As the Left unites with Islamists to march against Israel, what it forgets is that Zionism was always a progressive movement – and the Irish forget that they originally identified with the Jews, says Andres Roth.
The post The Left Forgets That Zionism is a Progressive Movement appeared first on The Daily Sceptic.
Netanyahu is telling Trump that he needs now to finish the job of destroying Iran
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
The ‘Grand Design’ to “maintain [western civilisation’s] place at the head of the world” (as U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio put it) requires the tools for ensuring compliance are two-fold: The creating of destructive revolutionary fervour from below (now termed ‘regime change’); and secondly, the use of what Theodore Herzl in a now famous phrase termed “the terrible power of the purse to exert irresistible pressure on international politics” in order to co-opt the ruling strata into a power network that would advance the Grand Design ‘project’.
This is what we are observing with Trump’s war on Iran. The June 2025 Israeli-American attack was primarily a decapitation attack designed to disable both Iran’s political and military leadership, whilst armed Mossad trained elements, the MEK and Baluchi separatists inter alia would be inserted into Iran to foment revolution from the street below. At that time, the former Shah’s son – implausibly – was being presented to the western media as the incoming leader of Iran.
It did not work. And now Netanyahu is touting that Israel has ‘fresh evidence’ that Iran is moving towards producing a weapon component to its nuclear programme. He is telling Trump that he needs now to finish the job of destroying Iran. And to motivate Trump further, leadingIsraeli daily Ma’ariv reports that Israel stove-piped Likud polling directly into the White House to the effect that Netanyahu might win the Israeli elections on 27 October. According to the report, this Likud information (that runs counter to most other Israeli polls) prompted Trump’s full-hearted election endorsement of Netanyahu.
At the same time, the pro-Zionist billionaire donors are wielding the ‘terrible power of the purse’ at Trump: ‘We will not accept anything less than the defeat of Iran. If you continue to seek a deal we will pull our financial support from you’.
Senior current and former security officials in Israel however, refute the need for an imminent attack on Iran and Netanyahu’s claim of new evidence of Iran moving toward a nuclear weapon –
IDF Chief of Staff Zamir told Israel’s Channel 13: “We don’t see a need to attack Iran before the elections”;
Leading Israeli military strategist Udi Evental has cautioned:
“A war to thwart the elections and democracy, not to thwart Iran’s nuclear programme. Netanyahu, who is suspected of being up to his neck in extraneous political and personal considerations, is unfit to make such a decision. He must not be allowed to”.
Whether or not there is such evidence really does not matter. Likely it doesn’t exist. The claim simply forms the peg on which the U.S. is beingtold to take action to ‘finish the job’ on Iran.
As ever, Netanyahu said in the last days:
“Iran is once again trying to develop its weapons of death … There is only one way to remove this threat once and for all – to topple the regime in Iran, and that is my directive to the IDF, the Mossad and the security agencies.”
A senior Iranian official told Drop Site that Tehran’s current internal intelligence assessment indicates a high likelihood that large-scale bombing may begin – even before Tuesday’s Israeli elections.
The point here is that Iran does not care who wins in the midterms, nor who will win the U.S. Presidency in 2028. For the Iranian leadership it is all the same. They well understand the concept of the ‘Grand Design’ (how could they not?).
It is well understood in Iran that they are engaged in a long war confronting the entire Atlanticist bloc – Israel, its intelligence services, its arsenals, its satellites, its military industry, and its media machine. It does not matter whether it is a Republican or a Democrat in the White House. Senior Iranian officials see both parties to have been bought by the Zionist terrible power of the purse.
Understanding the ‘Design’ is to understand that the Zionist donor class will never be satisfied by some ‘deal or trade-off’. They claim it to be certain that Iran ultimately would renege on any mooted acquiescence to U.S. demands. Israelis and their donor class auxiliaries simply do not believe (and repeat incessantly) that Iran would ever accept compliance to Israel, or to accept U.S. political and cultural dominance.
They may be right. Why?
