What I Saw in Ukraine: 2015-2022 – Diary of an International Observer

May 22, 2025, by Benoit Paré (Author) https://www.amazon.com/What-Saw-Ukraine-2015-2022-International/dp/295986011X

Ukraine 2015-2022.

A unique account of its kind, precise, sensitive, and personal, seen from the inside of an international mission at the heart of the Donbass war.
The reality on the ground, from the front lines.
New revelations, notably concerning civilian casualties, human rights violations, conflict-related trials, and the manipulation of facts.
And then, how the US-sponsored Ukrainian ultra-nationalist project provoked Moscow’s reaction.
This book is primarily intended for those who prioritize facts over partisanship and who want to understand how the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II came about.
Ukraine 2015-2022.

A unique account of its kind, precise, sensitive, and personal, seen from the inside of an international mission at the heart of the Donbass war.
The reality on the ground, from the front lines.
New revelations, notably concerning civilian casualties, human rights violations, conflict-related trials, and the manipulation of facts.
And then, how the US-sponsored Ukrainian ultranationalist project provoked Moscow’s reaction.
This book is primarily intended for those who prioritize facts over partisanship and who want to understand how the deadliest conflict in Europe since World War II came about.

August 20, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | media, Ukraine | Leave a comment

What really happened in Alaska

It’s clear that both Trump and Putin are playing a long game. Trump wants to get rid of the pesky two-bit actor in Kiev – but without applying old school US coup/regime-change tactics. In his mind, the only thing that really registers is future, possible, mega trade deals on Russian mineral wealth and the development of the Arctic.

the US seeks a meek Europe subjugated to the strategy of tension, otherwise there’s no EU military surge, buying billions worth of over-priced American weapons with money it doesn’t have.

Pepe Escobar, AUG 18, 2025, https://thecradle.co/articles/what-really-happened-in-alaska

Alaska was not only about Ukraine. Alaska was mostly about the world’s top two nuclear powers attempting to rebuild trust and apply the brakes on an out-of-control train in a mad high-speed rail dash towards nuclear confrontation.

There were no assurances, given the volatile character of US President Donald Trump, who conceived the high-visibility meeting with his Russian counterpart Vladimir Putin. But a new paradigm may be in the works nonetheless. Russia has essentially been de facto recognized by the US as a peer power. That implies, at the very least, the return of high-level diplomacy where it is most needed.

Meanwhile, Europe is dispatching a line-up of impotent leaders to Washington to kowtow in front of the Emperor. The EU’s destiny is sealed: into the dustbin of geopolitical irrelevance.

What has been jointly decided by Trump, personally, and Putin, even before Moscow proposed charged-with-meaning Alaska as the summit venue, remains secret. There will be no leaks about the full content.

Yet it’s quite significant that Trump himself rated Alaska as a 10 out of 10.

The key takeaways, relayed by sources in Moscow with direct access to the Russian delegation, all the way to the 3-3 format (it was initially designed to be a 5-5, but other key members, such as Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, did provide their input), emphasize that:

“It was firmly put [by Putin] to stop all direct US weapon deliveries to Ukraine as a vital step towards the solution. Americans accepted the fact that it is necessary to dramatically decrease lethal shipments.”

After that happens, the ball swings to Europe’s court. The sources specify, in detail:

“Out of the $80 billion Ukrainian budget, Ukraine itself provides less than around $20 billion. The National Bank of Ukraine says that they collect $62 billion in taxes alone, which is a hoax; with a population around 20 million, much more than one million of irreversible battlefield losses, a decimated industry and less than 70 percent of pre-Maidan territory under control that is simply impossible.”

So Europe – as in the NATO/EU combo – has a serious dilemma: ‘Either support Ukraine financially, or militarily. But not both at the same time. Otherwise, the EU itself will collapse even faster.’

Now compare all of the above with arguably the key passage in one of Trump’s Truth Social posts: “It was determined by allthat the best way to end the horrific war between Russia and Ukraine is to go directly to a Peace Agreement, which would end the war, and not a mere Ceasefire Agreement, which often times do not hold up.”

Add to it the essential sauce provided by former Russian president Dmitri Medvedev:

“The President of Russia personally and in detail presented to the US President our conditions for ending the conflict in Ukraine (…) Most importantly: both sides directly placed responsibility for achieving future results in negotiations on ending hostilities on Kiev and Europe.”

Talk about superpower convergence. The devil, of course, will be in the details.

BRICS on the table in Alaska

In Alaska, Vladimir Putin was representing not only the Russian Federation, but BRICS as a whole. Even before the meeting with his US counterpart was announced to the world, Putin spoke on the phone with Chinese President Xi Jinping. After all, it’s the Russia–China partnership that is writing the geostrategic script of this chapter of the New Great Game.

Moreover, top BRICS leaders have been on a flurry of interconnected phone calls, leading to forge, in Brazil’s President Luiz Inacio “Lula” da Silva’s assessment, a concerted BRICS front to counteract the Trump Tariff Wars. The Empire of Chaos, the Trump 2.0 version, is in a Hybrid War against BRICS, especially the Top Five: Russia, China, India, Brazil, and Iran.

So Putin did achieve a minor victory in Alaska. Trump: “Tariffs on Russian oil buyers not needed for now (…) I may have to think about it in two to three weeks.”

Even considering the predictable volatility, the pursuit of high-level dialogue with the US opens to the Russians a window to directly advance the interests of BRICS peers – including, for instance, Egypt and the UAE, blocked from further economic integration across Eurasia by the sanctions/tariff onslaught and the accompanying rampant Russophobia.

None of the above, unfortunately, applies to Iran: The Zionist axis has an iron grip on every nook and cranny of Washington’s policies vis-à-vis the Islamic Republic.

Putin also needs to manage domestic critics who won’t forgive any concessions. The desperate western media spin that he would offer freezing the front in Zaporozhye and Kherson in exchange for getting all of the Donetsk Republic is nonsense. That would go against the constitution of the Russian Federation.

In addition, Putin needs to manage how US business would be allowed to enter two areas that are at the heart of federal priorities, and a matter of national security: the development of the Arctic and the Russian Far East. All that will be discussed in detail two weeks from now, at the Eastern Economic Forum in Vladivostok.

Once again, follow the money: Both oligarchies – in the US and Russia – want to go back to profitable business, pronto.

Lipstick on a defeated pig

Putin, bolstered by Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov – the undisputed Man of the Match, with his CCCP fashion statement – finally had ample time, 150 minutes, to spell out, in detail, the underlying causes of Russia’s Special Military Operation (SMO) and lay out the rationale for long-term peace: Ukraine neutrality; neo-nazi militias and parties banned and dismantled; no more NATO expansion.

Geopolitically, whatever may evolve from Alaska does not invalidate the fact that Moscow and Washington at least did manage to buy some strategic breathing space. That might yield even a new shot toward respect for both powers’ spheres of influence.

