky, but also made clear they couldn’t do it without the United States.

Much as they loathe him, Zelensky and the European leaders need Donald Trump. So they set Zelensky up to writing a letter sucking up to Trump, a man clearly susceptible to flattery.

Very likely also influenced by his Secretary of State Marco Rubio and National Security Advisor Michael Waltz, both of whom had previously expressed neocon support for Ukraine and condemnation of Russia, Trump was apparently turned around, convinced to propose the 30-day ceasefire.

Trump then somehow got the notion that Vladimir Putin, despite his oft repeated conditions for ending the war, would yield to pressure. It could be Trump thinks he is a neutral mediator who needs to bully both sides to force them to do a deal.

So after the ceasefire was floated, Trump resumed arms and intelligence flows to Ukraine, new sanctions on Russia were threatened and Ukraine fired 350 drones at residential areas of Moscow just as Trump’s envoy Steve Witkoff was arriving in Moscow to discuss the ceasefire.

Like Casting a Lone Veto

All this was designed to push Putin to accept it or appear like a man guilty of rejecting peace. If U.S. arms, intelligence and sanctions had not deterred Putin before, why would it now?

Putin saw this as the public relations exercise that it is and treated it as such. He responded with public relations of his own.

Instead of firmly saying the expected, “No,” he said, “Yes,” followed by “nuances,” such as who would monitor such a ceasefire along a 2,000-kilometer front?

He said such a ceasefire could not begin as occupying Ukrainian troops were encircled on Russian territory; and, crucially, that a 30-day ceasefire — with no Ukrainian rearmament — could only mark the start of talks for a permanent settlement. Putin exposed the motive to give Ukrainian troops on the run a chance to regroup.

Just as designed, Zelensky and European leaders blasted Putin for being a man who loves war, and hates peace.

At the U.N. Security Council, which I covered as a correspondent for a quarter of a century, I often saw countries introduce resolutions for a vote even though they were certain one of the five permanent members would veto it.

Diplomats explained that this was done on purpose to force the arm of that nation’s ambassador to be the lone one raised in opposition to the measure for all the world to see, causing it maximum public embarrassment.

That is precisely the exercise we have seen with this phony ceasefire proposal. The Europeans and the Ukrainians are trying to milk it for all it’s worth. Zelensky did a selfie video to call Putin a “manipulator” of world leaders.

British Prime Minister Keir Starmer said: “The Kremlin’s complete disregard for President Trump’s cease-fire proposal only serves to demonstrate that Putin is not serious about peace.”

Starmer deployed the scare tactic that Putin is bent on European conquest, saying: “Russia’s appetite for conflict and chaos undermines our security back here in the United Kingdom.” He even tried to blame his political difficulties at home on Russia for “driving up energy costs.”

Meanwhile Starmer says a European peacekeeping force is moving to “operational phase” ahead of a Thursday meeting of European leaders. Only with a ceasefire and Russia’s consent could such a force be deemed “peacekeepers” however.

In the end, the “ceasefire” gambit may indeed create more public sympathy for Ukraine and more irrational fear of Russia. But the big question is whether it will harden Trump against Russia by continuing arms shipments and intelligence and perhaps levelling new sanctions against Moscow.

All that would do, however, is prolong the death and destruction. Without NATO’s direct participation in the war against Russia, which would risk nuclear annihilation, the outcome of the war is certain. Because of that, Trump could resume pressure on Zelensky to essentially give up instead.

The ball is now in Trump’s court. On Sunday he told reporters he would be discussing land and control of powet plants in telephone call with Putin scheduled for Tuesday. “We want to see if we can bring that war to an end,” he said. “Maybe we can. Maybe we can’t, but I think we have a very good chance.”

The course of this three-year conflict since Russia’s intervention makes clear that the longer Ukraine tries to fight, the worse deal it will get, no matter how many public relations points it might win along the way.

Joe Lauria is editor-in-chief of Consortium News and a former U.N. correspondent for The Wall Street Journal, Boston Globe, and other newspapers, including The Montreal Gazette, the London Daily Mail and The Star of Johannesburg. He was an investigative reporter for the Sunday Times of London, a financial reporter for Bloomberg News and began his professional work as a 19-year old stringer for The New York Times. He is the author of two books, A Political Odyssey, with Sen. Mike Gravel, foreword by Daniel Ellsberg; and How I Lost By Hillary Clinton, foreword by Julian Assange.

March 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Britain wants Ukraine’s minerals too

It’s not just Trump. The UK views critical minerals as a government priority and wants to open up Ukraine’s vast resources to British corporations.

MARK CURTIS, 11 March 2025,
more https://www.declassifieduk.org/britain-wants-ukraines-minerals-too/?utm_source=Email&utm_medium=Button&utm_campaign=ICYMI&utm_content=Button

When UK officials signed a 100 year partnership with Ukraine in mid-January, they claimed to be Ukraine’s “preferred partner” in developing the country’s “critical minerals strategy”.

Yet within a month, Donald Trump had presented a proposal to Ukraine’s President Volodymr Zelensky to access the country’s vast mineral resources as “compensation” for US support to Ukraine in the war against Russia.

Whitehall was none too pleased about Washington muscling in.

When foreign secretary David Lammy met Zelensky in Kyiv last month he reportedly raised the issue of minerals, “a sign that Starmer’s government is still keen to get access to Ukraine’s riches”, the iPaper reported.

