By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

There are two reasons why President Vladimir Putin is serious about making the Oreshnik threat of retaliation in public, and also serious in holding it back. A red light, which is also flashing yellow and green.  

One reason is political. Russian public opinion is strongly in favour of a peace settlement negotiated with President Donald Trump if that’s possible, and for as long as the public believes Putin should continue to try. Russians do not support military escalation by the Kremlin to compel a peace agreement in Washington and Kiev. This is because they don’t believe escalation  will work that way, and because the price they believe they will pay is too high to suffer.  Reflecting this calculation of cost, benefit, risk, and probability of outcome for escalation, public support for Putin’s performance, including his conduct of the war and negotiations with Trump,  is stable and high – 87% at the moment, two points short of the 2015 record.   

This indicator should not be misinterpreted as unconditional in the personality cult or state propaganda fashion. Rather, it is the calculated consensus that Putin’s combination of goals,  political and military, is the right one. Also, because Putin’s method of ambiguity, compromise, and flexibility is the only practical one for the time being.

The second reason is military. A strike by hypersonic multiple-warhead Oreshnik missiles against Ukrainian targets, including decapitation targets in Kiev and Lvov, will not produce the capitulation of the Ukrainian regime and surrender of the Ukrainian armed forces. It also cannot stop or deter the US, Germany, France, the UK, Poland, Finland, and other NATO states from continuing their war against Russia on the Ukrainian battlefield, and simultaneously on the fresh war fronts they are preparing along the full extent of Russia’s borders in the north, the Arctic, the far east, and the south in the Caucasus and Caspian Sea to Azerbaijan and Iran.  

If the Russian public can make this calculation in an approximate fashion, it’s plain the General Staff, intelligence services and Foreign Ministry have calculated it with precision. Moscow sources in a position to know confirm this, and also the details leading to it. Opening the file on the latter in wartime will give aid and comfort to the enemy — not here.

Read instead the latest summary reports – here  and then here.   

Putin has tied the credibility of the Oreshnik for the Ukrainian battlefield to the strategic battlefield – this means the nuclear war calculation – in the START nuclear arms control treaty talks which he and Trump have opened and agreed to extend for a year until February 2027.  About these negotiations, at the Valdai conference last Thursday (October 2) Putin cracked what looked like a joke, a pun on names.  

Asked what will happen next if the extended START talks fail, Putin replied: “it is very difficult to say what would happen next because the answer does not depend on us alone. I know what will happen within a year if the US administration accepts our proposal, but it is difficult to say what would happen beyond this limit. It is not a simple dialogue; we are aware of the pitfalls. First, we have created many modern high-tech weapons, like Oreshnik. Not Oreshkin, but Oreshnik.”  

Maxim Oreshkin is the deputy chief of the President’s staff, a former minister of economic development,  and a principal domestic policy advisor to Putin at present.  Misspelling the missile name Oreshnik, literally hazel tree,  as Oreshkin is a common mistake in Russian. Putin was joking — and he wasn’t.

“We have recently shown that such systems are not strategic weapons,” Putin went on in his answer. “Yet some experts in the United States claim that they are strategic weapons. This issue must be clarified. I will not go into detail now, but it needs clarification, which will take time, of course.”  

The point has been missed by most commentaries from the Russian and American military bloggers on the test firing of the Oreshnik against a Dniepropetrovsk target on November 21, 2024. Read the archive on what happened then and on interpretation of the Oreshnik Moment since then.  

Putin tried elaborating. “The second issue concerns tactical nuclear weapons. The treaty covers strategic weapons, but modern tactical weapons are many times more powerful than the bombs which the Americans dropped on Japan, on Hiroshima and Nagasaki. I believe those were 20-kiloton bombs, but modern weapons – tactical systems – are several times more powerful. There are pitfalls in this sphere too. The only place where we have deployed them outside Russia is Belarus, whereas the Americans have such weapons all over the world – in Europe, Turkiye [Kremlin spelling], and in various other places. But it is true that we have more such weapons. It is an issue that needs attention.”

“Several other aspects still need to be worked out. We know there are voices in the US who say they ‘do not need an extension.’ Well, if they do not need it, then neither do we. Overall, we are doing fine as is; we are confident in our nuclear shield, and we know what we will be doing tomorrow and the day after. So, if they do not need it, neither do we.”  

For the time being, that’s the Russian response to Trump’s escalation to the long-range Tomahawk missile and the space weapon system he is calling Golden Dome. Politically, the Moscow sources judge this is enough said. The military discussion of the Ukraine battlefield options, they say, must remain under wraps. Putin has made explicit also that this discussion, and the conclusions reached, are collective ones with his “colleagues”, civilian and military.  Enough to speak operationally, not strategically for the time being, the sources say. “The operational strategy is to keep the line hot; keep the Ukrainians, and of course the Americans, in doubt about which direction we will concentrate our ground movements. This is operational dominance, manoeuvre control, control of the surprise factor.”  

The Foreign Ministry has followed by indicating the conclusion that the Russian oligarchs have failed to get Trump and his intermediary, Steven Witkoff, to accept the billion-dollar business deals and bribes which have been offered by the Kremlin’s emissary, Kirill Dmitriev, in exchange for sanctions relief. This is the meaning of Deputy Foreign Minister Sergei Ryabkov’s announcement on October 8: “Unfortunately, we have to admit that Anchorage’s powerful momentum in favour of agreements has been largely exhausted by the efforts of opponents and supporters of the war. This is the result of destructive activities, primarily by the Europeans,”  Ryabkov explained with the qualifier in the adverb.

By “Europeans”, Ryabkov meant the money lobbies in Europe and the UK, and also in Washington. Since January Putin has agreed to authorize the Dmitriev strategy of neutralizing them by outbidding them with more money. Here is how that started in January with the oligarchs’ picnic.  Here is how it was failing in April. The Anchorage summit meeting on August 16 was Dmitriev’s last chance.

Those Moscow officials who believed Dmitriev would fail with Witkoff have been saying, “we told you so”, but Ryabkov practises diplomatic discretion.

Russian public opinion remains powerful. US military bloggers miss its significance. Putin does not.

(more…)

by Editor - Thursday, October 9th, 2025
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

When President Vladimir Putin acknowledged on the weekend (lead image, left) that for war operations, he refers to his “colleagues”, he meant, among several things,  that he has removed his restrictions on the General Staff’s conduct of the electric war on the Ukrainian battlefield as far west as the Polish border.

The record of Russia’s electric war strikes in the Ukraine began on October 10-12 and 16-20, 2022; then followed on October 22-27, 2023; March 29-30, 2024; June 1, 2024; and November 7, 2024.  Click to follow each stage of the electric war.   Roughly speaking, Putin agreed with the General Staff that they could target power generating plants and the power grids transmitting electricity to the main population centres.  

Triggering population evacuation from east to west, then into Poland, was one of the political goals Putin agreed.  Cutting the train lines between Poland, Lvov and Kiev was not. This allowed almost unrestricted inflow of US and NATO weapons and men to supply the eastern front, including the Ukrainian attack and occupation of Kursk region which began on August 6, 2024; also, the movement of western political and media figures to and from Kiev for escalation of the propaganda war against Russia. The open rail lines have been used to demonstrate the US- NATO line that Ukraine is winning, Russia losing the war.

Putin then accepted President Donald Trump’s proposal for a 30-day halt to attacks on the Ukraine’s civilian energy infrastructure; that began after their telephone call on February 12.  

Trump’s war staffs in Washington, Poland, and the Ukraine did not honour the Putin-Trump telephone agreement; it was a unilateral,  unreciprocated Putin concession Instead, they have steadily escalated their drone and missile attacks on Russian energy infrastructure, including oil pumping sites, oil storages, gas pipelines and processing plants, port terminals, and oil refineries.

The tone of the war decision-making process in Moscow has sharpened as the enemy attacks have escalated, their targets deeper in the Russian hinterland.

A Moscow source in a position to know says that Putin has rejected the criticism that  concessions to Trump for the sake of negotiating a peace settlement were producing no reciprocation from the Americans; instead encouraging them to escalate to test Russian vulnerability,pressure the domestic economy, and probe for Putin’s weakness.

Trump (also Vice President JD Vance) have attempted all three.

He intended to combine them when he announced on September 23 that Russia is a “paper tiger”.  Then in front of his assembly of military commanders on September 30 Trump made the attack personal. “He [Putin] should have had that war done in a week. And I said to him, you know, you don’t look good. You’re four years fighting a war that should have taken a week. Are you a paper tiger?”    

Trump has also dismissed negotiating to achieve end of war. “Problem with Vietnam,” Trump told the crew of the USS Harry Truman on October 5, “we, you know, we stopped fighting to win. We would’ve won easy. We would’ve won Afghanistan easy, would’ve won every war easy. But we got politically correct, ‘Ah, let’s take it easy.’ It’s, we’re not politically correct anymore, just so you understand. We win — Now, we win. We don’t want to be politically correct anymore.”  

Trump also keeps repeating his personal attack on Putin — “I’m very disappointed in him.”

In answer, Putin’s approach, the President has said privately, should be: “we won’t rock the boat. We won’t be provoked.” The General Staff, the intelligence services and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov have responded:  “the other side will rock the boat even harder.” The source requests that the discussion of their options which has followed should remain out of public debate.

Moscow sources acknowledge the sting in the paper tiger jibe. “The Europeans and Brits have studied Putin’s weaknesses and think they know how to defeat him. They think – and the Russian oligarchs have been telling them – there is no Kremlin secret they don’t know.”

The source dismisses pro-Russian podcasters in the US. “They think they are following the Kremlin line from RT and Sputnik which reward them by putting them on Russian TV and quoting them.” “It’s a circle jerk”, says a military source familiar with US slang.

Putin’s performance at the Valdai Club conference last Thursday  has triggered sharp internal reaction; some of it has spilled out publicly. Putin tried to explain himself in a brief interview with Pavel Zarubin on the weekend.  “I was simply honestly and frankly laying out certain situations, the essence of the issues, and how I feel about them,” the President said. This has been interpreted in Moscow as apologetic.

“Well,” Putin went on, “it’s up to my colleagues to respond. I spoke sincerely and honestly as it is; how things actually were; and how I would like to see the situation develop. Some will like this; some won’t. And I didn’t have a goal. I didn’t set out to do anything pleasing. I just tell it like it is.”   

Moscow sources point out that Putin has now followed up in two unexpected sessions with his colleagues. The Security Council was called into session on Tuesday, earlier in the week than usual.   That meeting was followed on Wednesday with a meeting between Putin and the Defense Ministry, General Staff and military commanders from the front army groups (lead image, right). “In an attempt to show its Western sponsors at least some semblance of success,” Putin began, “the Kiev regime is trying to target civilian facilities deep inside our territory. This will not help it. Our goal is to ensure the safety of the Russian citizens, as well as the safety of the strategic sites and civilian infrastructure, including energy facilities.”  

Putin’s intention was to stiffen Russian deterrence by threat of retaliation if Trump escalates by supplying the Tomahawk missile to Germany, the UK, Canada or other NATO states  for redeployment in the Ukraine; or by authorizing the Germans to fire the Taurus missile at Russian hinterland targets.  The operational strategy agreed, a source claims, is Russian readiness to fight one battlefield at a time to match Trump’s sequencing of wars on Russia’s western, eastern,  and southern fronts. It is also to accelerate the fight to the finish on the Ukrainian battlefield.

“Within six months, by the end of the winter, to consolidate control of the four regions,” one source claims.

“In a year, maybe less, maybe longer,” another source believes. “The operational strategy is to keep the line hot; keep the Ukrainians, and of course the Americans, in doubt about which direction we will concentrate our ground movements. This is operational dominance, manoeuvre control, control of the surprise factor.”

“Comrades,” Putin assured the military meeting, “our shared objective remains unchanged – we must ensure the unconditional fulfilment of all goals set for the troops in the course of the special military operation.”  

(more…)

by Editor - Wednesday, October 8th, 2025
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

For the first time, the White House has issued a piece of paper (lead image, top), signed by the President, attempting to install a form of fuhrer fascism to deter, arrest, and if need be shoot to kill any form of expression which amounts to disloyalty to the President and to his MAGA doctrine.

The paper defined that as “targeted intimidation, radicalization, threats, and violence designed to silence opposing speech, limit political activity, change or direct policy outcomes, and prevent the functioning of a democratic society.”  This includes public expression of the terms “fascist” and “anti-fascist”.  

According to the White House paper, those who speak in such language are hiding under “the umbrella of self-described ‘anti-fascism.’  These movements portray foundational American principles (e.g., support for law enforcement and border control) as ‘fascist’ to justify and encourage acts of violent revolution.  This ‘anti-fascist’ lie has become the organizing rallying cry used by domestic terrorists to wage a violent assault against democratic institutions, constitutional rights, and fundamental American liberties…anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism, anti-Christianity…and hostility towards those who hold traditional American views on family, religion, and morality.”

The paper, drafted by Stephen Miller, deputy chief of the White House staff, was signed by Trump on September 25. It is titled “NATIONAL SECURITY PRESIDENTIAL MEMORANDUM/NSPM-7”. Its subject is “Countering Domestic Terrorism and Organized Political Violence.” Read the Miller Memorandum in full here.  

It was followed by the Pentagon order for all US forces commanders and their staffs to assemble at the Quantico base in Virginia on September 30 to be addressed by Trump and Peter Hegseth, the Defense Secretary.  

Since May 6, they have been under the direct threat of purge. Hegseth announced he was commencing to cut by 20% the 3 and 4-star general ranks of the main forces, by 10% in other flag officers of the main forces, and a 20% cut in the general ranks of the National Guard.   No time line was announced for the cuts to be decided in two phases.

He was starting, Hegseth also claimed, “the most comprehensive review” of headquarters and operational command structures and areas of responsibility since 1986. When that takes place, there will be “a minimum of an  additional ten percent reduction of general and flag officers throughout the DOD, in conjunction with the realignment of the unified command plan.”  

The sword of Damocles wasn’t a stab in the back. “This is not a slash and burn exercise meant to punish high ranking officers, nothing could be further from the truth,”    Hegseth claimed in anticipation of resistance from the generals.   

None of these proposed cuts or reorganizations of commands were confirmed in the four months before Trump ordered the generals to assemble. None of the mainstream media journalists at the Pentagon nor of the alt-media military podcasters has reported a general source as admitting the link between the purge plan, the Miller Memorandum, and Trump’s summons to Quantico. The President then made this obvious.

In his speech to the assembled flag officers (lead image, bottom), Trump declared:  “we are under invasion from within. We’re stopping it very quickly. After spending trillions of dollars defending the borders of foreign countries, with your help, we’re defending the borders of our country from now on. We’re not going to let this happen…San Francisco, Chicago, New York, Los Angeles, they’re very unsafe places and we’re going to straighten them out one by one. And this is going to be a major part for some of the people in this room. That’s a war too. It’s a war from within. Controlling the physical territory of our border is essential to national security. We can’t let these people live…If it’s OK with you generals and admirals…I say, they spit, we hit. Is that OK? I think so. They spit — it’s a new thing. They spit, we hit…This is going to be a big thing for the people in this room because it’s the enemy from within and we have to handle it before it gets out of control. It won’t get out of control, once you’re involved…With leaders like we have right here in this beautiful room today, we will vanquish every danger and crush every threat to our freedom in every generation to come, because we will fight, fight, fight and we will win, win, win.”   

Trump also issued the loyalty warning: “I’ve never walked into a room so silent before. This is very — don’t laugh! Don’t laugh, you’re not allowed to do that! You know what, just have a good time. And if you want to applaud, you applaud. And if want to do anything you want, you can do anything that you want. And if don’t like what I’m saying, you can leave the room. Of course, there goes your rank, there goes you future.”

That was at the beginning of Trump’s hour-long speech.  Then at the end, the warning was repeated: “I’ll tell you, Pete and General Caine and all of the people that I’ve met that have been lifted up in rank. And we got many of them out of here. To be honest with you, I didn’t like doing it, but we got many of you out of here because we weren’t satisfied.”  

Viewed in Moscow, the Kremlin-supported security analysis platform Vzglyad has reported the political significance of the loyalty oath assembly in Quantico when most US experts have missed it.  This is because the Russians remember Adolf Hitler’s loyalty oath (Führereid) and what followed for Russia. Between 1934 and 1935, first for military personnel and then for civilians, Hitler ordered the state loyalty oath to be changed from the secular language, “I swear loyalty to the Reich’s constitution” to: “I swear by God this holy oath that I shall render unconditional obedience to the Leader of the German Reich and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces”.  

According to Vzglyad’s writer, Gevork Mirzayan, “hundreds of American generals were offered a choice. In the understanding of liberals, the choice is between personal loyalty to Trump and loyalty to the American state. [In] July 1935, the German generals were summoned to an extraordinary meeting in Berlin and informed that their previous oath of allegiance to the Weimar Constitution was invalid and that they must take a personal oath to the Fuhrer. ‘Most of the generals have taken a new oath to retain their positions,’ retired General Ben Hodges commented on the Quantico meeting.”   

The Russian interpretation is not placed between the lines. This is a message directed by a leading policy medium at the Kremlin, not a message from the Kremlin to the audience outside the Kremlin wall.

(more…)

by Editor - Sunday, October 5th, 2025
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

Last week (October 2) at the Valdai Club conference in Sochi, President Vladimir Putin (lead image, left) responded to a question from an Iranian about the war in Gaza and President Donald Trump’s plan for Gaza which had been released two days earlier in Washington.  

 “About Trump’s Gaza plan,” Putin replied,  “you know, it will probably come as a surprise to you, but on the whole, Russia is ready to support him. If, of course, as we have to look carefully at the proposals made, it will lead to the final goal, which we have always talked about. Russia has always advocated the creation of two states: Israel and a Palestinian state, starting in 1948 and then in 1974, when the relevant UN Security Council resolution was adopted. And this, in my opinion, is the key to a final solution to the Palestinian-Israeli conflict.”

Claiming he had not “looked at this proposal so carefully yet”, Putin enumerated his questions: “First: How long will this international administration work? How and to whom will power be transferred later? As far as I understand, this plan outlines the possibility of transferring power to the Palestinian Authority. In my opinion, it would be better, of course, to put everything under the control of President [Mahmoud] Abbas  and the current Palestinian administration. It may be difficult for them to resolve the security issues. But so far as I can imagine, my colleagues, with whom I spoke on this topic today, envisage the possibility of transferring control over the Gaza Strip, including to the local militia, to ensure security. Is this bad? In my opinion, this is a good thing.”

“We need to understand, I repeat, how long the international administration will manage there, in what time frame it is supposed to transfer both civil power and security issues, which is very important. And, in my opinion, this should definitely be supported. We are talking about freeing all the hostages held by Hamas, on the one hand, and releasing a significant number of Palestinians from Israeli prisons. Here, too, we need to understand how many Palestinians, whom, and at what time can we release them? And of course, you know, the most important question is: how does Palestine feel about this? That’s exactly what you need to understand. And the countries of the region, the entire Islamic world, and Palestine itself, the Palestinians themselves, including, of course, Hamas… Of course, Israel’s attitude towards this is also important. We don’t know yet either: how did Israel take it? I do not even know of any public statements on this subject, I just did not have time to look at it. But it’s not even public statements that are important, but in fact how the Israeli leadership will treat this, whether it will fulfill everything that the President of the United States has proposed. There are a lot of questions.”  

Putin was skeptical of the role in a Gaza supervisory authority known as the “Board of Peace” (BOP) proposed by Trump for former UK prime minister Tony Blair. Hinting at Blair’s roles in initiating the wars in Afghanistan and Iraq, Putin said “he’s not known as a great peacemaker, but I know him personally. Moreover, I visited him, spent the night at his house, we had coffee in our pyjamas in the morning, and so on…He is a man with his own views, but he is an experienced politician. And in general, of course, if his activities, his experience, and his knowledge are directed towards a peaceful course, then he can play some positive role.”

The next day, October 3, the Hamas leadership issued a 5-paragraph reply to Trump. 

This was amplified in a detailed response to the Trump plan in a 21-minute interview broadcast by Al-Arabiya, the Saudi state television channel based in Riyadh. Osama Hamdan (lead image, right), a veteran Palestinian diplomat, advisor to and spokesman for Hamas, answered each of Putin’s questions, and more.Watch and if need be, turn on the English auto-translate function at the Youtube setting.    

Hamdan rejects any role for the foreign “board of peace”, proposed by Trump in his plan, and any role as a foreign overseer or viceroy for Blair, whether in his pyjamas or out of them.

(more…)

by Editor - Sunday, October 5th, 2025
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

On June 30, 2021, during his Direct Line programme, President Vladimir Putin was asked what games he liked to play during his schooldays.  “I am tempted to say chess,” he replied, “but, unfortunately, it was not chess.”  

Four years have gone by until his appearance yesterday at the Valdai Club, when the president  was asked the same question. He replied:  “Well, I loved chess.”   

Putin was castling.

In the ancient game of chess the move which is known by this name is a relatively new one. The  rules to allow it also took centuries to develop. The purpose of castling is defence when the king is under attack and there is safe space between the king and the castle (rook), so that they can  exchange places and the king retreat to the safer margin of the board. The opportunity created thereby is for the rook to move more actively into the counter-attack against the adversary. The castling king is delegating the offensive to his rook.  

To understand what Putin’s castling means on the board today, read what he said first about the Board of Peace (BOP) Gaza plan of President Donald Trump, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu and ex-prime minister Tony Blair. “Russia always supports and welcomes any steps by Trump,” he told his spokesman to say, “that seek to avert the tragedy that is now unfolding. We want this plan to be realized, so that it may help steer events in the Middle East toward a peaceful path”.   

(more…)

by Editor - Friday, October 3rd, 2025
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

The clock at the Tass office in Moscow was reading 14:24 on Tuesday afternoon when Dmitry Peskov, spokesman for President Vladimir Putin, was reported as saying the following about the Gaza plan of President Donald Trump, Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, and ex-prime minister Tony Blair: “Russia always supports and welcomes any steps by Trump that seek to avert the tragedy that is now unfolding. We want this plan to be realized, so that it may help steer events in the Middle East toward a peaceful path”.    

Two hours later, the Tass clock was reading 16:13 when Peskov told the Tass reporter to add: “If you asked me if Russia is involved in this plan [of Trump on the settlement in the Gaza Strip], no, it is not. There were no signals from the American side on this.”  

Across the city at the Foreign Ministry, the hands on the clock on Maria Zakharova’s wall had moved to 17:24, when having completed all the required sign-offs, the spokesman published the official Ministry response to the Gaza plan: “Donald Trump’s plan provides for a ceasefire in the Palestinian enclave, the release of hostages and all detained persons, as well as the gradual withdrawal of Israeli forces. It also includes lifting the blockade and ensuring free access of humanitarian aid to all those who need it under the auspices of the UN and the International Committee of the Red Cross.”

“The leading Arab Muslim countries have expressed support for the plan. The Palestinian National Authority has confirmed its readiness for cooperating with all partners to shape a comprehensive peace agreement. Prime Minister of Israel Benjamin Netanyahu has publicly welcomed the new US plan. Russia has always called for an immediate ceasefire and an end to bloodshed in Gaza. We believe that any measures and initiatives aimed at this deserve to be supported. We hope that a ceasefire will become sustainable and will ultimately lead to lasting stabilisation in the Palestinian enclave. This will create the necessary conditions for launching comprehensive efforts to rebuild the sector’s infrastructure, which has been almost completely destroyed during the hostilities.”

“It is important that a successful and smooth implementation of this plan should pave the way to the resumption of a constructive dialogue between the Israeli and Palestinian sides on a comprehensive political settlement of all disputed issues on the recognised international legal basis, which provides for the creation of an independent Palestinian state that will live in peace and security with Israel.”  

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was out of Moscow in Sochi. He was attending the Kremlin-financed platform known as the Valdai Club.  

He had been told what Peskov announced earlier as the Kremlin line. He had also agreed to the text of Zakharova’s press release. But then, at 17:59 publication time, he was asked: “What is Moscow’s position on Trump’s plan to resolve the situation in Gaza, which was announced on Monday? How do you assess the proposal to establish interim external management with the international participation and the formation of an international contingent for operational deployment in Gaza? Did Moscow receive any signals about the possibility of participating in this contingent? How do you assess the chances of success of this plan as a whole?”

Lavrov replied that, unlike Peskov and the Ministry in Moscow, he wasn’t ready to answer because he wasn’t sure what the plan details were,  who had authored them, what the Arab governments were thinking, and how the Palestinians, including Hamas, would respond. He spoke ironically, which the Ministry signalled by putting some of Lavrov’s phrases in inverted commas and leaving his verbs to be understood to mean their opposite.

“We have not seen this plan. We have only heard comments about its contents. You have now outlined its main provisions. I have heard that this international body, which is intended to ‘temporarily govern Gaza’, is planned to be headed by former British Prime Minister Tony Blair. He himself seems to have already announced this. I reiterate, I am not privy to the details. I do not know what powers he will be granted, nor how the Arab countries view this. I am aware that some of them have already welcomed ‘Donald Trump’s plan’. However, a final assessment can only be made once we know the views of all of Palestine’s neighbours, Israel, the countries of the region, the League of Arab States, the Gulf Cooperation Council, and, above all, the Palestinians themselves. I have heard that representatives of the Palestinian National Authority are not being considered for inclusion in this temporary body, even as observers.”

“Regarding the international security forces. No, we have not been invited to participate. I reiterate, we only became aware of this new plan yesterday. However, I have read that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, commenting on ‘Donald Trump’s plan’ – which was announced following Netanyahu’s visit to Washington – said that the plan is good and should not be altered. He claimed that Hamas and everyone else should agree to it. Among the positive aspects of this plan, he stated that Israel would retain control over security in Gaza. This somewhat contradicts the establishment of international forces, so all the details need to be clarified first.”

A long time ago, living in his Italian exile from Moscow, Maxim Gorky wrote a brief essay called “The Clock”. The point of it is at the beginning: “It is eerie to listen, in the stillness and loneliness of the night, to the beautiful and uniform voice of the clock…How shall we live so as to have the consciousness of not having lived in vain? How shall we live so as not to lose faith and willpower? How live that no second shall pass which is not moved by intellect and feeling? Will the clock never give an answer to that? Oh! this motion without an end! What does the clock say to it?”  

by Editor - Tuesday, September 30th, 2025
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

A week ago on September 23, President Donald Trump called President Vladimir Putin’s military power a “paper tiger”, and declared ”this is the time for Ukraine to act”.

By that he said he meant “to take back their Country in its original form and, who knows, maybe even go further than that!”  

Five days later, the successor president, Vice President J D Vance, explained that deployment on the Ukrainian battlefield by NATO-supplied Tomahawk cruise missiles, with a 2,500-km range,    is the next step he and Trump are considering.

“Russia is really stalled,” Vance claimed,   “The Russian economy is in shambles. The Russians are not gaining much on the battlefield… The Russians have refused to sit down in any bilateral meetings with the Ukrainians. They have refused to sit down in any trilateral meetings with the President…The Russians have got to wake up and accept reality here… About Tomahawks, it’s something the President is going to make the final determination on. What the President is going to do is what’s in the best interest of the United States of America.”   

The scheme, Vance intimated, is to allow NATO member states with Tomahawk batteries – at the moment this means the UK and Germany – to deliver them to Kiev, or for other European states to buy the missiles from the US and send them on. This means that the crews operating the Tomahawk systems in the Ukraine would be British, German, or other Europeans.  “What we’re doing,” Vance said, “is asking the Europeans to buy that weaponry that shows some European skin in the game. I think that gets them really invested in both what’s happening in their own backyard, but also in the peace process that the president has been pushing for, for the last eight months,” Vance said.   