So it’s no wonder the Atlanticist front, from Europe’s old money to the bling bling novices, is freaking out because Ukraine is a giant money laundering mechanism for Eurotrash politicos. The Kafkaesque EU machine has already bankrupted EU member-states and EU taxpayers – but anyway, that’s not Trump’s problem.

Across Global Majority latitudes, Alaska displayed the fraying of Atlanticism in no uncertain terms – revealing that the US seeks a meek Europe subjugated to the strategy of tension, otherwise there’s no EU military surge, buying billions worth of over-priced American weapons with money it doesn’t have.

The Putin–Trump meeting dropped some important veils. It revealed that Washington views Russia as a peer power, and that Europe is little more than a useful American tool.

At the same time, despite covetous US oligarchic private designs on Russian business, what Washington’s puppet masters truly want is to break up Eurasia integration, and by implication every multilateral organization – BRICS, SCO – driven to design a new, multinodal world order.

Of course, a NATO surrender – even as it is being strategically defeated, all across the spectrum – remains anathema. Trump, at best, is applying lipstick on a pig, trying to craft, with trademark fanfare, what could be sold as a Deep State exit strategy, toward the next Forever War.

Putin, the Russian Security Council, BRICS, and the Global Majority, for that matter, harbor no illusions.

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

French monitor: Ukraine, NATO provoked Russia in Donbas war

As Trump hosts Zelensky, an international monitor on the ground in Ukraine from 2015 to 2022 blows the whistle on Ukraine’s NATO-backed assault on the Donbas.

Aaron Maté, Aug 19, 2025, https://www.aaronmate.net/p/french-monitor-ukraine-nato-provoked?utm_source=post-email-title&publication_id=100118&post_id=171287926&utm_campaign=email-post-title&isFreemail=true&r=ln98x&triedRedirect=true&utm_medium=email

Benoit Paré is a former French defense ministry analyst who worked as an international monitor in eastern Ukraine from 2015 to 2022.

In his first interview with a US outlet, Paré speaks to The Grayzone‘s Aaron Maté about the hidden reality of the Ukraine war in the Donbas region, where the US-backed Kyiv government fought Russia-backed rebels following the 2014 Maidan coup. Russia now demands that Ukraine accept its capture of the Donbas as a condition for ending the war.

“I will very clear. For me the fault lies on Ukraine… by far.” Paré also warns that Ukrainian ultra-nationalists, who violently resisted the Minsk accords, remain a major obstacle to peace. Paré worked as a monitor for the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), a predominately European group. He recounts his experience as an OSCE monitor in Ukraine in his new book, “What I saw in Ukraine: 2015-2022, Diary of an International Observer.”

When it comes to which party is responsible for the failure to implement the Minsk accords, the 2015 peace pact that could have prevented the 2022 Russian invasion, Paré says.

Benoit Paré’s book: “What I saw in Ukraine: 2015-2022, Diary of an International Observer.”

August 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Declassified: CIA’s Covert Ukraine Invasion Plan

While we are now witnessing in real-time the brutal unravelling of Donnelly’s monstrous plot, Anglo-American designs of using Ukraine as a beachhead for all-out war with Moscow date back far further.

Washington’s quest to ignite local insurrection, and in turn the USSR’s ultimate collapse.

“Inhabitants of Donbass strongly resisted Ukrainian nationalists and at one point created a separate republic, independent of the rest of Ukraine. In the following years, they defended Soviet rule and Russian interests, often attacking the Ukrainian nationalists with more zeal than the Russian leaders themselves. During the German occupation in the Second World War, there was not a single recorded case of support for the Ukrainian nationalists or Germans.”

Global Delinquents, Kit Klarenberg, Aug 17, 2025, https://www.kitklarenberg.com/p/declassified-cias-covert-ukraine

On August 7th, US polling giant Gallup published the remarkable results of a survey of Ukrainians. Public support for Kiev “fighting until victory” has plummeted to a record low “across all segments” of the population, “regardless of region or demographic group.” In a “nearly complete reversal from public opinion in 2022,” 69% of citizens “favor a negotiated end to the war as soon as possible.” Just 24% wish to keep fighting. However, vanishingly few believe the proxy war will end anytime soon.

The reasons for Ukrainian pessimism on this point are unstated, but an obvious explanation is the intransigence of President Volodymyr Zelensky, encouraged by his overseas backers – Britain in particular. London’s reverie of breaking up Russia into readily-exploitable chunks dates back centuries, and became turbocharged in the wake of the February 2014 Maidan coup. In July that year, a precise blueprint for the current proxy conflict was published by the Institute for Statecraft, a NATO/MI6 cutout founded by veteran British military intelligence apparatchik Chris Donnelly.

In response to the Donbass civil war, Statecraft advocated targeting Moscow with a variety of “anti-subversive measures”. This included “economic boycott, breach of diplomatic relations,” as well as “propaganda and counter-propaganda, pressure on neutrals.” The objective was to produce “armed conflict of the old-fashioned sort” with Russia, which “Britain and the West could win.” While we are now witnessing in real-time the brutal unravelling of Donnelly’s monstrous plot, Anglo-American designs of using Ukraine as a beachhead for all-out war with Moscow date back far further.

In August 1957, the CIA secretly drew up elaborate plans for an invasion of Ukraine by US special forces. It was hoped neighbourhood anti-Communist agitators would be mobilized as footsoldiers to assist in the effort. A detailed 200-page report, Resistance Factors and Special Forces Areas, set out demographic, economic, geographical, historical and political factors throughout the then-Soviet Socialist Republic that could facilitate, or impede, Washington’s quest to ignite local insurrection, and in turn the USSR’s ultimate collapse.

The mission was forecast to be a delicate and difficult balancing act, as much of Ukraine’s population held “few grievances” against Russians or Communist rule, which could be exploited to foment an armed uprising. Just as problematically, “the long history of union between Russia and Ukraine, which stretches in an almost unbroken line from 1654 to the present day,” resulted in “many Ukrainians” having “adopted the Russian way of life”. Problematically, there was thus a pronounced lack of “resistance to Soviet rule” among the population.

The “great influence” of Russian culture over Ukrainians, “many influential positions” in local government being held “by Russians or Ukrainians sympathetic to [Communist] rule, and “relative similarity” of their “languages, customs, and backgrounds”, meant there were “fewer points of conflict between the Ukrainians and Russians” than in Warsaw Pact nations. Throughout those satellite states, the CIA had to varying success already recruited clandestine networks of “freedom fighters” as anti-Communist Fifth Columnists. Yet, the Agency remained keen to identify potential “resistance” actors in Ukraine:

“Some Ukrainians are apparently only slightly aware of the differences which set them apart from Russians and feel little national antagonism. Nevertheless, important grievances exist, and among other Ukrainians there is opposition to Soviet authority which often has assumed a nationalist form. Under favorable conditions, these people might be expected to assist American Special Forces in fighting against the regime.”

