By John Helmer, Moscow
@bears_with
In a single day of this week, Tuesday December 2, Russian officials admitted that negotiations of an end-of-war settlement with the US are failing for lack of American specificity on the territorial and demilitarization issues and of “genuineness” and “sincerity” on ending the sanctions war; that there are serious, unresolved, and unexplained differences with strategic ally China; and that in response to questions from strategic ally India, the Kremlin is unready to say what side President Vladimir Putin will take if fighting breaks out again between Indian and Chinese forces along their Himalayan frontier.
The hegemonic media of the western alliance against Russia have missed all three. But so too have the Americanocentric alt-media and the Yankocentric podcasters. An exception is Jamarl Thomas in today’s 78-minute podcast, Click to view: starting at Min 1:33:06.
In their afternoon walk in the centre of Old Moscow (lead image), and then in their five-hour conversation at the Kremlin, President Donald Trump’s negotiator Steven Witkoff and Trump’s son-in-law Jared Kushner appeared to be pointing in the wrong direction to save Trump from losing his Ukraine war to the advancing Russian military.
“Not an easy situation, let me tell you,” Trump told a Cabinet meeting in front of reporters as Witkoff and Kushner were halfway through their meeting at the Kremlin, before they reported back to Trump. “What a mess. It’s a war that never would have happened if I were president.” Asked if he had an “update”, Trump replied: “No update, because I’ve been spending too much time with you. I mean, we’re spending a lot of time in here. We wanted to do this very — you talk about being open and transparent. This has to be the most transparent administration in history. No, I don’t — I will have after I leave here. ”
That was noon time in Washington. The Kremlin meeting ended two hours later. Witkoff and Kushner then went to the US Embassy to telephone the White House. They have said nothing in public, not even to their favourite megaphone, Fox News. Its headline was “diplomatic deadlock”, relying entirely on the detailed readout of the negotiations from Yury Ushakov, Putin’s foreign affairs adviser.
Trump has remained uncharacteristically silent through the day and night which have followed. He has answered no reporter question on the Kremlin meeting; published no tweet.
Instead, he agreed that Marco Rubio, his National Security Advisor and Secretary of State, should speak to Fox on Trump’s behalf. Up went the smokescreen.
“At the end of the day, it’s not up to us. It’s not our war,” Rubio claimed. “We’re not fighting it.” Rubio was conceding that Trump’s effort to withdraw from the war with a peace agreement was also weakening. “If there is a way to bridge the divide between the two sides, we’re the only ones in the world that can do it, and that’s what we’re trying to do.”
Rubio claimed also that the Ukrainians are winning territory, not losing it. “What people forget, Sean [Hannity, Fox], is that at some point in this war, Russia controlled substantially more territory in Ukraine than they do now. The Ukrainians – if you look at what that map looked like in March or April after the invasion, or May, three months after the invasion, and what it looks like now, the Ukrainians have pushed the Russians way back from where they were. So they’ve already achieved tremendous things.”
The blame to come, Rubio concluded, would not be Trump’s but Putin’s.
“Ultimately it’s going to be up to them. If they decide they don’t want to end the war, then the war will continue…It’s hard to tell about confidence level on it, because ultimately the decisions have to be made, in the case of Russia, by Putin alone, not his advisors. Putin – only Putin can end this war on the Russian side…I think we’ve made some progress. We’ve gotten closer, but we’re still not there. We’re still not close enough. But that could change. I hope it changes.”
Trump and his officials weren’t pointing in the wrong direction, Rubio was saying. Ushakov’s catalogue of the differences Putin had just elaborated to Witkoff and Kushner was, Rubio insisted, Putin’s mistake. For the silent Trump Rubio was refusing to get the Russian message. Instead, Trump and his men weren’t giving up on Kiev. “What we have tried to do – and I think have made some progress – is figure out what could the Ukrainians live with that gives them security guarantees for the future they’re never going to be invaded again, allows them not just to rebuild their economy but to prosper as a country, be a country that has an economy that grows. Theoretically, doing the right things, in 10 years Ukraine’s GDP could be larger than Russia’s.”
If Witkoff had told Putin otherwise – there is no evidence that Kushner opened his mouth to say anything in Moscow – the Trump line is now as clearly negative towards Russia’s terms as the Europeans and the Zelensky regime in Kiev.
But it is the Europeans, Putin has insisted publicly, who have “abandoned peace talks and are now impeding President Trump…they have no peace agenda; they are on the side of war. Even when they ostensibly attempt to introduce amendments to Trump’s proposals, we see this clearly – all their amendments are directed towards one single aim: to completely obstruct this entire peace process, to put forward demands that are utterly unacceptable to Russia (they understand this), and thereby subsequently to place the blame for the collapse of the peace process upon Russia. That is their objective. We see this plainly.”
After Rubio has spoken for Trump, tidying up after Witkoff and Kushner, what exactly can be seen plainly now?
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sOAmiGdW6tQ
- Yury Ushakov’s readout of the Witkoff-Kushner meeting at the Kremlin
As Putin’s advisor and spokesman on foreign affairs, Yury Ushakov has almost never been critical of President Trump’s proposals for ending the Ukraine war – until now.
Referring to the Miami, Geneva and Abu Dhabi term sheets which have been reported in the western press, Ushakov added that Witkoff tabled new papers — “several further documents – four, to be precise – which were also discussed today during our President’s meeting with Mr Witkoff and Mr Kushner.” Ushakov underlined the negative reaction. “We discussed these documents. We did not discuss the wording or specific American proposals. We discussed the essence of these American documents. We agree with some of them, as the President has told our interlocutors, while other elements elicited some criticism, and the President made no secret of our critical and even negative attitude towards some of the proposals.”
One of the new papers covered the definition of the new border between Russia and the Ukraine, the so-called territorial issue. Ushakov reported that Putin said no. “It is, of course, a matter of utmost importance to us, and to the Americans as well…No compromise option has yet been found. However, some of the American proposals appear more or less acceptable. They do, nevertheless, require further discussion. Certain wording we have been offered is not suitable for us.”
Another of the new papers covered the terms of an end to the economic war, the US and European Union sanctions war against Russia, and the plan for restoration of trade, investment, banking and payment links. The US term sheet was unconvincing, Ushakov said. “A great deal has been said on that issue before as well, during our previous meetings. But this time it has been pointed out that there are vast opportunities for cooperation if we genuinely want this. If we do, it is time to demonstrate a sincere desire for cooperation both in Moscow and in Washington.” The conditional “if”, the adverb “genuinely”, and the adjective “sincere” are all Russian for no deal has been tabled by the Americans to end the economic war, despite all the big-money projects which Putin’s business representative, Kirill Dmitriev, has tabled with Witkoff and promoted in public.
Source: http://en.kremlin.ru/events/president/news/78638
In an unusual breach of the official address protocol in such meetings, Ushakov revealed that on the US side of the table Putin recognised “Mr Witkoff” (repeated four times) but Kushner was “Mr” three times in Ushakov’s readout, and “Jared” twice; “Steve” was not mentioned. Ushakov went further, complimenting Kushner for the Gaza genocide operation. “He is a relatively new participant, but he worked quite productively with Mr Witkoff in the Middle East, as you may know. The achievements in Gaza were the result not only of Mr Witkoff and other US representatives, but also of Jared, of course. He joined the Russian-American and Ukrainian dossier some time ago, and specifically, he has taken an active part, as I understand, in drafting the documents that have been handed over to us.”
KUSHNER — FACE WITHOUT EXPRESSION
Jared Kushner spent less than an hour in Moscow within camera range, first during a walk outside the Bolshoi Theatre (lead image), then inside the Kremlin. According to the scientific literature, photographs of his expressionless visage may indicate low IQ which fails to register the significance of scenes and conversations around him. Alternatively, as an Orthodox Jewish adept, Kushner may hold the belief that photographs of his face are graven (forbidden) images. Failure to smile, trial lawyers say, is a test for witness credibility indicating liars. An expert dermatologist says that immobility in the 44-year old’s face can be caused by botox treatment for removal of the deep facial lines visible when he was younger. Kushner’s vocal chords may also have been damaged by thyroid cancer surgery in 2019.
- Meetings in Moscow at the Security Council and the Russian Foreign Ministry with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi
According to the Chinese readout of Wang Yi’s meeting at the Security Council with its chief, Sergei Shoigu, the priority was Japan. “China and Russia have reached a ‘high degree’ of strategic consensus on issues related to Japan and jointly oppose the revival of ‘Japanese militarism’, Beijing said after Foreign Minister Wang Yi met chief Kremlin security aide Sergei Shoigu in Moscow… Wang and Shoigu had ‘comprehensive and in-depth’ exchanges on major issues concerning the strategic security interests of both countries and concluded their talks with mutual trust strengthened. ‘The two sides conducted strategic alignment on issues related to Japan, reaching a high degree of consensus,’ the statement said about the latest round of talks under a security consultation mechanism established two decades ago. ‘They agreed to resolutely uphold the outcomes of World War II victory, firmly oppose any attempts to whitewash colonial aggression and resolutely counter any attempts to revive fascism or Japanese militarism.’”