Lammy earlier said, in a speech last year: “Look around the world. Countries are scrambling to secure critical minerals, just as great powers once raced to control oil”.

The UK foreign secretary was correct, but Britain itself is one of those powers, and Ukraine is one of the major countries UK officials – as well as the Trump administration – have their eyes on.

It’s no surprise why. Ukraine has around 20,000 mineral deposits covering 116 types of minerals such as beryllium, manganese, gallium, uranium, zirconium, rare earth metals, and nickel.

The country, whose economy has been devastated by Russia’s brutal war, also possesses one of the world’s largest reserves of graphite, the largest titanium reserves in Europe, and a third of the continent’s lithium deposits.

These resources are key for industries such as military production, high tech, aerospace, and green energy.

In recent years, the Ukrainian government has sought to attract foreign investment to develop its critical mineral resources and signed strategic partnerships and held investment fora to showcase its mining opportunities.

The country has also begun auctioning exploration permits for minerals such as lithium, copper, cobalt and nickel, offering lucrative investment opportunities.

Media narratives largely parrot the UK government’s interests in Ukraine being about standing up to aggression. But Whitehall has in the past few years stepped up its interest in accessing the world’s critical minerals, not least in Ukraine. www.liberalsagainstnuclear.au

March 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, UK, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Walt Zlotow: Trump pushing Ukraine peace for simple reason: he has no cards to play either.

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL 17 Mar 25

At his Oval Office kerfuffle with Ukraine President Zelensky, President Trump told Zelensky he had to make peace with Russia. This followed Zelensky’s plea for more US weapons to keep the war going till Ukraine prevails. Trump disabused him of that notion by saying “You have no cards to play”, colloquial for ‘Make peace, not war.’

Trump knows he has no cards to play as well in the ongoing peace negotiations in Saudi Arabia. That’s why he is anxious to end the war. He knows predecessor Biden made a catastrophic mistake provoking the war over 3 years ago. He knows Ukraine is on the brink of military collapse in spite of the $175 billion in weapons Biden poured into Ukraine that has merely turned it into a failed state. Trump knows Biden sabotaged the imminent peace treaty Putin and Zelensky were prepared to sign ending the war in its first 2 months.

He wants none of that disastrous Biden war policy attached to his foreign policy resume.

Every American, every Ukrainian, every Russian should support the Trump peace initiative that could end the war, bring security to the region, allow reconstruction of the 80% of what’s left of Ukraine, provide resumption of normal US Russia diplomatic relations. Most importantly, it will end the risk of this war going nuclear, a threat hanging over peoplekind every one of the 1,120 days of this totally unnecessary, lost war.

Trump didn’t change sides. He’s not abandoning an ally. He’s not a Russian agent. He’s not a traitor. Unlike Biden, he’s merely a realist who looked at his empty hand, saw Russian President Putin was holding 4 aces, and decided to walk away lest another 100,000 Ukrainians are needlessly sacrificed for America’s lust to control European geopolitics.

On this issue President Trump deserves our support.

March 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

Towards a Eurobomb: The Costs of Nuclear Sovereignty

it would be much better if the leaders of the EU spend as much time on diplomacy with Russia than in building up European defense.

Instead of investing in weapons of mass destruction, making EU defense more efficient should be the priority as well as integrating Russia into a larger collective security organization

Tom Sauer |11.03.2025 , https://www.aa.com.tr/en/opinion/opinion-towards-a-eurobomb-the-costs-of-nuclear-sovereignty/3505915

The author is a professor in International Politics at the University of Antwerp in Belgium.

If American soldiers or the tactical nuclear weapons are withdrawn, the odds are that the Europeanization of the French (and maybe British) nuclear weapons in one way or another may indeed become reality

ISTANBUL

The Trump administration’s recent isolationist statements, amid the talks of war in Europe, have revived discussions on Europeanizing French (and possibly British) nuclear weapons. After 75 years of NATO, concerns over US abandonment are increasingly shaping European foreign policy discussions. In the past, the French idea of a “dissuasion concertée (concerted deterrence) was mostly met with silence, especially in Germany. This time around the conservative leader Friedrich Merz seems in favor despite the fact that NATO is still alive and the US still has 100,000 soldiers and 100 tactical nuclear weapons in Europe. These weapons are stationed in Türkiye, Germany, Italy, the Netherlands, and Belgium. If the soldiers or the tactical nuclear weapons are withdrawn, the odds are that the Europeanization of the French (and maybe British) nuclear weapons in one way or another may indeed become reality.

There are different scenarios imaginable. The first step is for European nuclear states to declare that their “national interests” align with “European interests,” a principle already reflected in the Lisbon Treaty. The latter, by the way, also contains a collective defense clause similar to NATO’s Article 5. Further steps could be imagined to make these statements more credible: information exchange, consultation, joint planning, joint exercises, and co-financing. Another step could involve deploying French dual-capable aircraft in Germany or Poland. A final step would be the creation of an EU nuclear bomb in a European Defense Union (EDU). It remains, however, still to be seen how the Ukraine war will accelerate the pace towards such an EDU.

What are the costs of Europeanization of nuclear weapons?

First of all, the assumption that nuclear deterrence works is uncertain. Advocates of nuclear weapons believe that it works. They forget that in history many nuclear weapon states (including Israel, India, the UK) have been attacked by non-nuclear weapon states. In theory, it is very hard to make it work as it assumes for instance a rational enemy. It also assumes that the possessor is really prepared to use them. However, if used on a massive scale, it means the annihilation of the planet. In the war in Ukraine, French President Emmanuel Macron for that reason stated that even if Russia uses a tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine, France would not retaliate with nuclear weapons.