Simply because Iran has a deep civilisation, stretching back to a specifically Persian-Iranian complex of beliefs and practices of the second millennium BCE – Mazdaism, a cosmology of divine drama, represented by the continuing struggle between Light and Darkness.
The renown scholar, Professor Henri Corbin, has argued that “Iran was situated at a centre … it being not only a nation or an empire, but a spiritual universe”. He understood Iran therefore, as a mediating force, both geographically and metaphysically.
For millenia, Iranians have experienced the world as having a clear metaphysical dimension – and history. It is therefore unlikely that they would be attracted to a western nihilistic material posture. Civilisational states, whether Iran or Russia, that embrace contrarian values would never succumb to the ‘Grand Design’. Hence, they must be destroyed.
What does this metaphysical history mean? It means that Iran is preparing for war, not for a ‘deal’. Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council and personal representative of Supreme Leader Ayatollah Mojtaba Khamenei, stated that,
“If the question is whether Iran still has the ability to continue missile and drone operations [in the event of an attack], the answer is ‘yes’ … The United States has valuable assets in the region. In the event of war, cables, data centres and artificial intelligence facilities could also come within range. If the conflict begins again, we will have a broader plan”.
“Everyone must understand that action against Iran carries a cost”.
Senior Iranian officials believe that war is coming. Iran has extensive plans (in the event of an attack) that encompasses Saudi Arabia and its leadership, too, a senior Iranian hinted. Karl Miller (from the field) states that in this respect, already a quarter of Saudi oil production has been destroyed and that the damage as a result of AnsarAllah’s retaliatory attacks runs through the whole Saudi production chain – ‘from wellhead to the gas station’ – and that Saudi Arabia has been covering the gap by draining their tanks.
Miller’s report, quoted by Larry Johnson, warns that,
“if Saudi Arabia’s export outlets close, its oil has nowhere to go but to its own refineries, its own power plants and its storage tanks. Once the storage is full, that is roughly the ceiling on what Saudi Arabia could keep producing. Close Ras Tanura and Yanbu at the same time, and the Kingdom would have to shut in most of its oil fields. That is exactly the scenario Ansar Allah’s campaign against the pipeline, the Red Sea and the Gulf terminals, is built to produce”.
“Any new American or Israeli campaign against Iran will land on a Saudi energy system that has no slack left to absorb it”, Larry Johnson observes.
Any new attack on Iran, by extension, will mean the end to the Gulf as we know it, an end to the petrodollar, and an end to the Gulf as the primary supplier of hard cash to Wall Street and the Tech world.
Nonetheless, Trump reportedly has said that the U.S. is not currently negotiating with Iran, and something will happen “fairly soon”.
Maybe. (But with Trump everything distils into speculation). But if he is bluffing, it won’t work, and his humiliation will be all the deeper.
One man who knows Trump better than most (having authored four books on him), Michael Wolff, opines that if the Democrats win in the 3 November midterms –
“They will be trying to impress upon the world that it is ‘a new day’. Trump, for his part, will be trying to impress upon the world that he still controls the stage. There will be a series of these kinds of things (such as a putative invasion of Cuba, for example) greater than anything we may have imagined. He will not be humbled. The idea of humility does not exist in Donald Trump’s soul. Therefore he will do – the opposite”.
“Not retreat but attack”.
Pope Leo XIV demands an end to Yemen hostilities, highlights Taiz’s humanitarian crisis and calls for peace after a deadly church attack in Jordan.
Related: Pope Leo XIV Confirms Official Visit to Argentina in November
Pope Leo XIV demanded an immediate end to Yemen hostilities during his Angelus address on Sunday, October 25, warning that civilians are paying the highest price in the conflict. Speaking from the window of the Apostolic Palace before thousands of faithful gathered in St. Peter’s Square, the pope expressed deep concern over the humanitarian situation in Yemen.
He paid particular attention to the city of Taiz, where residents are suffering from severe shortages of food, drinking water and medical care.
“I make a heartfelt appeal for hostilities to cease and for the Yemeni people and all the peoples of the region to be guaranteed the right to live in peace,” Pope Leo said.