‘Nationalist Activity’

A CIA map split Ukraine into 12 separate zones, ranked on “resistance” potential, and how “favorable population attitudes [are] toward the Soviet regime.” South and eastern regions, particularly Crimea and Donbass, rated poorly. Their populations were judged “strongly loyal” to Moscow, having never “displayed nationalist feelings or indicated any hostility to the regime,” while viewing themselves as “a Russian island in the Ukrainian sea.” In fact, as the study recorded, during and after World War I, when Germany created a fascist puppet state in Ukraine:

“Inhabitants of Donbass strongly resisted Ukrainian nationalists and at one point created a separate republic, independent of the rest of Ukraine. In the following years, they defended Soviet rule and Russian interests, often attacking the Ukrainian nationalists with more zeal than the Russian leaders themselves. During the German occupation in the Second World War, there was not a single recorded case of support for the Ukrainian nationalists or Germans.”

Still, invading and occupying Crimea was considered of paramount importance. On top of its strategic significance, the peninsula’s landscape was forecast as ideal for guerrilla warfare. The terrain offered “excellent opportunities for concealment and evasion,” the CIA report noted. While “troops operating in these sectors must be specially trained and equipped,” it was forecast the local Tatar population, “which fought so fiercely” against the Soviets in World War II, “would probably be willing to help” invading US forces.

Areas of western Ukraine, including former regions of Poland such as Lviv, Rivne, Transcarpathia and Volyn, which were heavily under control of “Ukrainian insurgents” – adherents of MI6-supported Stepan Bandera – during World War II, were judged most fruitful “resistance” launchpads. There, “nationalist activity was extensive” during World War II, with armed militias opposing “pro-Soviet partisans with some success.” Conveniently too, mass extermination of Jews, Poles and Russians by Banderites in these regions meant there was virtually no non-ethnic Ukrainian population left.

Furthermore, in the post-war period, “resistance to Soviet rule” had been “expressed on a great scale” in western Ukraine. Despite “extensive deportations”, “many nationalists” resided in Lviv et al, and “nationalist cells” created by Bandera’s “task forces” were dotted around the Republic. For example, anti-Communist “partisan bands” had taken up residence in the Carpathian Mountains. The review concluded, “it is in this region [US] Special Forces could expect considerable support from the local Ukrainian population, including active participation in measures directed against the Soviet regime.”

It was also determined that “Ukrainian nationalist, anti-Soviet sentiment” in Kiev was “apparently moderately strong,” and elements of the population “might be expected to provide active assistance to Special Forces.” The capital’s “large Ukrainian population” was reportedly “little affected by Russian influence,” and during the Russian Revolution “provided greater support than any other region for Ukrainian, nationalist, anti-Soviet forces.” Resultantly, “uncertainty about the attitudes of the local population” prompted Moscow to designate Kharkov the Ukrainian SSR’s capital, which it remained until 1934.

The CIA document further offered highly detailed assessments of Ukrainian territory, based on their utility for warfare. For example, “generally forbidding” Polesia – near Belarus – was noted to be “almost impossible” to traverse during spring. Conversely, winter provided “most favorable to movement, depending on the depth to which the ground freezes.” Overall, the area had “proved its worth as an excellent refuge and evasion area by supporting large-scale guerilla activities in the past.” Meanwhile, “swampy valleys of the Dnieper and Desna rivers” were of particular interest:

“The area is densely forested in its north-western part, where there are excellent opportunities for concealment and manoeuvre…There are extensive swamps, interspersed with patches of forest, which also provide good hiding places for the Special Forces. Conditions in the Volyno-Podolskaya Highlands are less suitable, although small groups may find temporary shelter in the sparse forests.”

‘Strongly Anti-Nationalist’

The CIA’s invasion plan never formally came to pass. Yet, areas of Ukraine forecast by the Agency to be most welcoming of US special forces were precisely where support for the Maidan coup was highest. Moreover, in a largely unknown chapter of the Maidan saga, fascist Right Sector militants were bussed en masse to Crimea prior to Moscow’s seizure of the peninsula. Had they succeeded in overrunning the territory, Right Sector would’ve fulfilled the CIA’s objective, as outlined in Resistance Factors and Special Forces Areas.

Given what transpired elsewhere in Ukraine following February 2014, other sections of the CIA report take on a distinctly eerie character. For instance, despite its strategic position facing the Black Sea, the Agency warned against attempting to foment anti-Soviet rebellion in Odessa. The agency noted the city is “the most cosmopolitan area in Ukraine, with a heterogeneous population including significant numbers of Greeks, Moldovans and Bulgarians, as well as Russians and Jews.” As such:

“Odessa…has developed a less nationalistic character. Historically, it has been considered more Russian than Ukrainian territory. There was little evidence of nationalist or anti-Russian sentiment here during the Second World War, and the city…was in fact controlled by a strongly anti-nationalist local administration [during the conflict].”

Odessa became a key battleground between pro- and anti-Maidan elements, from the moment the protests erupted in November 2013. By March the next year, Russophone Ukrainians had occupied the city’s historic Kulykove Pole Square, and were calling for a referendum on the establishment of an “Odessa Autonomous Republic”. Tensions came to a head on May 2nd, when fascist football ultras – who subsequently formed Azov Battalion – stormed Odessa and forced dozens of anti-Maidan activists into Trade Unions House, before setting it ablaze.

In all, 42 people were killed and hundreds injured, while Odessa’s anti-Maidan movement was comprehensively neutralised. In March this year, the European Court of Human Rights issued a damning ruling against Kiev over the massacre. It concluded local police and fire services “deliberately” failed to respond appropriately to the inferno, and authorities insulated culpable officials and perpetrators from prosecution despite possessing incontrovertible evidence. Lethal “negligence” by officials on the day, and ever after, was found to go far “beyond an error of judgment or carelessness.”

The ECHR was apparently unwilling to consider the incineration of anti-Maidan activists was an intentional and premeditated act of mass murder, conceived and directed by Kiev’s US-installed fascist government. However, the findings of a Ukrainian parliamentary commission point ineluctably towards this conclusion. Whether, in turn, the Odessa massacre was intended to trigger Russian intervention in Ukraine, thus precipitating “armed conflict of the old-fashioned sort” with Moscow that “Britain and the West could win” is a matter of speculation – although the Institute for Statecraft was present in the country at the time.

August 19, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

Review of the Alaska meeting – The goal is always domination.

Organizing Notes, Bruce Gagnon, coordinator of the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space, 16 Aug 25, https://space4peace.blogspot.com/2025/08/the-goal-is-always-domination.html?utm_source=substack&utm_medium=email

The Washington post reports in their top headline this morning the following: Trump reverses on Ukraine war ceasefire demand, aligning with Putin, splitting with allies: An immediate ceasefire to the war in Ukraine had long been a bedrock demand by the U.S., Ukraine and their European allies.