Secondly, emerging and disruptive technologies (like AI) and weapon systems (like hypersonic missiles) will further undermine the so-called nuclear stability. Ideally, conventional deterrence (using hypersonic missiles) could and should replace nuclear deterrence on the condition that all nuclear states agree.

Thirdly, extended nuclear deterrence, read the atomic umbrella, is even more incredible. As early as the 1970s, Henry Kissinger cautioned Europeans against assuming that the US would employ nuclear weapons for their defense. That is also the reason why France did not want to shelter under the US umbrella, and why it built its own nuclear arsenal in the 1950s. Ironically, France now offers its umbrella to its European partners.

Fourthly, as long as there is no EDU, the question will be whose finger will be on the button. Macron is very clear: it will be his finger. The question then becomes whether German taxpayers would be interested in co-financing a strategic weapon system that they cannot control in times of war.

Fifthly, by Europeanizing the French nuclear weapons, the EU legitimizes nuclear weapons. This complicates the fight against proliferation. How sustainable is it to ask Iran not to produce nuclear weapons when the EU itself is setting up a nuclear arsenal?

There are also concerns about whether Europeanization aligns with the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, particularly if Germany and Poland were to develop their own nuclear capabilities. Both ideas also go against the spirit and the letter of the Treaty on the Prohibition of Nuclear Weapons (2017) that in the meantime has been signed by more or less 100 states.

Sixthly and lastly, it would be much better if the leaders of the EU spend as much time on diplomacy with Russia than in building up European defense. It is high time that the war in Ukraine ends, not only for humanitarian but also economic reasons. A peace agreement ideally includes a beginning of a restructuring of the European collective security architecture that includes both Russia and Ukraine, either in a transformed NATO or an upgraded Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE). If such an agreement is reached, there would be little justification for further fragmenting European defense into over 25 separate, small-scale military forces. Nowadays already the European NATO member states spend $485 billion on defense, much more than Russia ($120 billion). The primary challenge for EU defense today is not the absence of a Eurobomb but the lack of coordination in pooling, sharing, and specialization. Instead of investing in weapons of mass destruction, making EU defense more efficient should be the priority as well as integrating Russia into a larger collective security organization.

March 17, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Australia’s Trump cards

by Rex Patrick | Mar 16, 2025, https://michaelwest.com.au/tariffs-australias-trump-cards/

Australia does have Trump cards; North West Cape, Pine Gap, US Marine Rotational forces in Darwin, AUKUS and/or critical minerals that the US needs. Perhaps it’s also time to cancel the traitorous quantum computing development contract given to a US company over Australian companies.

These are things that we can put on the table. But doing that requires a measure of boldness. Our problem is our Prime Minister doesn’t have the ticker. Neither does the opposition leader. They are with Trump internationally as they are with the gas cartel domestically; owned and weak.

Anthony Albanese has it all wrong, writes former senator and submariner Rex Patrick. He’s trying to bribe Trump with sweeteners in response to trade tariffs. Instead, he needs to tell Trump he’s prepared to take things away.

US nuclear deterrent

Deep beneath the Indian Ocean, USS Kentucky, a nuclear-powered Ohio Class Ballistic Missile Submarine (SSBN) ploughs its way through the water. Contained within its 18,750 tonne pressure hull structure are 24 Trident ballistic missiles, each capable of carrying eight nuclear warheads to targets up to 12,000 km away.

The launch of all of USS Kentucky’s missiles would, quite literally, change the world by exacting severe destruction on whole societies.

This ability to inflict damage on an exceptionally large scale is the basis of the SSBN’s deterrent capability. Unlike silo based missiles, which are vulnerable to a first strike, or aircraft delivered nuclear weapons, which can be pre-emptively hit or shot down, SSBNs are essentially invisible. They provide certainty of response.

SSBNs serve as the ultimate nuclear deterrent. They’re extremely important to the US, whose navy possesses 14 of them. At any one time six to eight will be at sea, with four of them always on deterrent patrol. They are spread about the globe giving the US President the ability to quickly deliver return-fire with nuclear warheads at any adversary.

24/7 Operation

The primary performance metric for an SSBN is to be able to deliver its nuclear weapons with reliability, timeliness and accuracy.

The Commanding Officer of USS Kentucky must be able to loiter undetected in a place suited for the launching of weapons, be able to receive an order to launch, have an understanding of the submarine’s exact navigational position to a high degree of accuracy and have the ability to launch the weapons quickly and reliably once that order arrives.

Loitering undetected and being able to receive an order to launch is challenging. When a submarine is near the surface, their hulls can be seen by aircraft, and raised periscopes and communications masts can be seen visually and on radar. Operating a submarine at shallow depth can also result in acoustic counter-detection.

The Commanding Officer of USS Kentucky knows that deep is the place to be.

But being deep frustrates a submarine’s ability to receive communications, particularly an ‘emergency action message’.

And that’s were Very Low Frequency (VLF) communications stations come into play. In conjunction with a submarine’s buoyant wire antenna – a long wire that sits just below the sea surface – they can receive a launch command from the President.

The US has a network of these VLF communication stations around the world including in Maine, Washington state and North West Cape, Australia.

