This is just out as a headline in The Guardian:
Blatant thuggery is so appealing, isn't it, especially when dressed up as diplomacy?
The world order is failing fast right now.
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!
The Americans never did learn about pissing in the wind did they?
Nor about ‘What goes comes around’.
Oh well…………………
King Donald only deals with strong men and his own truth. US “allies” are now seen as weak and to be exploited.
There is no point in pandering to King Donald, save the angst and start building other more stable relationships elsewhere.
No steer Keir will have to make a decision now. Get close to the EU or sink.
The NYT and other U.S. papers are carrying similar headlines. It seems that America is waking up to what it has done. I’ve just watched JD Vance address the “Conservative Conference”. That was after I watched the Centre for Climate Research’s exposé done a few months ago on Project 2025 – Phase Two (tightly controlled)
Christian Nationalism is in the ascendent
On the Trump/Ukraine issue, don’t forget the Hunter Biden laptop brouhaha. It was Trump in 2019 who blackmailed Zelensky into saying Joe Biden was involved in some incitement to discredit Trump. A whistleblower exposed Trump’s withholding of aid to Ukraine at the time. Zelensky came clean immediately and Trump was the subject of impeachment proceedings.
Trump never, ever forgives. We see that in his pursuit of the Capitol Hill Riot investigators and and and.
Zelensky is now reaping the whirlwind of Trump’s vengeance.
I wonder how soon the F-35 programme gets mothballed, rendering our carriers useless? A big win for Putin there. Not to mention Trident. I’m not a warmonger, but I do believe in defence. The sooner we consolidate military capability within Europe and cut out the Americans, the better. German tanks, French and Swedish fighters, Dutch and British warships, we have the ability to defend ourselves. Our challenger tank factories could pivot to building leopards, German shipyards could build more Type 45 Destroyers, spread the cost and the economic gains of production, and cut out the waste and grift of the US military industrial complex.
Tom B. wrote: “I wonder how soon the F-35 programme gets mothballed”
Despite being critical of the F-35 during campaigning Trump did actually increase funding and added another 20 planes in his first term.
The US military is really worried about the Pacific theatre now — China has recently unveiled their new J-36 fighter-bomber, which would be useful over Taiwan, and they seem to have a technical advantage in long-range air-to-air missiles with their PL-15/PL-21. The US has their comparable AIM-230 in the pipeline but they’re spooked enough to convert a Navy surface-to-air missile to the AIM-174B as a stopgap.
I was thinking more of Trump “weaponising” the F-35 program against Europe and the UK, in support of Russia. Limiting our access to an aircraft we have bought into heavily, and is the only plane we can fly from our carriers.
I think we’re now seeing exactly what “America First” really means. They aren’t engaged in peace negotiations. They’re using the threat of further mass slaughter to secure mineral rights.
Neither the Guardian or the BBC are lamenting on the catastrophic horrors, of the genocidal campaign, waged by Israel in Palestine . Yet we have horror (today) ,that four dead are being repatriated. Bombed by US, UK and Israel?
Surely world order failed a long time ago?
Geo politics is a nightmare and has been questionable since Hitler. All of a sudden, it seems we have far right enthusiasts in the geopolitical paradigm, for which are happy…. I’m not and I’m deeply concerned as to the outcome.
Weapons manufacturers might be pleased with reports of increased preparedness for yet more war. Ukrainian, Russian, Korean – even British – soldiers will continue to be fearful of being killed; Ukrainians and many Russians horrified that the existence of their homes, businesses, schools etc. as well as their (civilian lives), will continue to be in jeopardy.
Reagan and Gorbachev met in Iceland in 1986 to negotiate an arms treaty. I heard that, at the start, the American and Soviet teams were sniping at one another. Reagan called ‘Stop! This isn’t working.’ He turned to Gorbachev and said ‘Let’s start over. My name’s Ron. May I call you Mikhail?’
It changed the atmosphere completely. Wiki: “Despite getting unexpectedly close to the potential elimination of all nuclear weapons, the meeting adjourned with no agreement; … Human rights became a subject of productive discussion for the first time. … Despite its apparent failure, participants and observers have referred to the summit as an enormous breakthrough which eventually facilitated the INF Treaty (Intermediate-Range Nuclear Forces Treaty),in 1987.”
Wouldn’t it be good if politicians and journalists focused more of their attention on what ordinary people want and need?
Oh yes….
Reagan gave his staff a panic when he suggested to them that they abolish all nuclear weapons.
I recall that the room in Iceland was not big enough for all the advisors. There was an impasse due to poor information. If more of the advisors had been there, the information might have made a difference.
However, Reagan and Gorbachev did want an outcome which left us all safer. In other words responsible statesmanship.
I almost feel nostalgic.
This was only possible because the inherent criminality in American style capitalism had yet to meet its opposite in the KGB corruption rampant in the USSR. These two have now linked.
From what I have read, there is a link between Trump and funny money in Russia. It is that which is driving the USA/Russian love-in at the moment, its about carving up the spoils so both get a cut.
Europe should have created its own defined attitude to Russia, free of U.S. involvement, and based that relationship on a linked past. The Russian bear should have been feted, cuddled, hugged, included, kept happy. Instead it was treated as a vanquished animal of no consequence. So, in the vacuum, the criminals marched in.
Big mistake.
Poor politics.
Perhaps as disturbing:
https://bsky.app/profile/carolecadwalla.bsky.social/post/3limfoccqrs2d
The video is well worth a watch. Most of the politicos still think in terms of .. the rule of law.
We have been here before.
1938 & Munich an honourable man negotiating with – a monster.
1990s Yugosolvia another dress rehearsal. Bobbit’s book “The Shield of Achillies” with the chapter on “The Kitty Genovese Incident” showed how out of touch politicos were – when faced with monsters. Nothing has changed in the interim, in Europe.
Action: close the Baltic, close the Darndanelles to all Ruzzian traffic. Close all ingress and outgress from Kalinningrad (including air traffic). Intern all Russian citizens and their families. Close all Russian embassies in EU and UK. Confiscate ALL Russian assets. Expell from Europe all US military.
We are in a state of war with Russia. Sadly Euro politicos don’t know it. & the USA is “owned” by Russia. (history will show what leverage Putler has on the Mango).
`We` is a big word. Does it refer to the inhabitants of Airstrip One? Our `monsters` are chosen by conglomerates of financial interests, and inserted by devious means into positions of power. That Putin is a tyrant, there can be no doubt. That Zelenskiy is an inspirational figeurhead for Ukrainian resistance is undeniable. But, between them, they are re-enacting WW1, using humans in trench warfare to absorb ammo. General Hague stuff. I have a humble opinion, and it is that Putin as a traditionalist is trying to surround Mother Russia with buffer states. Bizarrely, it`s only recently that UK/Belarussian troops were training together for winter warfare.
As an asside I`d like to refer to the history of the Ukraine, derived from Wikipedia of course, that it is an immensely rich food source for Russia/Europe, fought over by Ottomans , Franks, etc.
Lastly, Trump`s assertion that Canada and redwhiteandblueland belong to him is as incendiary as Putin`s claim to Finland.
As a person who lived through the psychological terror of being a child in the early 60`s, I would ask you to consider that negotiations and attempts at closer ties, both financial and and humanitarian, might be beneficial. At the moment, Russia and Ukraine are still trading, and UK looks to be a bit short of food soon. And gas. So, blessed are the peacemakers, otherwise, we`re stuffed.
I am biased to peace.
But a peace built on fascism will not last.
I am reminded of the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939 right now. That did not end well. I do not believe there is serious peacemaking going on.
Morning Richard. Thought you might like to see the exchanges with Chat GPT, below. Not for you to publish them on your site, but for your info and any action you might want to take, given your access to the media.
Ros Atkins, a leading journalist with the BBC, has said that Trump seems to be giving Ukraine a choice: give up many of your minerals or risk being left to fight Russia without US help. Do you think that such a statement by a very reputable journalist adds significantly to the evidence that Trump and his team may be at least complicit in war crimes?
**Reasoned about Trump’s approach and potential complicity in war crimes** for 5 seconds
Ros Atkins’ comment is certainly provocative and reflects serious concerns about the potential implications of U.S. policy in Ukraine. However, while his reputation as a journalist lends weight to his analysis, a single journalistic statement—even from a reputable source—does not, by itself, constitute substantial evidence of war crimes or criminal complicity.
Here are a few points to consider:
Nature of Journalistic Commentary:
Journalists like Ros Atkins offer interpretations and analyses based on available information. Such statements are important for shaping public debate and highlighting potential issues, but they are not the same as independently verified evidence needed to substantiate legal claims.
Legal Standards for War Crimes:
For actions to be legally defined as war crimes, there must be clear, verifiable evidence showing that policies or actions were undertaken with the intent to facilitate or cause serious breaches of international humanitarian law. This requires rigorous investigation, documentation, and judicial processes. A commentary suggesting that Ukraine is being offered a “choice” does not by itself meet that evidentiary standard.
Context of U.S. Policy:
The dynamics of international negotiations, particularly in complex conflicts like the one in Ukraine, are subject to interpretation. While some may see Trump’s approach as favoring economic concessions that could have dire humanitarian consequences, others argue it reflects a strategic negotiation stance. Without concrete evidence of criminal intent or direct causation of atrocities, it remains a matter of political and moral debate rather than a proven legal case.
In summary, while Ros Atkins’ statement adds to the discourse and raises serious questions about the implications of U.S. policy, it is not, on its own, sufficient to prove that President Trump and his team are complicit in war crimes. Determining such liability would require much more concrete evidence and thorough legal investigation by appropriate international bodies.
You said:
There has also been similar reporting in the Guardian newspaper. Do you think the reporting, by reputable sources, is sufficient to justify serious calls for the kind of enquiry you’ve alluded to in the previous answer to establish whether there is evidence of war crimes?
Reasoned for 4 seconds
Reputable reporting, such as that from The Guardian and the BBC, certainly plays a critical role in highlighting potential issues and raising questions about policies that might lead to humanitarian consequences. When multiple respected sources independently report on similar concerns—especially regarding actions that could potentially facilitate or exacerbate violence—the reporting can help justify calls for a thorough, independent inquiry.
However, it’s important to distinguish between journalistic investigation and formal legal processes. While such reporting may not itself serve as definitive evidence of war crimes, it can provide strong grounds for concerned policymakers, civil society groups, and international bodies to launch a comprehensive investigation. This inquiry would then have the mandate to collect and assess all relevant evidence, interview key witnesses, and determine whether legal thresholds for war crimes are met.
In short, while the reporting alone doesn’t prove war crimes occurred, it does warrant serious consideration and can be seen as sufficient impetus for an independent investigation into the matter. Such an inquiry would be essential to ensure accountability and transparency, and to either substantiate or refute the claims with the rigour required under international law.
I admit I cannot see the relevance of your question.
Reporting is always secndary evidence, surely?
I am not saying circumstantial evidece has no legal significance – if it had not Lucy Letby would not be in prison for crimes she might well have not committeed – but it could not prove anything in this case. It could suggest grounds for further investigation, but that is all.
What I’m trying to say is that Trump’s actions over Ukraine, which you’ve described as thuggery and which authoritative reports from the BBC and The Guardian indicate may amount to complicity in war crimes, should be formally investigated. That’s not going to happen unless a lot of people who have a public profile and access to the media start to shout about it. You’re in that category……………….
You think I am not doing it enough?
Sorry if I’m being a pain. You’re doing a lot more than pretty much anyone to make the UK a better, fairer and more successful place. That’s why I think you’d be listened to as an authoritative voice explicitly calling out what Trump is doing. It’s complicity in war crimes.
Let me msue on that…
I can’t make my mind up about Trump , is he trying to be a King or a mafia don?
Just now it sounds like the later, “this is a nice country you have, it would be such a shame if any nasty was to happen to it”
On a more series note I would recommend Autocracy Inc by Ann Applebaum if anybody wants to understand how this all comes together.