One can easily imagine that most neocons in Washington, London and the EU are pulling their hair out. Zelensky as well. His cash cow is wandering off the farm.

No immediate ceasefire was agreed upon. That was the chief demand of Zelensky, Starmer, Macon and Merz. They wanted to use that time to re-stock Ukraine with more weapons (especially drones) that could keep attacking civilians in the Donbass and inside of Russia.

Give Trump a nod (what ever his real motivations might be) he has now angered the ‘allies’ and they know that if they want the proxy war on Russia to continue (and they surely do) they are going to have to pay for it.

In one interview on Fox, Trump said the US funded Ukraine at the tune of $350 billion while the EU gave $100 billion.

Actually the US can’t afford to keep pissing money down the rat hole – especially when they want to spend that money getting ready for war with China. (And maybe still with Russia and Iran too.)

The Ukraine gamble is lost.

The oligarchic owned media in the US ensured that the Obama-Biden-Hillary Clinton orchestrated coup in Kiev in 2014 was swallowed by the people across the ‘democratic’ west. The public was firmly brainwashed to believe that Ukraine was the white hat team and Russia was the black hat bad guys.

Few know that the US-NATO started the war in 2014 and killed/wounded tens of thousands of Russian-ethnics in the Donbass region of eastern Ukraine – the place where the war is centered today.

In early 2022 Russian went into the Donbass after years of fruitless negotiations with the west to end their attacks on the Donbass. The US-NATO always wanted the war. They dreamed of breaking Russia up into pieces.

But don’t think the US has given up on its ill-fated quest to break up Russia. Alaska was just a ‘strategic retreat’. Just look at how Washington is fiddling with Armenia and Azerbaijan to destabilize another border land of both Russia and Iran.

The US is also working with Canada, Sweden, Denmark, Norway and Finland to militarize the Arctic in order to challenge Russia’s large border with that vast resource rich region.

The US-NATO only know war. Their economies are driven by military spending. Their so-called leaders are virtually all corporate apparatchiks.

And don’t forget that many of these EU-NATO leaders are related to former high level Nazi operatives during WW2.

Europe appears stuck in the quicksand of their disappearing ‘unipolar’ control. They just can’t accept that they must get along with the Global South that is rising after 500 years of colonial domination.

The US and EU got rich off the treasure they stole from the Global South. Museums across the west are loaded with treasures taken from these nations.

Trump is still about America First. That has not changed. The public in the US must campaign against the Pentagon’s trillion dollar a year offensive war machine.

That is the only way we will get true peace.

August 18, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Russia, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

Russia says it prevented a Ukrainian drone attack on the Smolensk nuclear power plant.

Russia’s Federal Security Service (FSB) said that it had prevented a
Ukrainian drone attack on the Smolensk nuclear power plant in western
Russia on Sunday. The Soviet-era Smolensk nuclear power station, about 330
km (200 miles) southwest of Moscow near the border with Belarus, has three
RBMK reactors – the same basic design as the reactors at the Chernobyl
nuclear power station. The FSB, the main successor to the Soviet-era KGB,
said that Russian radio-electronic warfare systems intercepted a Ukrainian
drone over the territory of the Smolensk nuclear power station.

Reuters 17th Aug 2025, https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/russia-says-it-prevented-ukrainian-drone-attack-smolensk-nuclear-power-plant-2025-08-17/

August 18, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

War’s final act: Zelensky’s dangerous play to crash Russia-US talks

As Ukraine’s defeat becomes undeniable, Zelensky resorts to desperate provocations – risking wider conflict to block peace talks between Russia and the US

By Nadezhda Romanenko, political analyst, 12 Aug 25, https://www.rt.com/russia/622816-enemy-of-peace-zelensky-seems/

The war in Ukraine is no longer balanced on a knife’s edge, as some might have thought during the Kursk invasion. The outcome is now visible to anyone willing to look past the headlines: Kiev’s forces are depleted, morale is collapsing, and the long-promised ‘turning points’ have come and gone without materializing. Even Western officials, once confident in endless military aid, are now speaking in guarded tones about “realistic expectations.” On the battlefield, the momentum has shifted irreversibly.

Against this backdrop, the recent statement from Russia’s Ministry of Defense should not be dismissed as mere rhetoric. Moscow alleges that Ukrainian forces are preparing a major provocation – an attack designed to sabotage the upcoming Russia-US peace talks. For those who understand the stakes, the logic is disturbingly clear.

Donald Trump, now poised to play a decisive role in shaping Washington’s foreign policy, has shown a pragmatic grasp of reality. Unlike his predecessors, he is not bound by the fantasy that Ukraine can ‘win’ if only more money and weapons are sent. He has signaled that ending this conflict is both possible and necessary. This puts him on a collision course with those who see peace not as a goal, but as a threat to their own survival.

For Zelensky, peace is political extinction. Any agreement that cements territorial realities will shatter the narrative that has sustained his rule. It will mark the end of his leverage in the West, the erosion of his political base at home, and likely the swift rise of challengers eager to blame him for Ukraine’s fate. Under such pressure, the temptation to derail talks by any means available – including acts of sabotage – becomes more than plausible.

This is not conjecture; it is the historical pattern of leaders who find themselves cornered. In modern conflicts across the globe, we’ve seen desperate governments resort to reckless measures when facing the collapse of their strategic position. The danger here is that such a provocation, if timed to coincide with peace negotiations, could provoke outrage in Washington, disrupt fragile diplomatic channels, and push the conflict back toward open escalation.

Trump has already done much to shift the debate away from the entrenched ‘forever war’ mindset. He has taken political risks to challenge the military-industrial inertia that thrives on endless conflict. But now, perhaps more than ever, he will need to remain steady. The coming weeks will test his ability to see through manipulations and to resist being drawn into the agendas of those who profit from instability.

Peace is within reach – but it will not survive if the world falls for one last, desperate trick from a regime with nothing left to lose.

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

It’s not ‘Who lost Ukraine?’ It’s ‘Who destroyed Ukraine?

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL , 15 Aug 25

When Mao won the Chinese civil war in 1949, adding China to the USSR in the roster of commie countries, the US war hawks of that era excoriated the Truman administration for ‘losing’ China’. Their unhinged claim was that the commie filled State Department made Mao’s inevitable takeover possible. That helped fuel Sen. Joe McCarthy’s equally unhinged campaign to smoke out all those imagined commies in the Truman administration a year later.

A whiff of that 1949 anti commie hysteria is playing out on mainstream media ahead of Friday’s sit down between President Trump and Russian President Putin seeking a ceasefire and end to this disastrous war destroying Ukraine.