North West Cape

The VLF Communication Facility at North West Cape (NAVCOMMSTA Harold E Holt) has been in operation since 1967. Born of secrecy, it was at first exclusively US operated until 1974 when the facility became joint and started communicating with Australian submarines. In 1991 it was agreed that Australia would take full command in 1992 and US Naval personnel subsequently left in 1993.

The facility’s deterrence support role now rests on a 2008 treaty which, ratified in 2011, is formally titled the “Agreement between the Government of Australia and the Government of the United States of America relating to the Operation of and Access to an Australian Naval Communication Station at North West Cape in Western Australia”.

The station’s antenna is 360 meters high, with a number of supporting towers in a hexagon shape connected to it by wires. Considered to be the most powerful transmitter in the southern hemisphere, it transmits on 19.8 kHz at about 1 megawatt.

The station enables emergency action messages to be relayed to submerged SSBNs, like USS Kentucky, when operating in the Indian and Western Pacific oceans.

If the facility was taken out by a first strike nuclear attack, the US Air Force can temporarily deploy Hercules ‘TACAMO’ aircraft, with a long VLF wire they deploy while airborne. It’s a back-up measure with much lower transmission power capabilities.

A bedrock of certainty

After US steel and aluminium tariffs were put into play, the Australian Financial Review ran with a headline “How Australia was blindsided on the US tariffs”. The article opened with, “Australia pulled out all stops to avoid Donald Trump’s duties on steel and aluminium, but it’s impossible to negotiate with someone who doesn’t want anything”.

But the US does want something.

A fact not so well appreciated with respect to nuclear deterrence is it must be seen to be a robust and continuous capability. Onlookers must see a 24/7 capability including deployable submarines manned by well-trained crews, proven and reliable missile systems, an organised strategic command, a continuous communication system that reliably links that strategic command to the submarines with appropriate redundant communication pathways, training facilities and maintenance support.

Potential adversaries must know that they could be struck by an SSBN that could be lurking anywhere in the world’s major oceans.

Effective nuclear deterrence must be built on a bedrock of operational certainty.

Remove the transmitter keys

North West Cape forms part of that certainty.

Australia has the keys to take some certainty away. Without our cooperation the US can’t operate a certain global deterrent capability. Turning off transmissions at North West Cape reduces the effectiveness of the US nuclear deterrence while eliminating one Australian nuclear target

The North West Cape Treaty provides leverage. While the agreement has another decade to run, Article 12 provides that “either Government may terminate this Agreement upon one year’s written notice to the other Government.”

It’s open to Australia to signal or give actual notice of termination. That would focus up policy makers in Washington.

Would we do that to a mate? No, but the US is showing they are not a mate. They are not showing us the loyalty we have shown them. Other actions; abandoning Ukraine, threatening Greenland and Panama and a not so subtle push to annex Canada have also shown they are an unreliable ally who doesn’t share our values.

Trump cards

In negotiating with President Zelensky over the war in Ukraine, President Trump told him in no uncertain terms. “We’re going to feel very good and very strong. You’re, right now, not in a very good position. You’ve allowed yourself to be in a very bad position. You don’t have the cards right now with us.”

But Australia does have Trump cards; North West Cape, Pine Gap, US Marine Rotational forces in Darwin, AUKUS and/or critical minerals that the US needs. Perhaps it’s also time to cancel the traitorous quantum computing development contract given to a US company over Australian companies.

Things have changed

Alliances are means to ends, not an end in themselves; and, as pointed out above, things have changed. We can pretend everything is okay, but that doesn’t make it so.

But the bureaucracy is unlikely to advise the Government of alternatives.

Our uniformed leaders are locked into AUKUS, a program that gives them relevance at the big table; something they wouldn’t otherwise have with the depleted Navy they’ve built out of their procurement incompetence. They’re clinging to that relevance, despite all signs showing the program is running aground.

Our spooks are in the same place. In response to calls to put Pine Gap on the table, former Home Affairs Secretary Mike Pezzullo (sacked for failing to safeguard sensitive government information) spoke out, putting the facility ahead of trade interests and Aussie jobs.

The bulk of the intelligence from Pine Gap is very usable for the US and rather less so for Australia. Senior spooks just want to maintain their own relevance in the Five Eyes club; but it’s a mistake to conflate their interest with our national interest.

We should be prepared to play our Trump cards and we should be prepared to face the national security consequences.

If that means an Australia that‘s more independent and more self-reliant, that would be a very good thing. If there’s a shock to the system, then all well and good, because in the changing world we find ourselves in, it might be the only thing that wakes the Canberra bubble from its stupor and pushes us to actually be prepared.

In these uncertain times, there are no hands more trustworthy than our own.

Rex Patrick

Rex Patrick is a former Senator for South Australia and earlier a submariner in the armed forces. Best known as an anti-corruption and transparency crusader, Rex is running for the Senate on the Lambie Network ticket next year – www.transparencywarrior.com.au.

March 17, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | AUSTRALIA, politics international | Leave a comment

Putin Signals He’s Open to Ceasefire as Witkoff Arrives for Talks.

An aide to Putin said the proposal would only help Ukraine regroup and that it would need to be adjusted to meet Moscow’s position

by Dave DeCamp March 13, 2025, https://news.antiwar.com/2025/03/13/us-envoy-arrives-in-russia-to-discuss-30-day-ceasefire-proposal-with-putin/

Russian President Vladimir Putin has signaled that he’s open to a ceasefire in Ukraine but that he has “questions” about the 30-day US-Ukraine proposal that need to be discussed.