That was Minister Wang’s morning work. In the afternoon he went to the Foreign Ministry (MiD) to meet Minister Sergei Lavrov. There was no mention of Japan in the Russian Foreign Ministry’s public account of their talks.
Lavrov opened the meeting with Wang with remarks prepared for the press: “I hope that today’s meeting will offer us an opportunity to have a trust-based conversation – this is the way friends must communicate – to go over all these matters and outline specific steps for moving toward fulfilling our leaders’ agreements.” This is unusually tentative, defensive almost.
Source: https://mid.ru/en/foreign_policy/news/2062412/
Source: https://mid.ru/ru/foreign_policy/news/2062479/
Is this a signal that there are serious differences between the two powers, problems of conflicting intentions or actions, and if so, on what issues of security and war strategy?
There is no answer in the communiqué issued after the meeting at MiD. This text is also defensive. “On December 2, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov held talks with Foreign Minister of the People’s Republic of China Wang Yi in Moscow. Wang Yi came to Moscow to take part, in conjunction with Security Council Secretary Sergey Shoigu, in the 20th round of Russian-Chinese consultations on strategic security…Special emphasis was placed on prospects for resolving the Ukraine crisis based on eliminating the root causes of the conflict and proper consideration of the fundamental interests of the Russian Federation, the situation in the Asia-Pacific region, and other matters of mutual interest. Following the talks, the sides noted overlapping or close positions on all key bilateral and international issues, which fact serves as a foundation for stable positive dynamics of Russia-China strategic partnership regardless of the complex geopolitical environment.”
As adjectives of separation go, “overlapping” and “close” imply there are significant points on which the Russians cannot get the Chinese to agree.
- Dmitry Peskov briefs Indian media ahead of Putin visit to Delhi commencing on December 4
The Russian state media organised a special advance briefing by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov for the Indian press. Peskov was speaking by videolink from Moscow to the reporters gathered in Delhi.
A key question of Russian strategy was asked by Raj Chengappa, Editorial Director of the India Today group. “Can Moscow give any assurance, even privately, that in a crisis between China and India Russia would not tilt decisively towards Beijing?” Peskov answered: “India wants to listen to us. We want to explain ourselves. India hears us, and it’s a mutual understanding. And it’s also our privileged strategic partner. And we enjoy a very, very high level of cooperation with China in various fields, like with India. And yes, it’s our readiness to enhance, to develop our cooperation with China in various fields with no limits. But the same stand we have with India. We are ready to go as far as India is ready. We respect bilateral relationship between India and China, and we have no doubt that the two oldest countries to [inaudible line cut] in order to keep global stability, global predictability, and global peace, and regional peace. Russia will continue to develop our friendship with India and with China. Thank you.”
Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jfRdHV_wr5M – Min 22-24:43.
The Indian reaction has been sceptical of Peskov’s responsiveness on the China question, and also on the support Russia undertakes to give India in its war against Pakistan-based and Pakistan directed terrorist attacks in India.
In its detailed report of the two-day programme of Putin’s visit to Delhi, the leading English language newspaper Hindustan Times omitted to report Peskov’s answers on the China and Pakistan strategy issues.
Outlook India, part of a multi-media group owned by the Rajan Raheja business conglomerate, editorialised: “Russia faces an uncertain future in Ukraine and equally mercurial USA as well as a belligerent Europe. Its friendship with China is also tactical. Its ties with Pakistan are transactional and an attempt to keep the Chinese balanced in the region…It is a cliché to call the Russia India relationship time tested but in the current circumstances both need each other more than ever . India faces a transactional USA under Trump 2.0, who spares no one, friends or foes alike, on the altar of personal and family interests and a China that sings a difficult tune to India for many years now despite a recent tactical thaw and rapprochement… India has so far managed to balance its ties with both Russia and the US. But if US-Russia ties break down over Ukraine, the situation may become difficult for India.”
Leave a Reply