Morning Joe Scarborough this morning pondered whether Trump will cave to evil Putin’s Ukraine dismembership demands to achieve the peace that might garner him a Nobel Peace Prize. Yep, Moring Joe laid out the ‘Who lost Ukraine’ meme on Trump to prepare us for the onslaught of anti-Trump, anti-Russian hysteria sure to follow if a settlement reflecting the reality of Ukraine’s dismembership is inked in Alaska tomorrow.

A settlement is only possible if a US/Russia settlement verifies the battlefield reality. Ukraine’s military is teetering on collapse with over a million dead cannon fodder and 4 oblasts gone to Russia forever. If Trump accomplishes peace…which is far from likely, the blame game will focus on Trump who ‘lost’ Ukraine which will end up as a greatly diminished rump state dependent on US/European life support for years to come.

Historians instead should begin with the 6 administrations preceding Trump’s second term 2.0: George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, W. Bush, Barack Obama, Donald Trump 1.0 and most grievously Joe Biden. H.W. Bush, Clinton, W. Bush, Obama, Trump 1.0 and Biden all promoted NATO expansion into Ukraine and dismissed all Russian security pleas that such expansion was a Red Line Russia would view as an existential threat.

While his predecessors put Ukraine on the road to destruction, Joe Biden essentially pulled the trigger on a war Ukraine had no chance of winning. Putin tried to avoid invading. He saw Ukraine massing 60,000 elite troops on the Donbas border to polish off the Ukrainian separatists there seeking independence and safety from Kyiv neo fascists. His plea of December 21 2021 was dismissed out of hand. Biden told Putin that Russia’s security interests, which included autonomy for Ukrainian separatists as well as a neutral Ukraine not in NATO, were ‘not subject to discussion whatsoever.’

Biden knew that response would provoke a Russian invasion. But Biden miscalculated that US weapons combined with draconian Russian sanctions would result in a Vietnam style defeat for Russia, possibly even the overthrow of President Putin.

So here we are three years, eight months later with Putin, not Trump holding all the cards in tomorrow’s negotiation. Trump knows the correct outcome is settling on Russia’s terms: no return of Ukraine territory, no NATO for Ukraine and a demilitarized Ukraine that can never attack inside Russia territory again. He also knows he’ll be branded by America’s ravenous war hawks as ‘The man who lost Ukraine’ should he end the war.

Nobody lost Ukraine. But we now know who destroyed Ukraine. The only question to be answered is…How severely Ukraine will be destroyed before the guns go silent.

August 16, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Setting the record straight on the background to events in Ukraine.

First, both the provinces of Donetsk and Lugansk in the Donbass region voted for independence from Ukraine in 2014 in resistance to a U.S.-backed coup that overthrew the elected president Viktor Yanukovych in February of that year. The independence vote came just eight days after neo-Nazis burned dozens of ethnic Russians alive in Odessa. To crush their bid for independence, the new U.S.-installed Ukrainian government then launched an “anti-terrorist” war against the provinces, with the assistance of the neo-Nazi Azov Battalion, which had taken part in the coup. It is a war that is still going on eight years later, a war that Russia has just entered.

During these eight years, the Ukrainian Armed Forces and Azov have used artillery, snipers and assassination teams to systematically butcher more than 5,000 people (another 8,000 were wounded) — mostly civilians — in the Donetsk Peoples Republic, according to the leader of the DPR, who provided these figures in a press conference recently. In the Luhansk People’s Republic, an additional 2,000 civilians were killed and 3,365 injured. The total number of people killed and wounded in Donbass since 2014 is more than 18,000.

This has received at most superficial coverage by The New York Times; it has not been covered by Western corporate media because it does not fit the official Washington narrative

By Steven Starr,

The New York Times recently published an article by David Sanger entitled “Putin spins a conspiracy theory that Ukraine is on a path to produce nuclear weapons.” Unfortunately, it is Sanger who puts so much spin in his reporting that he leaves his readers with a grossly distorted version of the what the presidents of Russia and Ukraine have said and done.

Ukrainian Volodymyr Zelensky’s recent statements at the Munich conference centered around the 1994 Budapest Memorandum, which welcomed Ukraine’s accession to the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) in conjunction with Ukraine’s decision to return to Russia the nuclear weapons left on its territory by the Soviet Union.

In other words, the Budapest Memorandum was expressly about Ukraine giving up its nukes and not becoming a nuclear weapon state in the future. Zelensky’s speech at Munich made it clear that Ukraine was moving to repudiate the Budapest Memorandum; Zelensky essentially stated that Ukraine must be made a member of NATO, otherwise it would acquire nuclear weapons.

This is what Zelensky said, with emphasis added:

“I want to believe that the North Atlantic Treaty and Article 5 will be more effective than the Budapest Memorandum.

Ukraine has received security guarantees for abandoning the world’s third nuclear capability [i.e. Ukraine relinquished the Soviet nuclear weapons that had been placed in Ukraine during the Cold War]. We don’t have that weapon. … Therefore, we have something. The right to demand a shift from a policy of appeasement to ensuring security and peace guarantees.

Since 2014, Ukraine has tried three times to convene consultations with the guarantor states of the Budapest Memorandum. Three times without success. . . I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was commissioned to convene them. If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt. . .

I am initiating consultations in the framework of the Budapest Memorandum. The Minister of Foreign Affairs was commissioned to convene them. If they do not happen again or their results do not guarantee security for our country, Ukraine will have every right to believe that the Budapest Memorandum is not working and all the package decisions of 1994 are in doubt.”

Sanger’s Times article implies that it was a “conspiracy theory” that Zelensky was calling for Ukraine to acquire nuclear weapons. Sanger was not ignorant of the meaning of the Budapest Memorandum, rather he chose to deliberately ignore it and misrepresented the facts.

President Vladimir Putin, along with the majority of Russians, could not ignore such a threat for a number of historical reasons that The New York Times and ideologues such as Sanger have also chosen to ignore. It is important to list some of those facts, since most Americans are unaware of them, as they have not been reported in the Western mainstream media. Leaving parts of the story out turns Putin into just a madman bent on conquest without any reason to intervene.

This has received at most superficial coverage by The New York Times; it has not been covered by Western corporate media because it does not fit the official Washington narrative that Ukraine is pursuing an “anti-terrorist operation” in its unrelenting attacks on the people of Donbass. For eight years the war instead has been portrayed as a Russian “invasion,” well before Russia’s current intervention.

Likewise, The New York Times, in its overall coverage, chose not to report that the Ukrainian forces had deployed half of its army, about 125,000 troops, to its border with Donbass by the beginning of 2022.

In other words, acquiring tactical nuclear weapons will be much easier for Ukraine than for some other states I am not going to mention here, which are conducting such research, especially if Kiev receives foreign technological support. We c

The importance of neo-Nazi Right Sektor politicians in the Ukraine government and neo-Nazi militias (such as the Azov Battalion) to the Ukrainian Armed Forces, also goes unreported in the mainstream corporate media. The Azov battalion flies Nazi flags; they have been trained by teams of U.S. military advisers and praised on Facebook these days. In 2014, Azov was incorporated in the Ukrainian National Guard under the direction of the Interior Ministry.

The Nazis killed something on the order of 27 million Soviets/Russians during World War II (the U.S. lost 404,000). Russia has not forgotten and is extremely sensitive to any threats and violence coming from neo-Nazis. Americans generally do not understand what this means to Russians as the United States has never been invaded.

So, when the leader of Ukraine essentially threatens to obtain nuclear weapons, this is most certainly considered to be an existential threat to Russia. That is why Putin focused on this during his speech preceding the Russian invasion of Ukraine. Sanger and The New York Times must discount a Ukrainian nuclear threat; they can get away with doing so because they have systematically omitted news pertaining to this for many years.

Sanger makes a very misleading statement when he writes, “Today Ukraine does not even have the basic infrastructure to produce nuclear fuel.”

Ukraine is not interested in making nuclear fuel — which Ukraine already purchases from the U.S. Ukraine has plenty of plutonium, which is commonly used to make nuclear weapons today; eight years ago Ukraine held more than 50 tons of plutonium in its spent fuel assemblies stored at its many nuclear power plants (probably considerably more today, as the reactors have continued to run and produce spent fuel). Once plutonium is reprocessed/separated from spent nuclear fuel, it becomes weapons usable. Putin noted that Ukraine already has missiles that could carry nuclear warheads, and they certainly have scientists capable of developing reprocessing facilities and building nuclear weapons.

In his Feb. 21 televised address, Putin said Ukraine still has the infrastructure leftover from Soviet days to build a bomb. He said:

“As we know, it has already been stated today that Ukraine intends to create its own nuclear weapons, and this is not just bragging.

Ukraine has the nuclear technologies created back in the Soviet times and delivery vehicles for such weapons, including aircraft, as well as the Soviet-designed Tochka-U precision tactical missiles with a range of over 100 kilometers.

But they can do more; it is only a matter of time. They have had the groundwork for this since the Soviet era.

If Ukraine acquires weapons of mass destruction, the situation in the world and in Europe will drastically change, especially for us, for Russia. We cannot but react to this real danger, all the more so since let me repeat, Ukraine’s Western patrons may help it acquire these weapons to create yet another threat to our country.”

NATO-US Refuse Binding Nuclear Treaties

In his Times piece, Sanger states, “American officials have said repeatedly that they have no plans to place nuclear weapons in Ukraine.”

But the U.S. and NATO have refused to sign legally binding treaties with Russia to this effect. In reality, the U.S. has been making Ukraine a de facto member of NATO, while training and supplying its military forces and conducting joint exercises on Ukrainian territory. Why wouldn’t the U.S. place nuclear weapons in Ukraine — they have already done so at military bases within the borders of five other European members of NATO. This in fact violates the spirit of the NPT, another issue that Sanger avoids when he notes that Russia has demanded that the U.S. remove nuclear weapons from the European NATO-member states.

For years the U.S. proclaimed that the Ballistic Missile Defense (BMD) facilities it was placing in Romania and Poland, on the Russian border, were to protect against an “Iranian threat,” even though Iran had no nuclear weapons or missiles that could reach the U.S. But the dual-use Mark 41 launching systems used in the Aegis Ashore BMD facilities can be used to launch Tomahawk cruise missiles, and will be fitted with SM-6 missiles that, if armed with nuclear warheads, could hit Moscow in five-to-six minutes. Putin explicitly warned journalists about this danger in 2016; Russia included the removal of the U.S. BMD facilities in Romania and Poland in its draft treaties presented to the U.S. and NATO last December.

I wonder if Sanger has ever considered what the U.S. response would be if Russia placed missile launching facilities on the Canadian or Mexican border? Would the U.S. consider that a threat, would it demand that Russia remove them or else the U.S. would use military means to do so?

30 Years Ago

Sanger states that today Russia takes a “starkly different from the tone Moscow was taking 30 years ago, when Russian nuclear scientists were being voluntarily retrained to use their skills for peaceful purposes.”

Russians would reply that 30 years ago NATO had not moved to Russian borders and was not flooding Ukraine with hundreds of tons of weapons and the U.S. had not yet overthrown the government in Kiev to install an anti-Russian regime.

While the Times is still considered the U.S. “paper of record,” during the last few decades it has devolved into the primary mouthpiece for the official narratives coming from Washington.

There is a real danger to the nation when a free press is replaced with corporate media that stifles and censors dissent. Rather than a free press, we now have a Ministry of Propaganda that acts as an echo chamber for the latest diktats from the White House. The systematic creation of false narratives by corporate media, designed to serve the purposes of the federal government, have so misinformed the American public about world events that we find the nation ready to go to war with Russia.

This is suicidal course for not only the U.S. and the EU, but for civilization as a whole, because this would likely end in a nuclear war that will destroy all nations and peoples.

Steven Starr is the former director of the University of Missouri’s Clinical Laboratory Science Program, and former board member of Physicians for Social Responsibility. His articles have been published by the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, Federation of American Scientists and the Strategic Arms Reduction website of the Moscow Institute of Physics and Technology. He maintains the Nuclear Famine website.

August 16, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | history, media, Reference, secrets,lies and civil liberties, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Russia makes battlefield breakthrough in urgent push for land.

Telegraph, Kieran Kelly. Fermin Torrano in Ukraine, 12 Aug 25

With Trump talks looming, Russia’s army punches through exposed Ukrainian defences.

Russia is racing to seize as much Ukrainian territory as possible ahead of peace talks with Donald Trump on Friday.

In what may prove to be a major breakthrough for Vladimir Putin, Russian sabotage and reconnaissance units punched through exposed defences in eastern Ukraine, slipping as far as six miles behind the front line in just 48 hours, according to battlefield reports.

Kyiv has diverted special forces units to confront the insurgents on the ground in an attempt to prevent any more of Ukraine falling under Russia’s control before the summit in Alaska.

The location, near Dobropillya in Donetsk, is strategically significant. If Moscow’s forces are able to establish a foothold, the breach could allow Russia to cut off the city of Kramatorsk, one of the most vital strongholds in the Donbas still under Kyiv’s control.

If the city falls, it would give Putin almost full control over the Donbas and strengthen his negotiating power when bargaining over Ukraine’s fate with the Trump administration……………………………………… https://www.telegraph.co.uk/world-news/2025/08/12/russia-battleground-breakthrough-exposes-putin-push-land/

August 16, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Russia, Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

Does Trump have the guts to end America’s lost proxy war against Russia?

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 12 Aug 25.

For seven months Trump has reneged on his promise to end in one day America’s proxy war against Russia destroying Ukraine. Ukraine loses more soldiers and more territory every day with no chance of prevailing.

Tho a one day settlement was impossible, Trump came close to following thru by publicly berating Ukraine President Zelensky for continuing the war and threatening to cease all US weapons which keep Ukraine fighting. Then he pivoted back to war, demanding Russia’s Putin implement immediate ceasefire or face draconian sanctions. Putin responded to that nonsense with increased military attacks. Now with the upcoming summit this Friday, Trump has the opportunity to achieve peace in Ukraine.

Russia has already signaled concessions to achieve ceasefire. According to the Wall Street Journal, Russia told US envoy Steve Witkoff Russia would implement a full ceasefire if Ukraine would withdraw its remaining troops in the Donbas almost entirely controlled by Russia. In return Russia would freeze the lines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, the other 2 Ukraine oblasts Russia demanded full control over, rather than push on for full annexation. Russia would require Ukraine to remain neutral between East and West, giving up all intentions to join NATO.

Implementing that ceasefire would be a good start to permanently ending hostilities. But neither Ukraine President Zelensky nor European NATO leaders have bought into this sensible solution.

Zelensky maintains his delusional refusal to give up a single square mile of territory that will never return to Ukraine control. He could have kept every square mile of territory had he completed the peace deal with Russia in April 2022 that the US and UK sabotaged. Seventy percent of Ukrainians want the war to end forthwith. But the fool Zelensky keeps demanding ‘push on.’

European NATO leaders, especially UK’s Starmer, France’s Macron and Germany’s Merz are still committed to this failed war to maintain NATO dominance and isolation of Russia. They fear the loss of the US gravy train that pumps up their economies. They are as delusional as Zelensky.

Trump’s third obstacle to peace is the US national security state which abhors the US losing a senseless war of choice. War fanatics like Senator Lindsey Graham and retired generals paid off by the weapons makers, dominate mainstream news condemning inevitable US surrender. No voice for ending this proxy war madness is allowed to pitch peace on the airwaves or op ed columns. They will pound on Trump relentlessly should he chalk up another US war loss, albeit one bringing peace to Ukraine.

The only ceasefire and permanent war settlement possible will go down as a US/NATO defeat. Wonderful. NATO needs to disband as it has gone on trying to weaken, isolate Russia 34 years after becoming obsolete upon dissolution of the USSR in 1991.

Does Trump have the guts to force a settlement that overcomes the resistance of Zelensky, NATO leaders and the US war party? We may soon find out.

August 13, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Ukraine, USA | Leave a comment

Zelensky Rejects Idea of Ceding Territory to Russia as Trump and Putin Prepare for Alaska Summit.

According to a report from The Wall Street Journal, Putin has proposed halting the war in exchange for Ukraine withdrawing from Donetsk

by Dave DeCamp | August 10, 2025, https://news.antiwar.com/2025/08/10/zelensky-rejects-idea-of-ceding-territory-to-russia-as-trump-and-putin-prepare-for-alaska-summit/

Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has rejected the idea of ceding territory to Russia to end the war in Ukraine, as President Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin are preparing for a summit that will be held this Friday, August 15, in the US state of Alaska.

“Ukrainians will not gift their land to the occupier,” Zelensky said in a video address on Saturday. “We will not reward Russia for what it has perpetrated.

Zelensky’s comments came after The Wall Street Journal reported that Putin told US envoy Steve Witkoff that he would agree to a full ceasefire if Ukraine withdrew its forces from Donetsk, one of the two oblasts in Ukraine’s eastern Donbas region. Russia controls most of Donetsk and virtually all of Luhansk, the other half of the Donbas region.

Based on another Journal report, Russia is seeking to freeze the lines in Kherson and Zaporizhzhia — a potential climbdown from Moscow’s earlier demand for a full Ukrainian withdrawal from both oblasts.

A European counter-proposal that was presented to US officials on Saturday called for any territorial exchanges to happen in a reciprocal manner, meaning Russia would have to withdraw from some land if Ukraine ceded the territory it still controls in Donetsk. Some European officials said Moscow would have to cede control of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia.

The European proposal also calls for a ceasefire to be implemented immediately before any other steps are taken and says that any territorial concession from Ukraine must include concrete security guarantees, including potential NATO membership, which is a non-starter for Russia.

Much of how the peace process will go depends on how much pressure the US is willing to put on Ukraine to make a deal, since Zelensky’s war effort is reliant on US military support. The idea of a peace deal is popular in Ukraine as a recent poll from Gallup found that 69% of Ukrainians want a negotiated end to the conflict as soon as possible, while only 24% want to keep fighting until “victory.”

August 13, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics international, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Kaliningrad Gambit: NATO’s Last Desperate Bluff /Spark for World War III?

Jeffrey Silverman, New Eastern Outlook, August 08, 2025

With Ukraine’s defences collapsing and Russia gaining the upper hand, NATO’s provocative focus on Kaliningrad risks triggering a nuclear escalation that could end any remaining prospects for diplomacy.

As many foresaw, the situation for Ukraine’s Western-backed proxy regime is unraveling fast. Russian forces are pushing forward with increasing momentum — Chasov Yar has reportedly fallen, and Pokrovsk and Kostiantynivka facing operational encirclement. The Eastern Front may soon collapse entirely.

Kiev appears outgunned and undermanned, the result of Russia’s grinding attritional strategy — high firepower, low casualties — not the reckless assault tactics portrayed in Western media.

In response, Washington is shifting gears — talking nuclear subs and floating threats against Kaliningrad, Russia’s fortified Baltic enclave, a move that may only harden Moscow’s resolve — and shift the conflict into a far more dangerous phase.

Russian military production has far outstripped that of the entire combined West by a factor of roughly four to one. Getting beyond lame Western rhetoric, the Russian Federation is producing weapons that actually work, unlike their NATO rivals, at a price far less than the West is capable of matching. Needless to say, the West claims plans are in progress to “close the gap in 2025” but they have been saying that since 2022, with no result in sight.

Sayings with punch!

They say tactics win battles, but logistics wins wars. The Russians took that to heart — favoring firepower and endurance over flashy maneuvers. The West, still chasing its blitzkrieg fantasies, missed the memo.

With Ukraine’s proxy army buckling, NATO faces a sobering question: what now?

Sanctions fizzled. The so-called “global consensus” crumbled as China, India, and Brazil shrugged off Washington’s threats and kept buying Russian energy. Trump’s bluster over secondary sanctions rings hollow — especially after Beijing humbled him in the last rare earth standoff.

Meanwhile, the West’s wunderwaffen parade — HIMARS, Javelins, Patriots, Leopards, F-16s — may have dazzled in brochures, but has done little to shift the battlefield calculus. Ukraine bleeds, Russia raises battle flags over liberated towns and cities, and NATO grows increasingly desperate.