“The idea itself is the right one, and we definitely support it,” Putin said, according to The New York Times. “But there are questions that we need to discuss, and I think that we need to talk them through with our American colleagues and partners.”

The Russian leader listed potential conditions for a 30-day truce, including a guarantee that Ukraine wouldn’t be supplied with more weapons. “We also want guarantees that during the 30-day ceasefire, Ukraine will not conduct mobilization, will not train soldiers, and will not receive weapons,” he said, according to RT.

Putin also questioned who would monitor the ceasefire. “Who will determine where and who has violated a potential ceasefire agreement along a 2,000-kilometer line? Who will attribute blame for any violations? These are all questions that require thorough examination from both sides,” he said.

The Russian leader said any long-term peace deal needs to address the “root causes” of the war. He made the comments as US envoy Steve Witkoff arrived in Russia to discuss the proposal. Yuri Ushakov, a Kremlin official, said Witkoff would be holding a closed-door meeting with Putin.

Ushakov also said the US-Ukraine proposal would only give Ukraine a chance to regroup, and it would need to be adjusted to meet Moscow’s interests.

“As for the 30-day temporary ceasefire, what is it about? There is nothing in it for us. It will only provide the Ukrainians with the opportunity to regroup and gain strength to continue doing what they are doing,” he said, according to Russia’s TASS news agency.

“These are some hasty actions that do not benefit a long-term settlement … We will need to work on it, to think it over so that it reflects our position, too. It reflects only Ukraine’s stance at this point,” he added.

Ushakov said that Russia wanted a long-term peace deal and that the “official” Russian position on the US-Ukraine proposal would be formulated by Putin.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov made similar comments opposing the idea of a temporary ceasefire, pointing to the Minsk Accords, which were first reached in 2014 for a truce in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region. Lavrov also mentioned the “Istanbul agreement,” referring to a peace deal that was on the table in March and April 2022, which was discouraged by the US and its allies.

“I’m talking about the Minsk Accords, the deal that was discarded after the 2014 coup, and the Istanbul agreements. All of those included a ceasefire. And every time, it turned out that they had lied to us. The Ukrainians lied with the support of their European partners,” Lavrov said.

A joint statement between the US and Ukraine that was released after talks in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday said that Ukraine had “expressed readiness to accept the US proposal to enact an immediate, interim 30-day ceasefire, which can be extended by mutual agreement of the parties, and which is subject to acceptance and concurrent implementation by the Russian Federation.”

The statement also said that the US had resumed military aid and intelligence sharing for Ukraine, which was briefly paused. US Secretary of State Marco Rubio has said that if Russia doesn’t accept the 30-day proposal, the US would then know who the “impediment” to peace is, signaling he wants the proxy war will continue as usual if a deal isn’t reached.

March 17, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Russia, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Dialogue only viable option to solve Iranian nuclear issue

Diplomacy must remain the primary tool for resolving disputes and crises, and not be used only as a last resort after aggressive policies have failed

Xinhua, Editor: huaxia, 2025-03-15 more https://english.news.cn/20250315/0e246e2703d64d58a08113de887e3932/c.html

The Iranian nuclear issue is not just about Iran — it is a test of whether global governance will be defined by cooperation or coercion.

BEIJING, March 15 (Xinhua) — In a world fraught with geopolitical tensions, the Iranian nuclear issue is a critical test of the international community’s commitment to peace, diplomacy and multilateralism.

Whether diplomacy prevails or “maximum pressure” tactics take center stage will shape the region’s stability and set a precedent for global non-proliferation efforts.

The joint statement issued by China, Russia and Iran on Friday after a trilateral meeting in Beijing reaffirms a shared conviction: political and diplomatic engagement and dialogue are not merely preferable but the only viable and practical option to address this complex challenge.

At the heart of the discussions was a shared commitment to rejecting unilateral sanctions and coercive measures. Diplomacy must remain the primary tool for resolving disputes and crises, and not be used only as a last resort after aggressive policies have failed.

In an increasingly complex and fragile international environment, relying on sanctions and military posturing is not only counterproductive but also dangerously short-sighted, promoting instability rather than fostering meaningful engagement.

A sustainable resolution requires a holistic approach, one that balances nuclear non-proliferation with the legitimate right to peaceful nuclear energy. While Iran must continue to uphold its commitment not to develop nuclear weapons, all parties must also fully respect its right to civilian nuclear programs, as recognized under international law.

The 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA) once demonstrated the power of dialogue, proving that even the most entrenched disputes can yield to diplomacy when all parties engage in good faith.

However, the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the agreement and its subsequent “maximum pressure” campaign have left the JCPOA in jeopardy.

Xinhua Commentary: Dialogue only viable option to solve Iranian nuclear issue

Source: Xinhua

Editor: huaxia

2025-03-15 09:43:15

This photo taken on Jan. 1, 2025 shows the sunrise scenery in Tehran, Iran. (Xinhua/Shadati)

The Iranian nuclear issue is not just about Iran — it is a test of whether global governance will be defined by cooperation or coercion.

Whether diplomacy prevails or “maximum pressure” tactics take center stage will shape the region’s stability and set a precedent for global non-proliferation efforts.

However, the unilateral withdrawal of the United States from the agreement and its subsequent “maximum pressure” campaign have left the JCPOA in jeopardy.