The skins at risk of Russian counterattack, Vance meant but omitted to acknowledge,  would be European, not American.

The Kremlin spokesman, Dmitry Peskov, responded with the obvious followed by a placebo.

“We have heard these statements. We are thoroughly analyzing them. Our military specialists are closely monitoring it.”  “Even if it happens that the United States sends its Tomahawk missiles to Ukraine, currently there is no cure-all that could be a game changer on the front lines for the Kiev regime. No magical weapons exist, and Tomahawk or other missiles simply won’t be a game changer.”    

Then Peskov muffled a warning: “The question… is this: who can launch these missiles…? Can only Ukrainians launch them, or do American soldiers have to do that?”   The answer is already obvious – Vance made it plain. The operators of the Tomahawks would be Europeans.  

Peskov’s questions also avoided Vance’s and Trump’s strategic point. They are now aiming to intensify the domestic damage they can inflict deep inside Russian territory – Moscow and St. Petersburg if they can — in the belief this will trigger loss of Russian morale and voter opposition to Putin.  “This war is terrible for their economy,” Vance repeated several times, as has Trump. The Russians, Vance declared, “have to ask themselves how many more people are they willing to lose…for very little military advantage.”

What is happening from the Russian point of view which isn’t public?

The US “understanding” from the Anchorage summit meeting on August 16 is no longer the Russian interpretation as Putin himself first explained it. “Hopefully, the understanding [singular] we have reached will bring us closer to this goal and open up the road to peace in Ukraine,” Putin said at his brief press conference after meeting with Trump. “We see that the US President has a clear idea of what he wants to achieve, that he sincerely cares about his country’s prosperity while showing awareness of Russia’s national interests. I hope that today’s agreements [plural] will become a reference point, not only for resolving the Ukrainian problem but also for resuming the pragmatic business relations between Russia and the United States.”  

Escalation to Tomahawk attacks on the Russia hinterland is also not the “understanding” with the US which the Russian Foreign Ministry announced after Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov met at the United Nations with Secretary of State Marco Rubio: “The heads of the foreign offices exchanged opinions on the Ukraine crisis settlement as a follow up to the understandings [plural] reached at the Russia-US summit in Anchorage. The parties have reaffirmed mutual interest in the search for peaceful solutions. Sergey Lavrov emphasised our country’s readiness to adhere to the line developed by the Russian and US leaders in Alaska, including to coordinate efforts with the US side to remove the root causes of the Ukraine conflict. The minister stressed the unacceptability of the schemes intended to protract the conflict promoted by Kiev and some European countries. The parties compared their positions on the entire bilateral agenda including the prospects of restoring their socio-political contacts. They have reaffirmed the importance of using the impetus given by Russian and US presidents to the process of normalising bilateral relations.”

Speaking to Russian reporters, Lavrov then added: “We operate on the premise that everything we have heard from our US colleagues at the top and other levels tells us that they want to help us end this conflict by addressing and eliminating its root causes. There are no other countries in the Western camp that abide by such a position. I have no doubt that the US President is genuinely interested in this outcome. Some people are trying to have influence on him, but that’s another matter…  The 2022 borders are off the table today. What we are now discussing are the borders as enshrined in the Constitution of the Russian Federation.”   

The “reality on the ground”, as Vance and Trump say they understand it on the battlefield, is plainly now not the reality on the ground as the Russian side sees it.  The US is announcing that Russia the paper tiger has lost escalation dominance on the battlefield, and is vulnerable to even greater domestic insecurity than it faced three years ago, when the Special Military Operation began. If that was the “root cause” of the war, as Putin and Lavrov say they have explained to their US counterparts, Trump and Vance are now dismissing “root cause” as the basis for terms to end the war.

When Vance announced that the Tomahawk deployment will be decided “in the interests of the United States of America”, he meant to say that the Russian military and Putin have lost their power of deterrence.

A Moscow source in a position to know says the General Staff will convince the President on the measures required to prove the Americans wrong. “I believe the Russians will secure victory using the Oreshniki rather than a massive ground offensive. But there is also a build-up many of us can tell. That is why Americans and Europeans are getting very nervous, threatening Russians with a direct confrontation unless they back off.” 

(more…)

by Editor - Monday, September 29th, 2025
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

The propaganda war to make pinprick drone attacks on Russian oil refineries and oil storage terminals appear to be destroying the Russian economy, and Ukrainian forces winning the war, came to its climax last week, on September 23, when an announcement was issued in President Donald Trump’s name.

“When the people living in Moscow,” the tweet said, “and all of the Great Cities, Towns, and Districts all throughout Russia, find out what is really going on with this War, the fact that it’s almost impossible for them to get Gasoline through the long lines that are being formed, and all of the other things that are taking place in their War Economy, where most of their money is being spent on fighting Ukraine, which has Great Spirit, and only getting better, Ukraine would be able to take back their Country in its original form and, who knows, maybe even go further than that! Putin and Russia are in BIG Economic trouble, and this is the time for Ukraine to act.”  

Trump kept repeating his jingle to everyone he met.   He told French President Emmanuel Macron that “it could be that Russia is a paper tiger. I don’t know what they are, but three and a half years of fighting and killing everybody and killing 7,000 people a week for nothing, for nothing.”   

Two days later in the White House Trump said: “I’m very dissatisfied with what Russia is doing and what President Putin is doing. I haven’t liked it at all. He’s killing people for no reason whatsoever. And they are doing — they are doing very poorly considering they — they have put it all out on the line. They are — their economy is going to hell. They’re bombing the hell out of everything, and they’re picking up very little territory, if any. In fact, they’re losing some territory. So uh, I think it’s been very bad for the reputation of Russia.”  

In their meeting at the UN immediately following after Trump’s tweet, Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov ignored what had been published. Rubio’s communiqué said he  had “reiterated President Trump’s call for the killing to stop and the need for Moscow to take meaningful steps toward a durable resolution of the Russia-Ukraine war.”  Lavrov said they had “exchanged views on the settlement of the Ukrainian crisis in the development of the understanding reached during the Russian-American summit in Anchorage. Reciprocal interest in finding peaceful solutions has been confirmed.”  

The reference to the “understanding” between the presidents at Anchorage was the Russian reminder that Trump appeared not to be remembering what he said he understood five weeks ago.

 Later, in his exchange with reporters, Lavrov was asked “given the ever-changing policy of American colleagues, how does Russia plan to work with the United States?” Lavrov confirmed “this can be called an ever-changing, flexible policy”. But he played down the significance of Trump’s “style of doing business in the international arena, as well as at home.”  “It will be foolish not to use this circumstance to implement any joint mutually beneficial projects – whether in the energy sector, in space, anywhere. And in those cases (they are the majority), when the interests of Russia and the United States do not coincide, the main thing is to prevent it from escalating into a clash, into confrontation…When some of our European counterparts turn diplomacy either into the ‘court’ of their ‘comrades’ from Washington to keep them ‘playing the war of Biden’ or replacing diplomacy with sanctions – this is a hopeless path. It has no success. But an honest dialogue on any issues – we see the readiness for this by the United States – we are also ready for it. At the same time, diplomatic comments can be very different.”

The Russian state media have followed Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov in treating Trump’s claims as having been prompted by others.  “President Trump’s statements were made after talking with Zelensky,” Peskov told Tass. “It seems, Zelensky’s opinions rubbed off on him. This view is in stark contrast with our understanding of the current state of affairs.”   Peskov added: “”President Trump has never hidden his intention to ensure the economic interests of the United States. The simplest thing is to force the entire world to buy American oil at a higher price and American liquefied natural gas at a higher price.”  

On one point, however, there is no doubt — there has been a shortage of automobile fuel – gasoline, petrol, essence, бензин – at Russia’s retail pumps, especially in the southwestern regions of the country. There is a correspondingly sharp rise in the trading price of the fuel, both auto petrol and diesel at the St. Petersburg International Mercantile Exchange (SPIMEX).  The lead images chart the data which confirm the shortage and the price rise.  

In wartime, the Russian state media cannot be expected to add fuel, or the shortage of fuel, to the US and Ukrainian fire. According to Alexander Novak, the former energy minister and now deputy prime minister in charge of the energy sector, the fuel shortage is normal for this time of the year when the balance between supply and demand is “difficult. There is a small shortage of petroleum products, which is covered by the reserves.”  

The Carnegie Endowment’s Russia Eurasia Centre, a Washington propaganda source now based in Berlin, is more careful. “Right now, the situation looks challenging but manageable”, the think tank reported on August 26.    “Most of the refineries that have been hit by Ukrainian drones continue to produce gasoline, albeit in reduced quantities. It has also been possible to redirect gasoline from unaffected regions, and some of the deficit has been eased by tapping state reserves. …There is still a long way to go before the transport, agriculture, and industrial sectors—or, most importantly, the army—experience any significant fuel shortages…It’s important to remember that a lot of Russian vehicles and military equipment run on diesel, not gasoline, and Russia has a diesel surplus. Accordingly, the sort of full-scale fuel crisis that could end up impairing the functioning of the economy—or the army—is still a long way off.     On top of this, annual gasoline production in Russia exceeds domestic demand by up to 20 percent, while diesel production is more than double what is needed. Even if the damaged refineries (which account for about 20 percent of primary refining capacity) stopped functioning entirely, the resulting deficit would be small.”

The truth of the fuel position is acknowledged by Russian sources. But it’s more complicated than the propaganda suggests, explains Igor Yushkov, a leading expert on Russian energy policy at the Financial University under the Government of the Russian Federation (FNEB) and the National Energy Security Fund (NWF). This does not mean it is vulnerable to US and Ukrainian escalation, as Trump is implying.  

“Russia has enough reserves of petroleum to compensate for the attacks on refineries,” Yushkov said in interview last Friday. “The problem is the logistics.  Yes, Ukraine is still actively hitting our fuel bases. They began to actively hit refineries in August, when the Russian-American negotiations began – in order to disrupt them literally, they intensified their strikes. And they’ve been hitting the storages all these years. And in this regard, the border regions have all suffered quite a lot. Previously, you just had to take the train from the refinery to the storage facility by rail, unload the fuel cargo there, and from there you take it by lorry to the gas stations. Now the logistics have lengthened. We need more tanker trucks. The supply line is getting longer.  For example, in the current conditions of Crimea, it is rather 2-3 weeks at best, because there is also a delay in delivery. Relatively speaking, if they only bought it now, then the fuel will be shipped from the refinery after a certain period, then they will need to deliver it directly to gas stations in the Crimea. That is taking several weeks.”

“The current situation with the production of petroleum products is ambiguous. Although the total production in the country remains at an acceptable level — 50% of diesel is exported, 50% to the domestic market — there is tension in the gasoline market. An increase in crude oil exports and a reduction in refining at some refineries may have led to a decrease in fuel production in August compared to last year. The ban on gasoline exports introduced in August  has two consequences. On the one hand, it helps to lower prices on the stock exchange by creating surpluses on the domestic market. On the other hand, it can stimulate the growth of retail prices, as companies seek to compensate for lost export profits. The long-term maintenance of the ban is problematic, since excess fuel will require either a reduction in processing or the resumption of exports.”

“About the shortage of petroleum on gas stations — first of all, the shortage of petroleum is caused by rising prices on the oil products exchange due to a reduction of almost 50% in payments to oil companies from the state budget. Payments on the so-called damper — a reverse oil excise tax   – have been reduced. The damper is a mechanism that compensates oil companies and a portion is paid back from the budget. It compensates for the difference between how much an oil product costs on the foreign market and how much the government wants to see it on the domestic market. That is, once a year, the state sets a certain price for gasoline and diesel, and, accordingly, if the price in foreign markets is higher, then the state pays oil companies. Prices for 95 and 92 gasoline are breaking records on the stock exchange, but oil refineries cannot raise the cost of fuel at gas stations after that – the Federal Antimonopoly Service monitors compliance of price increases. Therefore, the gas stations, in order not to operate at a loss, stop selling gasoline and wait for prices on the stock exchange to stabilize. And fuel problems are mostly arising at the independent gas stations which buy their gasoline only on the stock exchange. The big oil production companies don’t have such problems.”

(more…)

by Editor - Monday, September 29th, 2025
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

“Things will get far, far worse before they begin to get better. The prevailing ideas that shaped every era of America always became stronger, more reckless and more oblivious to risk and disaster as they approached their apogee. What has happened before will happen again. Catastrophe approaches. It will be the worst in American history. But it will not be the end of the world.”

Watch the new podcast from Montreal with Martin Sieff, hosted by Matthew Ehret:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gcMDtK3I34I 

Agree or disagree, here is the evidence in Martin’s book.  

by Editor - Sunday, September 28th, 2025
No Comments »

By John Helmer, Moscow
  @bears_with

Tuesday was an unremarkable day for President Donald Trump — except for the cuts in  electricity for his escalator at the United Nations (UN) building and then for his teleprompter at the General Assembly podium. “Absolutely sabotage”, Trump announced after thinking about it for twenty-four hours.  

In his UN script and then his answers to reporters on meeting Vladimir Zelensky for six minutes, Trump repeated factoids, slogans, and jingles. “Frankly, Ukraine is doing a very good job of stopping this very large army. It’s pretty amazing. You know, this is a war that should have ended in three days, four days. People said it was going to be very quick and you got to hand it to the Ukrainian soldiers and everybody involved…Russia doesn’t look very distinguished having taken three and a half years now, right? It’s about three and a half years of very hard fighting. And it looks like it’s not going to end for a long time.”  

He also repeated last week’s line that “in the event that Russia is not ready to make a deal to end the war, then the United States is fully prepared to impose a very strong round of powerful tariffs… But for those tariffs to be effective, European nations would have to join us in adopting the exact same measures… they have to immediately cease ALL energy purchases from Russia.”  

Trump hasn’t said — isn’t saying — what his deal terms are for President Vladimir Putin or what he doesn’t accept in Putin’s terms.  Trump isn’t sure what to do next, he acknowledged to a reporter asking about Putin — “I’ll let you know in about a month from now.” And on US security guarantees for the Ukraine — “that’s later down the road, we’ll be talking about that. Hopefully, we’ll be in a position to talk about that a little bit later on. It’s a little bit too early to answer that question.”  

After Trump said that, the White House posted a tweet in the president’s name announcing something he hasn’t said before. The US, the tweet said, will support and arm a combination of Ukrainian and NATO forces for a new eastward offensive, not only across the Donbass, Novorossiya, and Crimea but also into the Russian hinterland.

“Ukraine, with the support of the European Union, is in a position to fight and WIN all of Ukraine back in its original form. With time, patience, and the financial support of Europe and, in particular, NATO, the original Borders from where this War started, is [sic] very much an option…Ukraine would be able to take back their Country in its original form and, who knows, maybe even go further than that! Putin and Russia are in BIG Economic trouble, and this is the time for Ukraine to act. In any event, I wish both Countries well. We will continue to supply weapons to NATO for NATO to do what they want with them. Good luck to all!”  

Former President Dmitry Medvedev said this was fantasizing. “Trump is not like that! I have no doubt—he will return. He always returns. Probably in a couple of days, he will suggest [Zelensky] sign a surrender. Or fly to Mars with Musk, whom he pardoned. Or do something else very important that will allow him to claim a Nobel Prize. The main thing is to frequently and radically change your point of view on various issues. And everything will be fine. This is the essence of successful state governance through social networks. And, as they say, thank you for your attention to this subject!”  

US and NATO plans   have estimated that a single army corps for such an offensive would require at least 1,400 tanks, 2,000 infantry fighting vehicles, 700 artillery pieces, and at least 50,000 troops. Russian estimates are that several corps would be required for such an offensive capable of attacking the Russian lines at several different points simultaneously, plus air cover, naval support from the Black Sea, and secure supply lines running from Romania, Moldova, and Poland.

Trump told Macron at the UN: “it could be that Russia is a paper tiger… I don’t know what they are, but three and a half years of fighting and killing everybody and killing 7,000 people a week for nothing, for nothing…But most of you have seen the recent statement I put out a little while ago and I’m glad you got it. But I feel that way. I really do feel that way. Let them get their land back.”  

Them, not us, he meant as Macron nodded slightly.   

But was this another ally-reversal ploy (ARP) like the European oil cutoff condition which the Trump Administration knows the Europeans will not agree to? Was the White House author of Trump’s new tweet saying that if the Europeans and Ukrainians can assemble several hundred thousand men to attack Russia, the US will take their money for the weapons —  win or lose at their cost, US profit?  

Trump conceded at the UN that he needs electricity to make his claims and that it’s sabotage when his power is cut.

The Russian General Staff has been demonstrating this week a new round of the electric war campaign to make the same point.

(more…)

by Editor - Wednesday, September 24th, 2025
No Comments »