And now, with few cards left to play, NATO’s gaze turns ominously to Kaliningrad — the heavily armed Russian exclave boxed in by Poland and the Baltics. A target? A bargaining chip? Or the next red line in a war spiraling out of control?

NATO Doctrine

General Christopher Donahue, commander of U.S. Army Europe and Africa, unveiled the new NATO doctrinefor Eastern Flank Defence at the inaugural LandEuro conference on Wednesday 30^th July, by talking about NATO plans to attack Kaliningrad in the event of open conflict with Russia.

Speaking specifically about Kaliningrad, Donahue said modern allied capabilities could “take that down from the ground” faster than ever before:

“We’ve already planned that and we’ve already developed it. The mass and momentum problem that Russia poses to us…we’ve developed the capability to make sure that we can stop that mass and momentum problem.”

Sounds a bit too optimistic to me!

Apparently, NATO planners have learned little from the ongoing conflict in Ukraine, even less from the debacle in Afghanistan and Iraq, where offensives into built up areas require long preparation in terms of artillery and missile strikes. Modern satellite and drone observation makes it practically impossible to build up sufficient forces unobserved for “coup-de-main” surprise attacks of the type the western military still dream of, and the sheer level of destruction that modern weapons systems can unleash, such as the TOS-1, and FAB-3000 glide bombs, various cruise and Kinzhal hypersonic missiles, and conventionally armed Oreshnik IRBMs can unleash makes concentration of troops an extremely risky business.

Quite how NATO intends to square this circle is anyone’s guess, as the statements by Donahue are, to put it mildly, light on details………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………………

Method in Madness

What Western planners often ignore — or conveniently forget — is that Ukraine’s internal policies toward its Russian-speaking population were a major trigger for the conflict. Now, with the battlefield turning in Russia’s favor, NATO appears to be scrambling for leverage……………………………………………………….

Using Kaliningrad to poke the bear is just the spark that could set into motion the end of times, whether it is a military incursion, blockade, or a full-fledged attack, and this would be the end of diplomacy and humanity as we knew it.

The US and its NATO partners should never underestimate Russian resolve, as the portrayal of Russia as a defeated, overextended, or crumbling power is a story of another time and reality. Times have changed, and the world has changed, with new realities between East and West. https://journal-neo.su/2025/08/08/kaliningrad-gambit-natos-last-desperate-bluff-spark-for-world-war-iii/

August 13, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Ukraine, weapons and war | Leave a comment

The Alaskan Summit: Possible Agenda and Outcomes

by Gordonhahn, August 11, 2025

As US President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin and their respective teams prepare for their summit meeting in Alaska, numerous media reports are appearing in the media purporting to record the basics of a territorial agreement on Ukraine agreed upon by both sides.

Based on unidentified US officials, the two sides have supposedly agreed that a ceasefire will commence when Ukraine withdraws its forces from Russian claimed and largely taken Donetsk and Luhansk (Lugansk) Regions and that Russia will then forego its claims on Zaporoshe and Kherson Oblasts, while keeping Crimea.

No American or Russian official has confirmed (or denied) this as the basics of an agreement on a ceasefire, which Russia has repeatedly refused. Thus, commentators are claiming that Mr Putin has made a compromise, abandoning some of his other previously stated objectives of the ‘special military operation’ (SMO), which consistently have included the following: a concrete commitment by Ukraine and NATO that Ukraine will not become a NATO member or receive NATO military assistance, i.e., Ukrainian neutrality (the main Russian demand and reason for the SMO); Ukraine’s de-Nazification (removal of neofascism from Ukrainian politics); and de-militarization (unspecified limits on Ukraine’s military power and/or force deployment).

This is all wrong…………………………………………………………………… To read further, please subscribe to my Substack: https://open.substack.com/pub/gordonhahn/p/the-alaskan-summit-likely-agenda?r=1qt5jg&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=web&showWelcomeOnShare=true

August 13, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | politics, Ukraine | Leave a comment

Trump and Zelensky, two cornered rats with no way out of Ukraine catastrophe

Walt Zlotow, West Suburban Peace Coalition, Glen Ellyn IL, 5 Aug 25

Ukraine’s military is being systematically obliterated on the battlefield. US President Trump knows this. Ukraine President Zelensky does as well.

Yet, both are pretending the war can be won on terms favorable to the US and Ukraine. Trump is threatening secondary sanctions on nations buying Russian oil if Russia doesn’t end the war by August 8. Zelensky applauds this threat. Trump is also selling additional weapons to NATO allies to give to Ukraine’s lost cause.

Neither of Trump’s actions will have any effect on Ukraine’s impending battlefield defeat. Trump gets the ‘rat’ designation because he broke his campaign pledge to end the war by withdrawing US support and forcing Ukraine to negotiate the war’s end. But since that signals defeat of the US proxy war to weaken Russia, he clearly has decided it’s better to keep the war going rather than suffer a humiliating defeat. That merely ensures Ukraine’s near complete destruction as a functioning state.

Zelensky earned his ‘rat’ designation when he bailed out of ending the war in April 2022. He was on the cusp of a negotiated settlement with Russia that would have ended Ukraine’s effort to join NATO and guaranteed regional independence for Russian cultured Ukrainians in Donbas. For Ukraine it would have mean no lost territory and no massive casualties or infrastructure destruction. That is classic diplomacy achieving win-win.

But the rat Zelensky caved to US/UK pressure to dump that deal because Zelensky believed US/UK lies he could win simply with continued Western weapons. That, along with Trump’s refusal to end the war after promising to end it, has put Ukraine into a death spiral.

So with no way to win on the battlefield, our cornered rats are risking nuclear war every day this catastrophe continues. Zelensky keeps begging for long range NATO missies to attack deep into Russia. While that has no strategic value, it has value in provoking a Russian nuclear response, something to which Zelensky remains oblivious.

The nuclear risk Trump has embarked upon is even more reckless. He responded to a harmless Russian social media comment about a potential US/Russia nuclear confrontation, by sending two Ohio Class nuclear submarines toward Russian waters. Just as provocative and reckless, Trump’s sent B61-12 nuclear gravity bombs to the UK. These are offensive weapons having nothing do with will standard NATO defensive weaponry. They are the first delivery of these offensive weapons to the UK since removing them in 2008.

To Trump, reckless action is an appropriate response to relatively harmless words. Particularly since Trump is he world champ at using social media to threaten, browbeat friends and foes alike.

It’s not just the beleaguered people of Ukraine whose lives are threatened by the two cornered rats with no sane, safe way out of the lost war in Ukraine. It is all of us.

August 6, 2025 Posted by Christina Macpherson | Ukraine, USA, weapons and war | Leave a comment

« Previous Entries Next Entries »