Against this backdrop, China’s call to uphold the JCPOA as the foundation for renewed consensus is both practical and visionary. The agreement remains a rare diplomatic achievement that balances Iran’s right to peaceful nuclear energy with non-proliferation imperatives — a balance that must guide future diplomatic efforts.

By advocating for a process rooted in respect rather than ultimatums, China seeks to bridge divides and restore the JCPOA’s original spirit.

The trilateral meeting came after six of the United Nations (UN) Security Council’s 15 members — the United States, France, Greece, Panama, South Korea and Britain — met behind closed doors on the Iranian nuclear issue.

This exclusive gathering raises concerns about the politicization of the issue. What is needed now is dialogue and cooperation, rather than an imposed intervention by the Security Council.

Under the current circumstances, a hasty intervention by the Security Council will not help build trust or bridge differences. Meanwhile, triggering a snap-back of sanctions would undo years of diplomatic efforts.

A step-by-step and reciprocal approach is urgently needed. Instead of escalating tensions through unilateral measures, major countries should focus on restoring trust and ensuring compliance through engagement.

The Iranian nuclear issue is not just about Iran — it is a test of whether global governance will be defined by cooperation or coercion.

March 16, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

‘Ukraine will not recognize any territory occupied by Russia’: Zelensky

Tyler Durden, Zero Hedge, Wed, 12 Mar 2025, https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/moscow-studying-30-day-truce-plan-while-making-steady-battlefield-gains-meantime

On Wednesday Zelensky shut the door on territorial concessions, awkwardly at a moment Ukraine has just agreed to a US plan for a 30-day ceasefire intended to pave the way for extended peace negotiations. An initial statement from the Kremlin said that Putin likely to eventually agree to truce but with own terms as Moscow “studies” the Trump-sponsored proposal hammered out during the Tuesday Jeddah talks.

Zelensky said in fresh comments:

“We are fighting for our independence. Therefore, we will not recognize any occupied territories as Russia’s. This is a fact. Our people have fought for this, our heroes died. How many injured, how many passed. No one will forget about it… This is the most important red line. We will not let anyone forget about this crime against Ukraine.”

But Russia’s red line in any near-future negotiations will be to demand recognition of the Russian Federations sovereign control over the four easter territories of Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhia regions – which President Putin has previously referred to as “our citizens forever.”

As for Zelensky’s new proclamation that he won’t cede territory, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio told reporters just after the Ukraine-US talks in Saudi Arabia that discussions with Kiev’s delegations included “territorial concessions” as part of a negotiated settlement. The suggestion from the US side is that Ukraine showed openness and willingness on this question. So either the two allies can’t get on the same page (which is no surprise), or else Zelensky is trying to tank these negotiation efforts before they ever get off the ground, also as the White House has pressed Kiev to hold new presidential elections.

Fresh comments from Zelensky asserting Ukraine will NOT recognize any territory occupied by Russia…

Certainly Russia sees no need to rush into negotiations, especially if Zelensky is unwilling to budge on territory in the east, given all the battlefield gains of late. Kursk will also soon return to full Russian control, as Ukrainian forces there are reportedly in disarray, and as Moscow has taken back over a dozen key sites just this week.

The Kremlin says it is “studying” statements issued by the US and Ukrainian delegations following yesterday’s talks in Jeddah, and further describes Russian officials are waiting for a fuller briefing from the US on the proposal. The 30-day ceasefire plan calls for a halt to all the fighting on land, sea and in the air – whichcan be extended by mutual agreement, with a hoped-for path to a permanent truce based on negotiations in the interim.

Zelensky in a Tuesday X post said the ceasefire will apply to missile, drone and bomb attacks “not only in the Black Sea, but also along the entire front line” – though its as yet unclear what mechanism there will be to monitor this.

The joint statement issued from Jeddah said the sides “will communicate to Russia that Russian reciprocity is the key to achieving peace.” Thus nothing will happen unless Moscow agrees.

Washington has agreed to lift the Trump ban on arms and intelligence for Kiev, while at the same time Kiev and Washington agreed on inking a deal on Ukraine’s critical minerals “as soon as possible”.

Russian state media is meanwhile reporting that President Putin is open to holding a telephone conversation with his US counterpart.

On the potential for a new Trump call to discuss progress toward setting up negotiations and a truce, spokesman Dimitry Peskov said Wednesday:

“We also do not rule out that the topic of a call at the highest level may arise. If such a need emerges, it will be organized very quickly. The existing channels of dialogue with the Americans make it possible to do this in a relatively short time.”

If it happens this would mark the second call since Trump’s inauguration, after the prior February 12 call. Theoretically this could lead to an in-person meeting between the two leaders if all goes well.

Secretary of State Marco Rubio is traveling back from the meeting in Saudi Arabia, and gave some remarks to a press conference in Ireland:

Deterrence against future attacks on Ukraine will be a crucial element of future negotiations.
The US-Ukraine minerals deal benefits both nations and deepens Washington’s interest in Ukraine, but “I would not couch it as a security guarantee”.
European sanctions against Russia will be part of the negotiations, making Europe’s involvement in the process essential.
Any truce could be effectively monitored, but “one of the things we’ll have to determine is who both sides trust on the ground” to oversee it.

Ukraine continues to hold little to no leverage, given Russia is fast taking back its territory in Kursk as of mid-week. Over a dozen settlements have been liberated, and by all accounts Ukraine forces are in retreat there, also as Russian troops are currently in the center of Sudzha town.