The pope’s message came as fighting and road closures have cut off vital supplies in Taiz, leaving civilians increasingly isolated. The Vatican said the pope’s appeal was directed at all parties involved in the conflict and at the international community.
Pope Leo also condemned the broader spiral of violence affecting West Asia, calling for urgent guarantees for regional peace. He denounced the devastating consequences of armed confrontations across the region and urged leaders to choose dialogue over war.
The pontiff said wars not only cause death and destruction but also impoverish and damage the world. His appeal placed the humanitarian suffering of Yemeni civilians at the center of the Vatican’s message.
Pope Leo XIV draws attention to the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, remembers victims of an attack on Christians in Jordan, and looks ahead to the Assisi gathering marking 40 years since the first World Day of Prayer for Peace.https://t.co/UZ47Hb6oMw
— Vatican News (@VaticanNews) October 25, 2026
Vatican News | United Nations Office for the Coordination of Humanitarian Affairs
The pope’s warning focused on Taiz, a city that has become one of the most visible symbols of Yemen’s humanitarian crisis.
Residents face severe shortages of food, clean water, fuel and basic medical services as fighting and road closures restrict the movement of supplies.
Humanitarian organizations have warned that the blockade of supply routes has worsened conditions for hundreds of thousands of people.
The United Nations has repeatedly called for unimpeded humanitarian access to affected communities across Yemen.
Yemen has been devastated by years of war, economic collapse and the destruction of essential infrastructure.
The conflict has left millions of people dependent on humanitarian assistance and has created one of the world’s most severe food-security emergencies.
The pope said the Yemeni people, like all peoples of the region, have the right to live in peace.
His message also called for an end to the cycle of violence that has spread across West Asia.
Pope Leo condemned the human cost of armed conflict and urged the international community to prioritize negotiation and diplomacy.
The Vatican has repeatedly emphasized that military solutions cannot resolve political crises or address the needs of civilians.
The pope’s appeal comes amid heightened tensions across the Middle East, where conflicts have displaced communities, damaged infrastructure and deepened humanitarian needs.
The Vatican’s message called for a regional approach to peace that protects civilians and guarantees access to humanitarian aid.
🚨 Saná denunció que Arabia Saudita incumplió pactos previos a 2023 al bombardear el aeropuerto de la capital y poner fin a la tregua. Mohammed Abdul-Salam afirmó que la vía diplomática se agotó tras la falta de respuestas claras de Riad. #Yemen #ArabiaSaudita #teleSUR #19Oct pic.twitter.com/ONZhAvdkCG
— teleSUR TV (@teleSURtv) October 19, 2026
Jordan News Agency | Middle East Council of Churches
Pope Leo XIV also addressed the deadly attack on worshippers at Saint George’s Orthodox Church in Hamoud, in Jordan’s Karak governorate.
The attack occurred on Friday, October 23, during a funeral service at the church.
Jordanian authorities said gunmen opened fire on worshippers, killing nine people and wounding around 40 others.
The pope prayed for those killed and injured in the attack and expressed his closeness to the affected community.
He also expressed solidarity with Jordan, a country he praised for its history of peaceful coexistence and respect among different religions.
Jordan declared three days of national mourning following the attack.
Jordanian authorities launched an investigation to identify those responsible. No group had claimed responsibility for the attack as of Sunday.
Christian leaders across the region condemned the attack as a crime against humanity and an assault on religious coexistence.
Patriarchs and heads of Churches in Jerusalem called on churches across the region to ring their bells in solidarity and pray for the victims.
The pope’s response highlighted the vulnerability of religious communities in a region marked by political instability and sectarian tensions.
His message emphasized that attacks on places of worship are attacks on human dignity and the right to religious freedom.
The Vatican has repeatedly called for the protection of Christian communities and all religious minorities in the Middle East.
119 ataques aéreos de la coalición saudita en 24 horas contra Yemen. En Taiz, un bombardeo a una escuela y un puesto sanitario dejó 3 muertos y 12 heridos, entre ellos mujeres y niños. La escalada supera 2.177 agresiones. #teleSUR #13oct pic.twitter.com/SLJn8j89uW
— teleSUR TV (@teleSURtv) October 13, 2026
Community of Sant’Egidio | Holy See Press Office
Pope Leo XIV called on the faithful to join spiritually in the peace gathering taking place in Assisi, Italy, on October 27.
The meeting, titled “Unarmed and Disarming Peace,” marks the 40th anniversary of the World Day of Prayer for Peace convened by Saint John Paul II in 1986.
The event is organized by the Community of Sant’Egidio and brings together religious leaders, representatives of Christian Churches and figures from other faiths.
The 2026 gathering includes 384 representatives of religions, cultures and institutions from 53 countries.
Participants will take part in 24 thematic forums addressing conflict, disarmament, migration, poverty, young people and the role of religions in building peace.
The pope had planned to attend the closing ceremony in person but canceled the trip on medical advice after undergoing thoracic surgery.
The Vatican said Pope Leo would send a message expressing his closeness to organizers and participants.
The pope urged believers around the world to join the Assisi gathering in prayer.
“Never has it been more evident that wars, in addition to sowing death and destruction, impoverish and harm the world,” he said.
The pope called on the international community to abandon weapons and commit decisively to understanding and harmony among peoples.
The Assisi meeting recalls the historic 1986 gathering, when Pope John Paul II brought together representatives of different religions to pray for peace.
That event became a landmark in interreligious dialogue and remains a reference point for Vatican diplomacy.
The 2026 meeting seeks to renew that tradition at a time of multiple conflicts and growing humanitarian crises.
The pope’s appeal on Yemen hostilities reflects the Vatican’s broader diplomatic effort to promote dialogue in a region marked by war and humanitarian emergencies.
Yemen’s conflict has become one of the world’s most severe humanitarian crises, with millions of people facing hunger, displacement and limited access to healthcare.
The war has drawn in regional and international powers, making a political solution increasingly difficult.
The crisis in Taiz illustrates how blockades, fighting and the collapse of public services can trap civilians between military objectives and humanitarian needs.
Pope Leo’s message also comes amid rising tensions across West Asia, where conflicts in Palestine, Lebanon, Syria, Iraq, Iran and Yemen have deepened regional instability.
The Vatican has positioned itself as a voice for civilian protection, humanitarian access and negotiated settlements.
The pope’s call for peace in Yemen and his solidarity with Jordan highlight the connection between armed conflict, religious violence and the erosion of social cohesion.
The Assisi gathering offers a platform for religious leaders to promote dialogue at a time when political institutions face growing difficulty in resolving conflicts.
The Vatican argues that interreligious cooperation can help reduce hatred, protect minorities and build conditions for peace.
The pope’s message is a reminder that wars have consequences beyond battlefields: they destroy economies, displace communities and damage the future of entire generations.
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has found a novel way of solving Britain’s cost-of-living crisis. By bombing Yemen.
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
British Prime Minister Andy Burnham has found a novel way of solving Britain’s cost-of-living crisis. By bombing Yemen.
Yes, you read that correctly. This week, Burnham authorized the deployment of British Typhoon fighter jets to Saudi Arabia for its war with Yemen.
Downing Street assured the British public that the deployment was for “defensive” operations only. The BBC and other British media outlets indulged this fantasy by repeating over and over that the Royal Air Force was being deployed for “defensive actions”. The RAF would not be engaging in attacking Yemen, it was claimed, and the British fighter jets were being sent to “protect” Saudi Arabia from “escalating” Houthi aggression.
Britain’s Minister of Defense Wes Streeting (a former health minister, please note) framed the RAF mission as necessary to counter instability in the Middle East and soaring energy prices. As if Britain was not the cause of instability and higher fuel costs by backing Trump’s aggression on Iran.
The Guardian reported: “The [British] military intervention [in Yemen] was partly justified because instability in the Middle East was driving up energy prices and affecting the cost of living.”
This logic is as absurd as it is gross deception.
Recall that Burnham was ushered into Downing Street in July to replace the hapless Keir Starmer as Labour prime minister. Burnham, formerly the Mayor of Manchester and posing with his working-class credentials, made a big public pitch that he would prioritize easing the cost-of-living crisis ravaging Britain.
However, since entering office, his most notable forays have been in foreign policy. For example, he has received the Ukrainian dictator Vladimir Zelensky in Downing Street with promises of more military aid in addition to the $20 billion that Britain has already provided (the second largest source of aid in Europe after Germany). Burnham has pledged to provide Ukraine with British blueprints for manufacturing cruise missiles.
Last month, Burnham announced that Britain was deploying an RAF in-air refuelling plane to “help” Saudi Arabia’s air strikes on Yemen. To allay public concerns about that move, Downing Street and the British media assured that the deployment was “defensive only” and for a limited period.
Ironically, Burnham made that announcement while travelling to address the United Nations General Assembly in New York, where he hailed Britain for offering world leadership for peace and security.
Now, again this week, the RAF deployment is extended to sending Typhoon fighter jets to Saudi Arabia. London is also providing a RAF A400M transport plane for troops and up to 100 military advisers.
This sounds like classic mission creep. Downing Street is aware of the exposure to public criticism. The prime minister’s office denied Britain was being dragged into the conflict. It said: “Our support for Saudi Arabia is considered, proportionate and focused on helping them defend themselves from relentless Houthi attacks.”
The British government and media are distorting the conflict between Saudi Arabia and Yemen as one of “aggression” by the Yemeni forces of Ansar Allah, referred to as “the Iran-backed Houthis”. That description makes the Yemenis sound like crazy terrorists who are being directed by Iran.
Here’s the BBC’s creative reporting: “The UK will deploy RAF Typhoon jets to defend Saudi Arabia in response to escalating Houthi missile and drone attacks, the government has said.”
The BBC goes on: “The defensive mission will help defend Saudi cities and infrastructure – a move authorised by Prime Minister Andy Burnham – against aerial attacks by the Iran-backed group… Since September, Saudi Arabia has been struggling to defend its skies from Houthi attacks after a ceasefire of sorts in Yemen broke down.”
This is reality inversion by the British state-owned media outlet.
The ceasefire in Yemen was violated in mid-July when Saudi Arabia launched air strikes on the international airport in Sanaa, the Yemeni capital, to target a delegation attending the state funeral of Iran’s Ayatollah Khamenei, who was murdered in a U.S.-Israeli air strike on his family home in Tehran on February 28.
That ceasefire was called in 2022 to end a seven-year war of aggression by Saudi Arabia against Yemen. The war began in 2015 to reinstate a Saudi puppet regime that the Ansar Allah-led Yemenis ousted in 2014. The Saudis bombed Yemen relentlessly for seven years with support of the United States, Britain, and France. An estimated 20,000 Yemenis were killed in air strikes, and around 300,000 died from a humanitarian blockade that the Western-backed Saudi coalition imposed on the country.
Britain’s military minister Wes Streeting referred to recent Yemeni strikes on Saudi Arabia as “despicable”. He mentioned a ballistic missile attack on October 10 on King Khalid international airport in the Saudi capital, Riyadh. At least 13 people were killed in the strike, and over 300 were injured.
The Ansar Allah-led Yemeni Armed Forces have also hit several other Saudi airports and key oil industry installations. The number of Saudi civilians killed in these attacks is relatively small, around 20, whereas Saudi warplanes have killed hundreds of Yemeni civilians since it broke the ceasefire in July. This week, eight Yemeni fishermen were killed in Saudi strikes. What Yemen is doing to Saudi Arabia is self-defense, not aggression.
London and its media propaganda are making out that Britain is “defending” Saudi Arabia. The reality is London is assisting Saudi aggression and war crimes.
Significantly, Streeting flew to Washington, DC, last week, where he met the war secretary, Pete Hegseth. Their agenda was about how to respond to “Houthi escalation.” Obviously, the junior partner got the memo: send warplanes to Yemen; we’re too busy with Iran.
Meanwhile, in Britain, an unprecedented social crisis is unfolding from poverty and a crippling cost of living. Charities report that four million families are having to go without adequate food or home heating because of soaring bills. Oxfam estimates that 13.5 million Britons, or a fifth of the population, are suffering from poverty. More than six million people rely on food charities for a modicum of sustenance.
It tells you everything about a state whose government does nothing about its own people’s dire needs but finds the resources to send warplanes to distant countries to bomb other poor people.
Andy Burnham is just another puppet who is assigned to put on a show in Downing Street for public appeasement. The imperial deep state has its hand up his rear. That’s mission creep in Downing Street.
On Thursday, Mohsen Rezaei, Secretary of Iran’s Supreme National Security Council, stated that any military aggression against his country would come at a high cost and asserted that Tehran possesses sufficient capabilities to respond to an escalation of the conflict.
RELATED: New U.S. and Israeli Military Actions Against Iran Would Be Underway
The Iranian official maintained that the country is prepared to face new stages of the conflict and considered that the evolution of the regional situation has favored certain strategic interests of the Islamic Republic.
Rezaei noted that Iran has not deployed all its resources in previous phases of the confrontation and has gradually incorporated new capabilities as regional tensions have increased.
On the economic front, he warned that a prolongation of hostilities could have significant consequences for international energy markets and perpetuate a “scenario of instability for several years.”
While emphasizing his country’s capacity to respond, Rezaei reiterated that Iran continues to prioritize the diplomatic route to resolve differences and prevent a further escalation of the crisis.
⚡️BREAKING: Iran has just Unveiled A New Long-Range One-Way Attack Drone
— Iran Observer (@IranObserver0) October 22, 2026
It is said to have a new navigation system and a 2x bigger warhead than previous generations and stealth characteristics pic.twitter.com/ksNbqnAgVB
His statements coincide with reports of possible Israeli plans targeting Iranian nuclear facilities, strategic infrastructure, and energy sectors, amid escalating tensions in the Middle East.
Journalistic analyses have also circulated linking potential military actions to the evolving political landscape in the United States and to debates on security policy in the region.
Meanwhile, sources cited by Iranian media have expressed concern about possible coordination between the United States and Israel, while questioning the effectiveness of current diplomatic mechanisms for reducing tensions.
This warning comes as the trade war that began in late February between the United States, Israel, and Iran approaches its eighth month, impacting maritime routes through the Strait of Hormuz and exerting continued pressure on international energy prices.
#Iran | The IRGC Navy warned of sanctions against vessels crossing the Strait of Hormuz with identification systems switched off.
— teleSUR English (@telesurenglish) October 20, 2026
The warning follows reports of an oil tanker striking a naval mine and catching fire, raising further concerns over maritime security.… pic.twitter.com/n3gt6aLNVS
teleSUR: JP
Source: teleSUR
Instead of prioritizing stakeholder profit, the Witkoff-Europe combo should address Eurasian security architecture and NATO-Russia-China frontiers to gain traction in Moscow.
Join us on Telegram, X, and VK.
Contact us: info@strategic-culture.su
Back in December 2025, U.S. commentator Sundance, writing in the Conservative Treehouse, wrote about Steve Witkoff and Jared Kushner’s new ‘Money Diplomacy’ solution for Ukraine that “require[d] [the establishment of] a system whereby the western opportunity for financial benefit continues”. From this perspective, the U.S. negotiators would “propose a long-term plan for continued financial benefit”.
From their current language it appears that Witkoff and Kusher are still confident they can construct a financial reward system for western banks, investors, politicians and Ukraine officials that will retain the benefits of war without the ancillary ingredient of bloodshed.
As Sundance noted —
“If the U.S. delegation can pull this off, then Russia can gain the territory they want, corrupt Ukraine officials can keep skimming investment money, the EU can retain the power it wants to extract financial payments, American politicians can use the “long-term recovery projects” for money laundering, and quasi-public/private investment banks can benefit from the exploitation of Ukraine resources”.
From this evident New York real estate worldview, all other issues — territorial boundaries, security and NATO’s encroachment into Central Asia’s security architecture — are but ‘downstream details’ “to the stuff that really matters, the money”.
Monetary diplomacy, however, has not brought a solution for Ukraine (nor for that matter, for Gaza either). Nonetheless, Witkoff has a new plan that David Ignatius has outlined in his column at the Washington Post.
Ignatius highlights that despite the recent Ukraine “flap” over its targetting of Russian refineries, “the U.S. and Europe are moving toward a joint peace proposal that would deliver financial and security benefits to both Ukraine and Russia as a baseline for a territorial settlement that falls short of both sides’ war aims”. In other words, ‘a sweetener’ dangled to persuade the sides to stop bombing each other’s refineries and to open the path for this ‘new’ initiative.
If Zelensky agrees to halt refinery attacks, “we’re back in, and we go to Moscow”, an American official told Ignatius.
In gist, the 4-point plan envisages a generous reconstruction framework to meet “Zelensky’s myriad cash needs”; security guarantees for Ukraine equivalent to NATO’s Article 5; the economic integration of Russia, Ukraine and Europe through an energy deal — “This might consist of a pipeline carrying Russian oil and gas to Europe with Ukraine and Russia splitting the profits. Such a pipeline could sharply reduce European energy costs”, a U.S. official said. In addition to providing Russia with “long-term access to the European energy market”, a peace deal would specify how and when existing economic sanctions on Russia would be removed.
The final point – wait for it — would be a ceasefire along the existing front line, or the ‘line of control’.
It seems extraordinary: The U.S. and Europeans negotiate amongst themselves, seemingly oblivious to the explicit statements issued by the Russian side.
Oil and gas would be supplied by Russia to the needy Europeans who voluntarily forsook their earlier cheap Russian supply, who are trapped by their own decisions and who denigrate Russia at every opportunity. And with the profits to be “split” with Ukraine? No way will Russia accept such a one-sided proposal.
FM Lavrov said at the UNGA no ceasefire under any format. That means that any negotiations would have to take place under fire, and Putin has suggested that even then, he would ‘think twice’ about starting any negotiations (whether under fire or not).
Putin’s spokesman Dmitry Peskov confirmed just last week that “piecemeal solutions and agreements” would prevent a comprehensive settlement from being reached; a “freeze” of the conflict would not help either —
“[Ukraine] is a highly complex matter, and the settlement must be comprehensive … We need a solution for future generations — one that is guaranteed and safeguarded against setbacks”.
It seems that the Europeans have not grasped that a Korean-style cessation of hostilities (as argued by General Kellogg) along a front where two militaries face each other is a recipe for precisely no solution. It has been 73 years since the Korean War was frozen by armistice. Nothing has changed.
The repeated return to this mantra of a ceasefire along line of contact, rather than solution first; ceasefire last, shouts out to the Russians that the West wants to keep Ukraine in the locker-room for the time when a platform from which to exert pressure (again) on Russia in the future is to be jacked-up.
The fatal flaw to this initiative is its cultural deafness. For Witkoff and Kushner it may be “all about the stuff that really matters – money” — but that is not the case for Russia.
If the Witkoff-Europe combo recalled Russian history, they would understand why, for Russia, security, security, security comes top.
Walter Munchau cautioned just this week that “the Ukraine war risks escalating” —
“We should be under no illusion about a war with Russia. We are absolutely not in a position to win. Whose bond markets are going to be blown up first? Who is going to run out of interceptor missiles first? … On every [count] — military, energy, finance — Europe is at a disadvantage. That’s not all. There is a relatively plausible scenario in which Ukraine and Iran merge into a single West Eurasian war — and become the ultimate proxy conflict between the U.S. and China”.
If, instead of putting continued ‘stakeholder’ grift first, with its mechanism to ensure “that the western opportunity for financial benefit continues”, the Witkoff-Europe combo chose rather to address the fundamentals to the conflict — the deeper question of a Eurasian security architecture; the definition of where exactly the frontier that separates NATO security interests from those of Sino-Russian interests physically lies — they might find a more receptive audience on their next trip to Moscow.
Alas, circumscribing NATO’s extent is not possible – as things stand.
© Arash Khamooshi/Polaris for The New York Times
Login