Today's news agenda is going to be dominated by events in Alaska.
My problem with this is that the meeting between Trump and Putin that is going to take place there is, very obviously, totally staged managed, and is a complete distraction from reality.
The reality is that there is a war in Ukraine, and that cannot be solved unless that country is a party to any peace agreement. But they are not going to be in Alaska.
It is also very obvious that the USA has not been given any special right to negotiate with Russia on behalf of either Ukraine or Europe, both of whom have much more at stake in this issue than the USA has.
What is more, the talks are ignoring another crisis, which is still unfolding, namely the situation in Gaza, about which these parties could definitely discuss with the aim of putting pressure to bear.
So, we have the news agenda dominated by a false reality created by Trump, almost certainly to distract attention from the Epstein files, which is what people in the USA really want to know about, almost as much as they want to know what the real relationship of power between Putin and Trump is.
We could, therefore, call this news. Or we could call it a giant exercise in misinformation to which the world has been invited so that they do not notice what is happening elsewhere. My inclination is most definitely to the second of these options, and what worries me is that the media is not pointing this out as strongly as they should.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
I shan’t bother to add more to your “on the nail as usual”blog, Richard, except to repeat two comments I put on BlueSky yesterday evening. Both were rather popular:
‘More than empty words: deliberate distractions and diversions dressed up as all about “poor Ukraine”. Before the Epstein affair blew up he had no plans to meet Putin. Then, bang, Epstein and no way to shut it down. All of a sudden the “big, beautiful summit’ Bullshit! Never a bad word about Putin.’
‘Given what you face in Ukraine, Anton, I’ll forgive you not keeping up with US developments. Trump’s quite clearly out to destroy democracy in the US. I’ve said for years, if he got back into office he’d follow Putin’s totalitarian playbook and that’s exactly what he’s doing. Trump’s US = Russia 2.0’
Much to agree with.
“What is more, the talks are ignoring another crisis, which is still unfolding, namely the situation in Gaza”
I think some focus is needed here. its a bit like saying to a student on the morning of an A level maths exam “why are you focusing on this when you have Chemistry in 3 weeks”. Aside from China, Trump is likely to have more influence on Russia and Putin than anyone else to try and stop the war. He might not succeed but he might. Or would you prefer he just leaves Russia to just grind Ukraine into submission over the next few years?
Politely, it would apepar you have missed the whole oiunt of my post. Was that deliberate?
Whole heartedly agreed.
To me, this is like a cold war meeting between Moscow (Putin) and one of its sleeper agents (Trump), but in full daylight.
I would just like to congratulate the U.S. Democrat party for making the world a better place. You could not have done a better job at enabling all of this.
In fairness, you are missing one improtant aspect: Dump wants (absolutely) the … Noble Peace Prize – good enough for Obama (who he hates) then good enough for Dump. The organge imbecile was on the blower to the Norwegian gov this week on exactly that subject.
What would I do: give it to him & bar………..there was no point to the award from 1970s onwards – given they gave it to the ultimate war monger and mass murderer … Kissinger (a thnak you for the mass mruder of 250,000 Cambodians?) . It has zero value.
And here’s an excellent five minutes on the same subject from Lawrence O’Donnell. As he notes, Trump has now had over 200 opportunities to end the war and never has, despite bragging he’d sort it. Also, O’Donnell points out that the biggest winner in this meeting is Putin, who knows that Trump needs this meeting to distract.
https://www.msnbc.com/the-last-word/watch/donald-trump-says-everybody-s-to-blame-for-putin-invading-ukraine-245040197520
Lets also note that as with ALL meetings between Trump and Putin there will be NO RECORD from the meeting. There are no note takers present, no experts, only the translator (who, if they’re Russian will be a FSB plant anyway). One might wonder why it is that in any meeting between Trump and Putin the former always insists on no record being taken of what’s discussed or agreed. Funny that, isn’t it.
The sooner the rest of NATO – and the EU in particular – stop gaslighting us all with their kowtowing and brown nosing, and admit that Trump’s a charlatan who cannot be trusted and that Europe would be a far better place if we walked away from this destroyer of democracy the better we’d all be – as would Ukraine, and very shortly, the Baltic states.
Much to agree with
Your last paragraph is the important one.
Two evil and corrupt men, de facto dictators, neither of whom has the support of their people, one of whom is a sexual predator suffering from dementia, both of whom are guilty of/complicit in crimes against humanity, are staging a PR farce. Neither are interested in peace, neither trusts the other, both will lie to each other and to the world, and the news media will omit to mention any of this and will report it as if it were a serious summit on a par with Yalta. Our own government’s response will be mealy-mouthed platitudes from the sidelines. Our news media will report that as if it is statesmanship.
This is where we are.
The public’s anger will be diverted towards the usual current scapegoats by the same media as misreport the so-called summit.
It’s very like the 1930’s except for one key difference. In the 1930’s Hitler was far more popular in Germany than today’s leaders or pretenders are in their own countries. He used popular support to get absolute power.
Our leaders have a declining level of popular support but a high level of authoritianism. Our own would-be demagogue in the UK is no Hitler, except perhaps in his own imagination. His own attempts at exercising power in town halls and Westminster are a pathetic shambles. He can be beaten.
So vociferous public protest, vigorous grass roots organisation and debate, the prioritisation of truth and transparency, are still capable of confining and removing these dangerous fools from power.
What will help our opponents will be public fear, exhaustion, resignation, factional division, obsessive ideological nitpicking, and public silence in response to their lies and intimidation.
It will be hard work.
Anything worthwhile seems to be hard work.
‘Anything worthwhile seems to be hard work.’
Roger that!
So true.
“It will be hard work.”
If it isn’t “work” it will change nothing.
If it isn’t “hard work” it will not cost us enough to make the meaningful change.
To RobertJ, to Richard, to everybody who it would be invidious to try to name (because I’d be bound to miss someone), and in the words of RobertJ himself:
KUTGW
🙂
It feels like hard work this morning
I am glad it’s Friday
Is this more like Yalta or Munich?
Is a weak aged and dying western leader going to concede territory to an expansionist dictator, at best buying time before the next conflict?
Or will we see an aged and dying US president essentially agreeing that a brutal Russian dictator may dismember one European county, take what it wants as reparations, and dominate its “sphere of influence” in Eastern Europe. In return, perhaps Russia may agree to join another American war against a mutual enemy in Asia.
Old men talking to other old men. Chamberlain was 69 at Munich and died of cancer barely two years later. Roosevelt died aged 63 only two months after Yalta. Stalin was 66 at Yalta and survived another eight years. Trump is already 79. Putin is 73 next month. Shi just turned 72.
Hey Richard, the title spells Alaska wrongly . Must be busy !!
All the best
Apologies
Corrected
You were the first to spot it
Although I fundamentally disagree with your understanding of the Russia-Ukraine war, I would like to pick up on two points in your post, and add one other.
“It is also very obvious that the USA has not been given any special right to negotiate with Russia on behalf of either Ukraine or Europe, both of whom have much more at stake in this issue than the USA has.”
Correct. This is a war in Europe, how is it that there is no European involvement? It highlights how weak the current European leaders are, that they are not involved at all, in any negotiations.
https://xcancel.com/RnaudBertrand/status/1954625690621423961#m
Adding to that, look how USA really thinks about its “allies”. We are going to be their sovereign wealth fund and build their factories – in fact, we will do exactly as “Daddy” (Mark Rutte’s words) wants.
https://xcancel.com/yanisvaroufakis/status/1955645824320299270#m
And then:
“namely the situation in Gaza” A live, real-time genocide, beamed all around the world, and not one leader, European or other wise, has lifted a finger to stop it.
We don’t have leaders, we have cowards.
My first thought was why in Alaska? Does Putin not realise that Alaska is a US state?
Maybe Putin is going to ask for Alaska back!!?
Or maybe a two state solution in Alaska shared by the U.S. & Russia!!
I mean come on………………………………….deals etc.
Would Alaska be able to have a referendum to decide they want to be part of Canada?
Living in the north east I would quite like one to decide I want to be part of Scotland.
Nice idea..
If the US gives Alaska back to Russia, it will have lost its only foothold in the Arctic Circle.
Trump needs a hold in the Arctic for all the minerals there are there.
Maybe he wants a deal to give Russia access to Ukrainian minerals in exchange for a bigger say in the Arctic. That’s why Ukraine is not involved in these discussions.
It’s Kabuki theatrics for the plebs.
Interesting analysis from recent ex MI6 advisor Younger on Trump’s B team, with zero experience of foreign affairs,
Younger said: “Steve Witkoff, Trump’s envoy, is out of his depth. He can talk but he doesn’t listen. He doesn’t write stuff down. He didn’t take an interpreter. So this oven-ready deal that he’s presented, which apparently just requires Russian signature, is a total fantasy.”
US have lost their way, like a good friend who is having an embarrassing mid-life crisis, but you can’t help them.
https://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/amp/entry/putin-is-playing-him-ex-mi6-boss-delivers-brutal-verdict-on-trumps-approach-to-ukraine-war_uk_689db381e4b0185e8848c9c9/
Ukraine unfortunately happens to be in a strategically critical location on the North European plain straddling Russia’s south west flank. Any land invasion of Russia by the West would likely come via Poland and Ukraine (as it has several times previously). Sevastopol is Russia’s only warm water port giving access to the Med. Russia therefore has existential defence interests at stake. On the US side, their foreign policy has been highly influenced for the last 30 years by the theories of Halford J Mackinder – the “father of geopolitical theory”, who asserted that “Who rules East Europe commands the heartland ( Russia and Central Asia) : who rules the heartland commands the “world island” (Eurasia): who rules the world island commands the world.”
Zbigniew Brzezinsky, former US National Security Adviser, wrote in “ The Grand Chess Board : American Primacy and its Geostrategic imperatives” that “American foreign policy ….must employ its influence in Eurasia …. with the United States as the political arbiter… In the meantime it is imperative that no Eurasian challenger emerges capable of dominating Eurasia and thus of challenging America.” American foreign policy focussed on limiting and weakening Russian influence and power in its own region and along its borders. Brzezinsky proposed the gradual simultaneous process of EU and NATO expansion. For him there were two “vital Geopolitical pivots in Eurasia- Azerbaijan and Ukraine”. In 2004, Washington Post columnist Charles Krauthammer wrote “ The West wants to finish the job begun with the fall of the Berlin Wall and continue Europe’s march to the East. The great prize is Ukraine.”
In 2008 , George Bush declared that Ukraine would become a member of NATO, despite only 20% of Ukrainians being in favour and a multiplicity of contrary advice from diplomats, politicians and officials eg Angela Merkel – “The Russians will regard this as a declaration of war”.
In 2014 the US intervened substantially in the illegal ousting of democratically elected Ukrainian President Yanukovich (check out the famous “F**k the EU” phone call between Victoria Nuland and Geoffrey Piatt , where Nuland is arranging her chosen new President two weeks before Yanukovich was ousted – “ Yats (Arseniy Yatsenyuk) is the guy”. Yanukovich’s problem? Anti- NATO (like most Ukrainians at the time) and only lukewarm to the EU (about which Ukrainians were evenly divided).
Doesn’t leave much room for Zelensky and Starmer, does it ?
Ever since the start of the Ukraine war – I have not seen any country that really wants serious peace in Ukraine. The only talks that seems to take place is – how to better arm Ukraine ? It is serious business and it is pretty evident that peace is bad economics. Of course – there is the minerals deal and maybe more deal to be had from the conflict.
We have a genocide taking place and the west seems to have no appetite or any concern or any incentive to address it. But, when it comes to Ukraine – suddenly there seems to be unity and conscience towards the Ukrainian cause (which is great if they indeed are chasing peace). The “coalition of willing” was on overdrive the last few days to dictate agenda for the talks in Alaska but when it comes to Gaza the “coalition of willing” is silent and seems to have no urgency to stop the genocide. Lip service is all that we get.
It is an assault on the intelligence of the common man that “coalition of willing” is seeking peace…….war is big business!. Sorry for being pessimistic – I cant see any other way to explain the one trillion dollar defence budget of the US (and UK happy to follow the US model). The taxpayers will continue to foot the bill.
Peace will not be peace for long if states aspire to be empires. Sometimes peace is only appeasement.
But I sympathize with the horror, bewilderment and betrayal. Since the start of this war, I have said two things: (1) if I were a Ukrainian, I would be mad at everyone (2) let the man who cheers on war go and fight on the front. To that I would only add, the common man has few, if any, friends in power. Though I am certain some in power would try to claim otherwise.