One regional sources says that the Russian advance has been swift especially after one particularly daring operation: “Reports over the weekend claimed that 800 Russian special forces had crawled for 15 kilometers through an unused section of pipeline, which once carried Russian gas to Europe via Ukraine, in order to carry out a sneak attack on Ukrainian forces in Sudzha,” writes Moscow Times.

These developments mean that Putin is even less likely to agree to any temporary pause in fighting. In January statements he had warned the Kremlin will not sign off on any temporary truces – given Ukraine could just use it to rearm, resupply, and regroup. Moscow has less incentive to sign onto a deal unless territorial concessions are part of it, given that at this rate it can just keep advancing in territory, particularly in the Donbass.

March 16, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

High stakes as Iran nuclear issue reaches crunch moment

Caroline Hawley, BBC diplomatic correspondent, BBC 14th March 2025

Almost a decade since world powers sealed a historic deal to limit the Iranian nuclear programme, this is a crunch moment for Iran and the international community.

The country is now closer than ever to being able to make a nuclear bomb.

And the agreement – designed to prevent Iran developing a nuclear weapon – expires later this year.

“It’s a real fork in the road moment,” says Dr Sanam Vakil of the London-based think tank Chatham House. “Without meaningful and successful diplomacy we could see Iran weaponise or we could see a military strike against the Islamic Republic.”

The deal, painstakingly negotiated over nearly two years under Barack Obama’s presidency, imposed restrictions on Iran’s nuclear activities in return for relief from sanctions that crippled the country’s economy.

But after Donald Trump pulled out of the agreement in 2018 during his first presidency and reinstated US sanctions, Iran gradually stopped complying with its commitments.

It has accelerated its enrichment of uranium – used to make reactor fuel but also potentially nuclear bombs – to close to weapons-grade.

Experts say it would now take Iran less than a week to enrich enough material to make a single nuclear weapon.

Hence a flurry of urgent diplomatic activity by the US and the five other parties to the deal – the UK, China, France, Germany and Russia.

A closed-door meeting of the UN Security Council discussed Iran’s nuclear programme on Wednesday.

And China is hosting talks with Iran and Russia on Friday in search of a “diplomatic” resolution.

“In the current situation, we believe that all parties should maintain calm and restraint to avoid escalating the Iran nuclear situation, or even walking towards confrontation and conflict,” Chinese foreign ministry spokeswoman Mao Ning said this week.

On Wednesday, a letter from President Trump was delivered in Tehran by a senior diplomat from the United Arab Emirates.

The contents have not been made public.

But President Trump, after imposing new sanctions on Iran as part of a “maximum pressure” campaign, last week issued a televised ultimatum to Iran: make a deal or else.

“I’ve written them a letter saying, ‘I hope you’re going to negotiate because if we have to go in militarily, it’s going to be a terrible thing,'” he said.

Iran’s Supreme Leader, Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, appeared to reject the idea of talks with a “bullying” US.

So too – publicly – has President Masoud Pezeshkian, who had previously supported a resurrection of the nuclear deal, in return for an end to sanctions.

But the country has been sending out mixed messages.

“There are camps inside the country that favour negotiations,” says Dr Vakil. “And there are camps that see weaponisation as the best opportunity for Iran to manage its security.”

Trust in the Trump administration is in very short supply.

“They have seen his erratic, very bullying approach to [Ukraine’s President Volodymyr] Zelensky. And his outlandish proposals on Gaza and they don’t want to be put in that position,” Dr Vakil adds.

Iran hates the humiliation of having a gun held to its head. But it is currently vulnerable – weakened militarily by Israeli air strikes last year, which are believed to have destroyed most of the air defences protecting its nuclear programme.

Israel has long wanted to take the facilities out.

Iranian authorities continue to insist the country’s nuclear programme is for peaceful purposes.

But concern in the international community is becoming increasingly acute……………………………………………………… https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/articles/c86pvyd2qeno

March 16, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Iran, politics international | Leave a comment

Iran, Russia, China discuss Tehran’s nuclear programme at Beijing meeting

Meeting between top diplomats from three countries signals Tehran may be ready for renewed negotiations on its nuclear programme.

14 Mar 2025, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/14/iran-russia-china-discuss-tehrans-nuclear-programme-at-beijing-meeting

Diplomats from Iran, Russia and China are meeting in Beijing for talks on Tehran’s nuclear programme that could lead to negotiations following years of delay.

Beijing said the three countries hope to find a “diplomatic” solution to Iran’s nuclear issue, Chinese state media reported on Friday.

“In the current situation, we believe that all parties should maintain calm and restraint to avoid escalating the Iran nuclear situation, or even walking towards confrontation and conflict,” China’s Foreign Ministry spokesperson Mao Ning told reporters before the meeting.

The meeting was attended by Chinese Vice Foreign Minister Ma Zhaoxu, Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Sergey Ryabkov and Iranian Deputy Foreign Minister Kazem Gharibabadi, who “exchanged views on the Iran nuclear issue and other issues of common concern,” according to Chinese media.

Donald Trump, a year into his first term as United States president in 2018, withdrew from a landmark pact Iran reached in 2015 with the US, Russia, China, Britain, France, Germany and the European Union, in which Tehran agreed to curb its nuclear programme in exchange for the lifting of international sanctions.

Tehran continued to abide by the terms of the deal – which was considered a milestone for the administration of then-US President Barack Obama – but began slowly rolling back its commitments after Trump ended the deal.

The meeting in Beijing between the three diplomats follows a series of overtures from Trump since his return to the White House in January to resume nuclear talks with Tehran.

The US president this week sent a letter to Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei calling for new talks but also warning that the US was within its rights to take military action against the country’s nuclear programme.

Iranian President Masoud Pezeshkian responded that he would not negotiate with the US while being “threatened”, and Iran would not bow to US “orders” to talk.

Iran was further enraged after six of the United Nations Security Council’s 15 members – the US, France, Greece, Panama, South Korea and the United Kingdom – held a closed-door meeting this week to discuss its nuclear programme. Tehran said the meeting was a “misuse” of the UN Security Council.

March 15, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international | Leave a comment

NATO-Russia Ukrainian War Ceasefire: To Be Or Not To Be?

RUSSIAN and EURASIAN POLITICS, by Gordonhahn, March 14, 2025

On March 13th Russian President Vladimir Putin stated Moscow is open to a ceasefire leading to peace treaty talks, generally speaking. However, he stressed tghat there are “nuances” that need to be addressed before any ceasefire agreement could be concluded. The ‘nuances’ were really counteroffers made for practical reasons but also having the effect of returning the ball to the US-Ukrainian court, paraphrasing US Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s assertion after the Ukrainians’ agreement to a ceasefire that ‘the ball is now in Moscow’s court.’

Highlighting what is or was missing from the American proposal to his knowledge at the time he was speaking (before meeting with US envoy Steven Witkoff, Putin said the issues in need of resolution are: (1) the remaining Ukrainian troops in Kursk, Russia; (2) Ukraine’s military mobilization and training of those mobilized; (3) arms sales to Ukraine; and (4) verification of any ceasefire covering the long ‘line of contact’ or frontlines needed to be resolved (http://kremlin.ru/events/president/news/76450). The first issue is being resolved by the Russian army which has re-taken Sudzha and probably will have killed, captured, or pushed all Ukrainian troops out of Kursk Oblast within a week or so.

…………………………………………………..Putin’s public statements probably reflect what were communicated to U.S. negotiator Steven Witkoff more as requirements or conditions before any Russian agreement to a ceasefire. Pressing Kiev to halt mobilization and training, puts Zelenskiy in a difficult position, and Washington and or Kiev will likely respond that if Kiev is required to halt these activities, then Moscow must halt them or something analagous. This will highlight the coercive, violent aspect of what Ukrainians call ‘Ze-mobilization’—‘Ze’ referring to Zelenskiy.

…………………………….At the same time, the U.S. weapons to be supplied to Kiev are numbered. The Ameerican-Ukrainian statement on the ceaefire agreement declares that the U.S. “will immediately lift the pause on intelligence sharing and resume security assistance to Ukraine” (www.state.gov/joint-statement-on-the-united-states-ukraine-meeting-in-jeddah/).

……………………..Trump has not and may not use PDA to support in Ukraine in future, perhaps depending on Kiev’s willingess to negotiate, despite the inherent contradiction in demanding peace talks while supplying weapons. For Ukraine, this is a contradiction with an opportunity: to drag out talks while it rearms its forces along the contact line.

Not surprisingly then, Russian officials have repeatedly stated they will not accept a ceasefire agreement and will continue fighting until a full-fledged peace agreement is reached. Their previous rejections of any ceasefire were precisely based on Russians’ suspicion that any pause in the fighting will be used to halt Russia’s mounting offensives, rearm Ukraine, and then resume the war with Kiev’s forces in a more robust state.

……………………… Putin may find his political position weakened in comparison with more hardline elements if seen as having fallen again for a another Western deception. This means he cannot accept continued arms supplies to Ukraine during a ceasefire.

……………………………………………………………………..Putin understands negotiating the details and mechanisms for implementing the ceasefire likely will take months. Meanwhile Russian troops can complete the process of expelling Ukrainian troops from the areas which the latter hold in at least two (Luhansk and Donetsk) of the four Donbass regions claimed by Russia and extending areas it holds in other Ukrainian regions. While these and Crimea are settled issues militarily and in terms of sovereignty—they are Russian; Kiev will not win them back for decades, a century, if ever.

The situation with regard to the other two Russia-annexed but still not fully taken regions – Kherson and Zaporozhe’ – is more fluid. Russian forces control less than half of each’s territory and will have an extraordinarly difficult time seizing their capitol cities of the same name. Thus, the negotiations on territories, which, accordoing to Trump was under discussion at Riyadh with the Ukrainians, is likely to center around a possible trade with Moscow withdrawing its troops from areas it occupies in regions outside the four regions it claims for the remainder of the territory of the claimed regions still not held by Russian troops most likely in Kherson and Zaporozhe. All of this will be incredibly difficult to navigate politically, particularly for Zelenskiy and Ukraine. Moreover, it is unlikely that Kiev has more than half a year before the collapse begins of one or more of the following: the entire front, army, oligarch-neofascist Maidan regime, and Ukrainian state.

Now we get to the most disconcerting fact hanging over the ceasefire endeavor. It was hinted at by Putin’s raising the vexing issue of verifying and monitoring the ceasefire……………………………………………………….. it will be a long, rocky road before any agreement is achieved, and failure could lead to an explosive doubling down on the disastrous NATO-Russia Ukrainian War and the destructive chaos of our new multipolar world. https://gordonhahn.com/2025/03/14/nato-russia-ukrainian-war-ceasefire-to-be-or-not-to-be/

March 15, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »