#ANZAC: "And year after year, the numbers grow fewer, who remember what it was we're not to forget"

 

'Sacrifice,' by sculptor Rayner Hoff, inside the Australian War Memorial in Sydney's Hyde Park

"It's gratifying, in a way, that we start Anzac Day every year with a commemoration of a shambolic dawn landing that kicked off a pointless and wholly tragic military campaign that snuffed out some of the best young men of two young nations. It's not a victory march, but a sobering commemoration of the destruction of war.
    "This is healthy. This much is good.
    "'Lest we Forget!' we say"
    "It's said every year. And yet year after year, the numbers grow fewer who remember what it was we're not forgetting....

"THE MYTHOLOGY OF ANZAC is that the battle at the Dardanelles gave birth to two nations. If that’s true, it is an odd birth, fathered out of failure by way of disaster. 

"In the end, the attempted occupation [of the Gallipoli peninsula] was decided upon partly because in any bureaucracy once plans are begun they are very hard to stop ..." 

[T]he reason they embarked [was] not to beat the Hun, but to save the Czar [and to] gift Constantinople to Russia.... as an altruistic gift to an 'ally' who was the most autocratic in Europe, who had shown no sign of earning British trust ... the price for the sacrifice to be paid for in the blood of those Australian, New Zealand and British young men and their families.... 

    "Such is the code of sacrifice under which the decision was made to go.... [in pursuit, said Churchill, of] 'a victory such as the war had not yet seen.'
    "It never would. It never could. 
    "Instead, it all turned to omnishambles. The only thing in the end about which anyone had anything about which to boast was a successful and well-executed withdrawal. 
    "It was a bloody mess that achieved nothing, that could achieve nothing, purchased at the price of a wholesale sacrifice of young lives that could have meant something. It was a total unmitigated disaster, but at least, now, dear reader, some reason for the whole, sordid shambles might be clearer. 
    "The reason however for commemorating the shambles as the botched 'birth' (in some way) of our nation is very much less so."

~ composite quote excerpted from NOT PC's posts 'Lest we forget what?' and 'But what were the ANZACs fighting for, Grandad?'

"Death to America" is now a categorical imperative, apparently

 

According to The New York Times, Ali Larijani has effectively 

been running Iran since January 2026. He was in “charge of

 crushing, with lethal force, the recent protests demanding the 

end of Islamic rule.” He is now the key power broker in Iran’s transition.

Larijani is a Ph.D. in Western Philosophy and a specialist

on Immanuel Kant. He wrote his dissertation on Kant and 

three published books [on the German Philosopher].

"Religious fanaticism and radical subjectivism are two sides of the same false coin. One enables another: 

    "Radical subjectivism annihilates metaphysics.
    "The religious fanatic fills his 'void of reality' with his arbitrary assertions (God, miracles, angels, devils, afterlife, etc)."

~ Paulius Lebedevic [hat tip Stephen Hicks, Quote-Unquote Marrk-Goldblatt]

"Ideas have consequences - and in today's volatile world (March 2026), with US-Israel strikes escalating against Iran, regime continuity under power broker Ali Larijani, Russia's enduring war footing in Ukraine, and multipolar fractures everywhere, the intellectual foundations rejecting liberal democracy in favour of "higher duty" and civilisational destiny stand out starkly.
    "In Russia, Alexander Dugin supplies the metaphysical fireworks: a heady mix of Heidegger, Nietzsche, and traditionalism remixed into Eurasianism and his "Fourth Political Theory." ... Duty isn't optional-it's ontological, an existential imperative justifying sacrifice, expansion, and absolute obedience to the state as civilisational guardian. ...
    "[And so] with Iran, where Ali Larijani -- the current top power broker effectively steering the regime ... -- is a genuine Kant scholar .... 

    "Operating within Shia theocratic-revolutionary Islamism, Larijani's Kantian toolkit emphasises deontology: i.e., absolute duty over personal happiness or utility, and reason's limits that 'make room for faith.' This lends philosophical rigour to prioritising collective obligation to the Islamic Republic-categorical imperatives of regime preservation, anti-hegemonic destiny, and order -- over Lockean individual liberties or empirical critique. 

    "Lethal force against dissent or external threats? Not mere power grab, but duty-bound necessity to sustain the higher moral-political order.
    "The parallel is striking: Both reject the British Enlightenment path (Locke, Smith, Mill) that grounds secular democracy in individual rights, free markets, and a limited state that serves citizens. 

    Dugin does it with apocalyptic, anti-modern mysticism and civilisational clash. Larijani does it with measured, pragmatic deontological reasoning adapted to clerical-authoritarian stability.
    "Russia gets the wild-eyed prophetic theorist; Iran gets the calculating insider philosopher. Yet both scaffold regimes where the individual is subordinated to a transcendent collective fate - whether empire or revolutionary faith—precisely when global power shifts demand such justifications.
    "Philosophical coincidence? Or a deeper pattern in how anti-liberal thought sustains authority amid crisis?"

~ Paul Steeper from his comment 'In Our Current Geopolitical Moment - A Contrast of Anti-Liberal Scaffolds: Dugin's Eurasian Destiny in Russia vs. Larijani's Kantian Duty in Iran' [hat tip Stephen Hicks]

BOOK REVIEW: 'Who Was Behind the Bolshevik Revolution?' by Ron Asher [updated with reply by publisher]

I have in front of me a new book by Tross Publishing, which I have been invited to review. Having written a chapter or two for the publisher, it is my unpleasant job not just to recommend you not buy it, but that the publisher withdraw it. (Recommending withdrawal is not a matter of "free speech" -- the right to speak includes the right to take the consequences, including criticism -- simply a recommendation for good editorial hygiene.) Withdraw, because it sits poorly with his other titles, because it sits badly with genuine scholarship on any subject. ...

... and because it's not even a good read.

In 1917 in the midst of a war for survival on the First World War's eastern front, Bolshevists seized power from a provisional Russian government fighting the war, and proceeded to enact terror on the population and thereafter on the world. Far from a revolution, it was a squalid little coup, and what came of it was disaster, starvation, death, and mass-murder. 

There had been a revolution that swept away the Tsar -- swept away him and his autocratic regime -- what Ayn Rand was to call "the good revolution." But it wasn't the Bolsheviks who revolted against the Tsar's regime; they came to power instead in a squalid little backdoor coup eight months later -- orchestrated in part by the Imperial German High Command, who had sent Lenin into Russia to kill the war on their terms -- a backroom revolt that stabbed in the back the Provisional Government and squashed like a bug Russia's first stumbling chance at real freedom. 

The Bolsheviks didn't sweep away oppression; they brought it back.

And our friend Mr Asher has now written 93 pages (and 5 pages of notes) to tell us who really did it. And oddly, the important wartime context is never mentioned ...

The wartime context of the coup. (From Louis Fischer's

 The Life of Lenin (NY: Harper & Row, 1964), p. 109

ELEANOR ROOSEVELT WAS SUPPOSED TO have said that "Great minds discuss ideas; average minds discuss events; small minds discuss people."

This short book claims to reveal who was really behind the Bolshevik Revolution. Really and truly. And it will do so, we are promised, "with meticulous care and references" [p. 5; all uncredited page notes will refer to Mr Asher (2026)]. Take careful note: This is not a book about the ideas that caused the event in question. It is about the people. And, spoiler alert, our author says it was the Jews wot dunnit. They were driven to it, says the author, because they were Jews. 

That's it. That really is it.

And note the argument: it wasn't that those who driven to it because they happened to be Jews. They were driven to it because they were Jews. It was "vengeance," says our author, for earlier Russian pogroms against Jews. Or just because their religion was weird. Or ... something.

A remarkable claim, not least because head Bolshevik and the revolution's driving force was one Vladimir Ilyich Lenin, who was not at all Jewish. (He was raised in a Russian Orthodox Christian family, baptised as an infant, and identified culturally and ethnically as Russian; historians who have examined distant links, such as the author of Lenin's Jewish Question, emphasise any link was irrelevant to his identity, ideology, or actions: he critiqued all religion, including Judaism, and saw ethnicity as secondary to class struggle). Nor was Lenin's successor known as Stalin any more Jewish (he was, famously, an ethnic Georgian christened as Joseph Vissarionovich Dzhugashvili), and nor was the head of Lenin's feared secret police, the Cheka (the brutal Feliz Dzerzhinsky, who was a Pole). 

None of the heads of the snake were Jewish.

Indeed, of the 21 members of the Central Committee of the Bolshevik Party in August 1917, there were at most just six who could be categorised that way. Such niceties however do not disturb our author. (Indeed, he adds three more, without any reference for doing so.) 

And in any case.a similar ethnic make-up can be found for many other Russian movements of the time, including the Russian Orthodox priesthood, the rival Menshevik party (whose founders were both Jewish, and which actually had double the proportion of ethnic Jews to the Bolshies), and of course the Jewish Bund (a secular Jewish socialist party active between 1897 and 1920). A similar make-up can be found because any intellectual movement attracts intellectuals -- and Jewish Russians were among the most educated of the time, and were barred by the Tsar's regime from other political involvement.

So the claim is not just remarkable for being bold, but also (as we will see) for lacking the kind of "meticulous care and references" the boldness demands. It's true that historians of the various Russian revolutions and coups d'etat have generally recognised that Jews were represented in early Bolshevik leadership, but so were many other educated ethnic minorities who all faced persecution under the Tsar. (Most of whom were excluded by being non-Russian from advancement in Russian culture or in the vast Russian bureaucracy.) And of course the vast majority of Jews were not Bolsheviks, and Jews as a community suffered enormously under Soviet rule.

This is especially important today to understand. The book comes at a time when ethnic Russian fascism and anti-Semitism has escalated dramatically following Putin's insane aspirations for empire, and Hamas's murderous October 7 attack followed by Israel's bloody response. It's said that Hamas's “Sinwar placed his money on the 2,000-year belief that Jews were inherently vengeful, greedy, and lustful for the blood of innocents and children [and] in betting on Jew-hatred, Sinwar hit the jackpot."  

The irrational hatred continues even here in New Zealand, once considered a relatively safe environment for Jewish folk, and yet the NZ Jewish Council recorded 227 antisemitic incidents in the 12 months following October 7 -- more than the 166 recorded across the entire eight-and-a-half years prior.

So things are ramping up, and you might well ask yourself about such a book's publication: "Why now?" 

And about the thesis, even if proven: "So what?"

WHILE YOU PONDER THOSE QUESTIONS, consider again what such a proof might look like -- proof that it was the Jews wot dunnit -- and about that promise of "meticulous care and references." 

Let's begin by looking at some contemporary (or near-contemporary) quotes adduced by Mr Asher to describe the Bolshevik coup and the Jews' alleged responsibility for it: some examples drawn from a diplomat's alarmed despatch, a gossip columnist's interview, a White Russian general's memoir, and a State Department intelligence file drawing on a known forgery -- all of which are treated as equivalent historical evidence ...

Your complete five-minute summary of yet another round of 'negotiations' in Geneva

"I’ll save you five minutes of your time today so you don’t have to read the news about yet another round of 'negotiations' in Geneva.

"[First,] Ukraine is still willing to agree to absolutely any ceasefires, compromises, a halt to the war, a freeze along the front line, and all possible and impossible mineral deals to please Donald Trump -- but it is not willing to capitulate and be destroyed by Russia. 

"[Second,] Russia still refuses any ceasefires, any compromises, any halt to the war -- and agrees to nothing short of Ukrainian surrender, with ever-growing demands leading ultimately to Ukraine’s destruction. 

"And [third] the U.S. administration still has neither the power to force Ukraine to surrender, nor the conscience or the wisdom to stop this idiotic charade with Putin and instead to begin pressuring Russia and arming Ukraine so that Ukraine can make Russia accept a stable and lasting peace. 

"[In conclusion:] The parties agreed on nothing and will meet again at yet another meaningless 'summit' in a month, so that Russia can continue buying time and making a fool of Donald Trump while continuing to destroy Ukraine. 

"You’re welcome."

~ Ilya Ponomarenko

Summing up

"Just a reminder that as of now, Iran is still run by cruel theocrats, Venezuela is still run by far-left socialists, Russia is still run by a destructive dictatorship, and Ukraine is still run by a vibrant democracy that is is basically left alone to fight.

"Meanwhile, Donald Trump's priority is to invade Denmark and Minnesota. And to invite Putin to help run Gaza."

~ composite quote by Phillips O'Brien, Dan Smith, Clotilde I. & Alastair Twin

"The stakes could not be higher. As I speak there is despair in European capitals and delight in Moscow. That should tell you everything about the dangerous watershed we’ve now reached."

"On January 18, 2026, President Donald Trump sent a letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Støre. This is not a gaffe or a joke; it is a declaration of how Trump understands power. It reads:

"This letter is sheer madness.

"A sitting US President openly declares that his commitment to peace depends on whether he personally receives a prize—petulant narcissism elevated to state doctrine. ...

"Worse, the letter rejects sovereignty itself. Questioning Denmark’s ownership of Greenland because 'boats landed there' is pre-modern barbarism. By that logic, no country owns anything—only whoever has the power to seize it. ...

"The phrase 'Complete and Total Control' is the tell. It is an explicit claim that world security requires American domination of foreign territory. No advocate of liberty, no defender of objective law, and no serious supporter of the American constitutional order can accept that premise.

"All of this is wrapped in a protection-racket view of alliances. ...

"It is a worldview that treats the United States as Trump’s personal property, international laws that prohibit aggression as optional, and force as the final arbiter of right. Such a worldview is incompatible with liberty. It is incompatible with objective law. And it is incompatible with the moral foundations of the American republic.

"Anyone still defending this man and his movement is not defending America. They are defending the ravings of a would-be king, stripped of reason, law, and moral restraint. And they should be ashamed."

~ Nicholas Provenzo from his post 'Mad Donald's Letter and the Mind of a Would-Be King'

"Donald Trump now genuinely lives in a different reality, one in which neither grammar nor history nor the normal rules of human interaction now affect him. Also, he really is maniacally, unhealthily obsessive about the Nobel Prize."

~ Anne Applebaum from her article 'Trump’s Letter to Norway Should Be the Last Straw'

 

"For all of my life Russia has tried to decouple Europe from America and break the North Atlantic Alliance. It never succeeded. ... But now success is staring the Kremlin in the face. All thanks to Donald Trump. ... 

"Nobody should underestimate the catastrophic consequences for NATO if its leading member annexed the territory of a smaller member. It would be the abnegation of everything NATO is meant to stand for. Nobody denies Greenland is gaining in strategic importance to America. ... 

"But the crucial point is that, in security terms, America can have whatever it wants in Greenland without annexing an ally against its will. ... [T]he 1951 Greenland Defence Agreement (renewed in 2004).... gives the US the right to build as many bases as it wants and station unlimited numbers of military folk there. During the Cold War around 15,000 US person were based in Greenland. It’s now 200. 

"Trump claims Greenland is under threat from imminent takeover by China and/or Russia. It isn't, of course. They haven’t seen a Chinese ship up there for 12 years. But if Trump truly believes it, there's nothing to stop him from ramping up US military assets in Greenland back to Cold War levels or more. Moreover his European Nato allies are on side ... 

"The Trump administration depicts Greenland as a defenceless frozen waste in danger of being picked off by NATO’s enemies. It’s a nonsense. Greenland is a self-governing Danish protectorate. As such it is fully covered by NATO security guarantees, including the all-important Article 5 — which says an attack on one of us is an attack on all of us. Yet Trump still wants to grab Greenland, all part of his mission not just to be Imperial President of the USA but Imperial Overlord of the whole Western Hemisphere. ... 

"Under Trump America is on the brink of becoming the enemy, not our most important ally. As a lifelong supporter of the US it is chilling to write and say such words. "The stakes could not be higher. As I speak there is despair in European capitals and delight in Moscow. That should tell you everything about the dangerous watershed we’ve now reached."

~ Andrew Neil

"Trump's letter to Norway's Prime Minister makes clear it is Trump — not America — with a psychological need to own Greenland."

~ John Bolton 

"[You say that] 'J6 should’ve been the last straw.' Pardoning the J6 criminals should’ve been the really last straw. 

"Republicans can’t get enough straw."

~ FT

"A lot of good people [sic] are on a hook over Donald Trump. They voted for him for understandable reasons [sic]: to stop Hillary or Kamala, to prevent court-packing, to move the embassy to Jerusalem, to reduce regulations. They rightly applauded [sic] his toughening of immigration policy. ...

"They began to feel invested in him. Sure, he was boorish and bombastic [and also utterly incapable of recognising Constitutional restraints - Ed.], but he was delivering most of what he was elected to do. Naturally, they bridled at criticism from people they disliked, some of which was indeed absurd.But he has plainly now lost his mind. There is no other way of reading 'I am going to threaten an ally with invasion because I didn’t get the Nobel Peace Prize.' It is impossible to exaggerate how high the stakes are. If Putin had put an agent in the White House, what would would be doing differently? We are talking about the survival of the Western way of life, about the world order of which the United States is the chief exemplar and beneficiary. That, surely, matters more than 'liberal tears.' Doesn’t it? Because if it doesn’t, we are all damned."

~ Daniel Hannan

PS:

"The most [surely "one of the many"? - Ed.] irritating aspect of the Greenland farce is that it's a distraction from the tragedy of Iran."

~ Niall Ferguson

"The fate of a 2,500-year-old nation and its 93 million inhabitants rests, for now, in the hands of Donald Trump.

On at least eight occasions over the past three weeks, Trump encouraged Iranian protesters to go into the streets, assuring them that the United States had their back and that “help is on the way.” He threatened that if the Iranian regime killed protesters, the U.S. was “locked and loaded” to take action.

“If they start killing people like they have in the past,” he warned, “we will get involved. We’ll be hitting them very hard where it hurts. And that doesn’t mean boots on the ground, but it means hitting them very, very hard where it hurts.”

Despite Trump’s threats, the Islamic Republic commenced what is almost certainly its bloodiest killing binge since its inception, in 1979. The regime itself admitted to 2,000 deaths; human-rights organizations believe that the figure could be higher than 12,000. This death toll likely dwarfs the number of protesters killed by the shah over the 13 months leading to the 1979 revolution.

Trump now confronts a fateful choice. He can make good on his promise and risk the always-unpredictable consequences of military action, or he can face the shame of having given false encouragement to freedom fighters and emboldened one of America’s fiercest adversaries.

If Trump chooses not to act, his encouragement of the Iranian people to rise up, his repeated promises of U.S. support, and his subsequent abandonment of them will be remembered as one of the most callous examples of presidential betrayal in modern history. Expressing moral support for protesters was the right thing to do. But inciting them to rise up and promising intervention, only to watch them get mowed down by the thousands, will be counted as an act of cruelty."

~ Karim Sadjadpour from his article 'Trump’s Fateful Choice in Iran'

PPS:

"We just reviewed Trump’s recent National Security Strategy and Greenland isn’t even mentioned once. Remember this when Trump officials talk about how conquering Greenland is a top national security priority. They are lying to you."

~ Trump Lie Tracker

Trump envoy Steve Witkoff's plan for peace in Ukraine has Kremlin fingerprints all across it. That's no surprise, says Їne Back Їversen in this guest post, because his entire career does too.

Let’s talk about Steve Witkoff

Guest post by Їne Back Їversen

LET'S TALK ABOUT STEVE WITKOFF, because I think the narrative of him being a “useful idiot” is a dangerous trap to walk in.

It’s darker than that.

Witkoff has spent three decades swimming in russian money, russian mob circles, and russian real-estate pipeline.
 
He isn’t just “a MAGA dude” advising Trump on Russia–Ukraine. Witkoff is of russian descent, built his fortune through New York City networks flooded with post-Soviet criminal money, and is now pushing the Kremlin wish-list, aka the so called “peace plan.”

It’s not a coincidence. It’s continuity. 

In the 1990s, Manhattan’s luxury real estate became the #1 laundromat for russian criminal networks fleeing the collapse of the USSR.

The FBI has testified to Congress about this era. It was no secret.

And who rose to power right then?

Steve Witkoff & Donald Trump.

The Trump Tower in the 80s–90s was filled with Russian mobsters, arms dealers, money launderers, “businessmen” tied to Russian crime boss Semion Mogilevich, and shell companies buying in cash.

Trump didn’t just tolerate it — he blindly” welcomed it.

Trump's buddy Witkoff played on the commercial version of the same ecosystem.

While Trump handled condos bought with suitcases of cash, Witkoff handled big office buildings financed through opaque partnerships & distressed sellers.

Two men, one pipeline of russian capital.

Fast-forward to 2024–25, and Witkoff is Trump’s point man on Russia–Ukraine policy.

A man with zero diplomatic background, zero Ukraine expertise, & a large Russian network and a history of loud Pro-Kremlin cheerleading.

And here we are again, with the U.S flashing Russia's wish-list.

Déjà vu: In 2016, Paul Manafort (the former Trump campaign chairman) met Konstantin Kilimnik (a Russian intelligence asset) to discuss a “peace plan” for Ukraine that legitimised Russia’s invasion, installed a Moscow-approved leader, lifted sanctions, and forced Kyiv to negotiate under duress.

Sound familiar?

And how absurd to hear Trump again and again say “The war would have never started if I were president.”  When he knows darn well Russian invaded Ukraine in 2014. And you better believe that Trump will have hear the Manafort “Peace Plan” conversations many MANY times. 

So here we are again, this time with a 28-point “peace plan” presented handed over by Witkoff.

Same unhinged demands.

Same twisted narratives.

This is not innovation. This is recycling Kremlin policy. Delivered by business partners disguised as diplomacy. 

LET'S GO BACK TO Trump Round 1 again.

It’s easy to forget how disturbing Trump’s private meetings with Putin were:

• No US officials present
• No transcripts
• •No accountability
• Interpreters’ notes seized
• Policy outcomes mysteriously aligned with Russian goals 

And it’s the same now;

• Trump’s closed Alaska meeting with Putin. 
• Witkoff’s quiet trips to Moscow
• Off-record negotiations about Ukraine
• No transparency? Just “take my word for it, bro.”

Why is US policy on Ukraine being decided behind closed doors, without Ukraine?!

Yet the US demand from Ukraine is a the complete opposite, constant transparency, public statements, oversight, disclosures, visibility, “THANK ME!”

But from Russia?

Not a single demand, just “give them two weeks”

This isn’t diplomacy. It’s appeasement.

Witkoff’s public statements are indistinguishable from Russian propaganda regarding Russian language, “Territory is negotiable” etc.

Even in 2018, Witkoff criticized Western economic sanctions against Russia, imposed after Russia's illegal annexation of Crimea.

And notice how Witkoff consistently omits Russian war crimes, mass deportations, missile strikes on civilians, nuclear blackmail, and the documented genocide intent.

This is selective ignorance, aimed to whitewash & erase Russia's crimes & force the victim to compromise.

And many say: Witkoff & Trump are businessmen, they just want a deal.

But that deal with Russia was done long ago, many times; now Witkoff & Trump are doing their part of it: appeasing Moscow, pressuring Ukraine, undermining sanctions, forcing a deal ... and declaring it “peace.”

WITKOFF MADE HIS CAREER in a world where Russian money laundering was normalised, with Russian crime lords depicted as “investors,” “partners,” or “buyers.” This is the world that Manafort monetised, Trump depended on & Russian intelligence used as cover.

They didn’t exit that world, they brought it in.

Witkoff operates with zero scrutiny, because he’s framed as a “businessman” instead of a geopolitical actor. But he is shaping  US posture toward Russia, the U.S stance on war crimes, the direction of NATO policy, and Ukraine's future security.

Off the books, next to russia.

Witkoff is all but openly declaring that the U.S. now advocates for Russia. It’s not concealed. It’s directly hostile to Ukraine & EU security.

That’s the man who is tasked to sit with Russia to “negotiate” Ukraine —without Ukraine even at the table.

The pressure, demands & ultimatum all fall on Ukraine.

Yet Witkoff is a Russian echo chamber: “Ukraine should give up land”; “Ukraine can’t win”; “Peace requires Ukrainian concessions.”

These are not “opinions.”

These are Kremlin foreign-policy objectives. And Witkoff has  publicly stated this long before his current position.

The pattern is clear:

1990s: Russian capital enters NYC real estate, money on which both Trump & Witkoff thrive 
2016; Russia uses these lines for political access
2024 : Witkoff re-emerges as Trump’s Russia whisperer
2025: A new Kremlin-shaped “peace plan” is born

The “Russia hoax"-is far from a hoax. It’s misunderstood.

Are they russian agents? Probably not. Are they useful idiots, vessels for Russian policies with a history in the network. 100%!

They are men whose worldview, networks & financing were shaped inside a system of russian influence.

The question isn’t “Is he compromised?” The question is:

Why is US policy on Russia being shaped by someone whose entire worldview was formed in the one American industry that Russian intelligence spent decades infiltrating?

Ask instead: why is there so much willingness to ignore that? 

"There are two Putins."

Recently-retired MI6 head Richard Moore, Financial Times

“'I fundamentally assess that Putin is not interested in negotiations. There are no negotiations, not real negotiations. He’s attempting to play us,' [says former MI6 chief Richard Moore].

"According to Moore, there are two Putins. One is the cold-eyed realist, the ruthless leader who cuts deals when he has to. This is the Putin who last year accepted the loss of Syria and the ousting of his ally, the dictator Bashar al-Assad, and sought only to protect Russian bases there. The other Putin is ideological and has 'a deeply wired feeling that Ukraine doesn’t have the right to exist.' This Putin invaded Ukraine and his objective, says Moore, is not to bargain over slices of territory but to dominate.

"In Moore’s view, the only way to confront the ideological Putin is to pile so much pressure on him that he is forced to choose between fulfilling his legacy project in Ukraine and holding on to power. That’s why Moore argues that Ukraine should have the right to strike deep into Russia, and that more economic pressure should be brought to bear on the Putin regime. 'This is a very, very winnable contest,' he says. 'It’s particularly important that we don’t snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.'”

~ from an interview with the outgoing head of the UK's Secret Intelligence Service on the rise of China, why Putin is not interested in talks — and how screen spies aren’t always far from the truth, 'Former MI6 chief Richard Moore: Britain must regain the ‘power of example’'

Ukraine betrayed. Again.

"After months of alternately sucking up to Vladimir Putin and seemingly expressing anger towards him, it turns out the Trump administration has been secretly negotiating with Russia for a while now, cutting the Ukrainians out of the process, and a report at Axios* says they’re now planning to present the plan to Ukraine and force it on them. As for Europe, 'We don’t really care about the Europeans.' I tried to warn them."

~ Robert Tracinski from his post 'Tyranny Is Unaffordable'

* The report is behind a paywall. The Guardian reports the plan "would require Kyiv to surrender territory and severely limit the size of its military.

The draft plan, reported on Wednesday as Russian drone and missile strikes killed at least 25 people in the city of Ternopil, was reportedly developed by Donald Trump’s envoy, Steve Witkoff, and the Kremlin adviser Kirill Dmitriev, would force draconian measures on Ukraine that would give Russia unprecedented control over the country’s military and political sovereignty. The plan is likely to be viewed as surrender in Kyiv.

"I will stop the war in 24 hours"

 Um ...

And also ...

“...it's a tough one”

“....it's possible that he doesn't want to make a deal”

“....there’s no deal until there’s a deal”

"....see what happens”

Niall Ferguson: Osama bin Laden’s Posthumous Victory

"Comparing the world today with that of 24 years ago, I am tempted to say that bin Laden lost the war on terror but is winning the clash of civilisations. ...

"It is not just that the West has been successfully penetrated by an antagonistic civilisation that fundamentally rejects the fundamental division between religion and politics - church and state - that lies at the heart of both Christianity and Judaism. The West is also being geopolitically outmanoeuvred by 'the rest' in just the way Huntington foresaw*.

"Contrast the global order after 9/11 with the global order today. We have come a long way since NATO secretary-general George Robertson’s statement on September 11, 2001 - 'Our message to the people of the United States is . . . "We are with you." '

"In the past three years, Zbig Brzezinski’s worst-case scenario has come about. 'Potentially, the most dangerous scenario,' he wrote in 'The Grand Chessboard' (1997), would be a grand coalition of China, Russia, and perhaps Iran, an ‘antihegemonic’ coalition united not by ideology but by 'complementary grievances' Since the Russian invasion of Ukraine, that grand coalition has come into being, with North Korea as a fourth member. The 'Axis of Upheaval' (China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea) are now cooperating in military, economic and diplomatic ways. Moreover, the Trump administration’s combative treatment of American allies (the European Union, Japan, South Korea) and neutrals (Brazil, India, and Switzerland), not least with respect to trade policy, is alienating not only the traditionally nonaligned but also key partners.

'The upshot is that Israel is now virtually alone in fighting against the Islamists, so that even the United States wants plausible deniability when, as this week, the Israeli Air Force strikes the leadership of Hamas in the Qatari capital, Doha.

'The point is that the clash of civilisation continues. Now ask yourself: Who’s winning? 

...
"[C]omparing the world today with that of 24 years ago, I am tempted to say that bin Laden lost the war on terror but is winning the clash of civilisations. That’s not to say his particular brand of Salafist jihadism is winning; it can even be argued that it’s in decline. Bin Laden’s creed was always too uncompromising to form alliances of convenience. By contrast, the pro-Palestinian 'global intifada' is much more omnivorous, and can easily absorb the old left (Marxism and pan-Arabism) and the new (anti-globalism and wokeism). ...

"At the same time, Western civilisation today is so much more divided than it was 24 years ago. The public response to 10/7 illuminated the divisions. Whereas older voters generally remain more pro-Israel than pro-Palestinian, younger cohorts have swung the other way. Perhaps that’s because to Gen-Z, 9/11 is a faint memory - as distant as the Cuban Missile Crisis and Kennedy’s assassination were to my generation. But it’s also because the Islamists have done such a good job of co-opting the campus radicals, somehow overriding the cognitive dissonance in slogans such as “Queers for Palestine,” while at the same time tapping the antisemitism that still lurks on the far right. ...

"Walking the streets of New York this week, I felt old. To my children, my students, and my employees, 9/11 is not a memory. It is not even an historical fact. It is something people argue about on social media. ...

"It has taken me all these years to understand that 9/11 really was a clash of civilisations. And it has taken me until this week finally to face the reality that ours is losing."

~ Niall Ferguson from his post commemorating September 11, 2001: 'Osama bin Laden’s Posthumous Victory'

* Harvard political scientist Samuel Huntiongton, whose seminal essay on “The Clash of Civilizations” was published in 1993, aligning with the Princeton scholar Bernard Lewis, who had long argued that Islam was chronically unable to modernise.

A tragic Trump tariff tale tweeted

"After failing to make trade deals, Trump is now just posting letters to world leaders announcing new tariff rates."

~ Meidas Touch

"Every one of the tariff letters ends by noting 'These Tariffs may be modified, upward or downward, depending on our relationship with your Country.' No American company is going to open a new factory based on the protection offered by a tariff [that] could disappear before the concrete sets."

~ Justin Wolfers

"They're not even letters. They're posts on the President's social media platform. .... So far: Japan 25% South Korea: 25% Malaysia: 25% Kazakhstan: 25% (very niiice) South Africa: 30% Laos: 40% Myanmar: 40% ... PLUS the sectoral tariffs"

~ Justin Wolfers

"Reminder: the US has a FREE TRADE AGREEMENT with South Korea, signed by the President (GWB) & implemented into LAW by Congress, and TRUMP HIMSELF signed a mini-deal w/ SK in 2018. Now ALL South Korean imports get a 25% tariff — for now. NO incentive for South Korea (or anyone else) to negotiate with him."

~ Scott Lincicome

"Unlike most of the countries Trump is shaking down with tariffs, South Korea has a free trade agreement with the U.S. (KORUS) that was ratified by Congress. The Constitution gives control of trade policy entirely to Congress, the president has no legal authority to do this."

~ Aaron Fritschner

"Trump punishes nice allies while he has not imposed any tariff on Russia or Belarus & no new sanctions either. Trump is transparently for our enemies & against our friends."

~ Anders Aslund

"[T]he logic is not just wrong - it’s economically backwards. Here's why:  

    "First, tariffs are not paid by foreign countries. A 40% tariff as an example goods means U.S. importers pay 40% more. Those importers pass the cost to consumers. Tariffs are taxes — and they hurt Americans, not the governments being 'punished.

    "Second, the letter treats the trade deficit as a threat. But a trade deficit isn’t inherently bad — it’s a reflection of dollar dominance. The U.S. dollar is the world’s reserve currency. Foreign nations want to hold dollars and invest in American assets — like U.S. Treasury bonds, real estate, and equities. This demand for dollars keeps the currency strong and allows Americans to buy more goods from abroad. That’s what creates a trade deficit — not weakness, but strength and global trust. So while countries exports goods to the U.S., the U.S. exports financial assets to the world. That’s not losing - that’s global balance.  

    "Third, the idea of retaliatory tariffs — 'if you raise yours, we’ll raise ours higher' — is not a strategy. It’s a threat that damages diplomacy, disrupts supply chains, and raises costs for American companies and consumers alike. Trade is not a zero-sum game. This kind of mercantilist thinking — where every deficit is seen as a loss and every surplus as a win — belongs in the 1700s. In a modern, interconnected global economy, it’s outdated and harmful. Bottom line:  

• Tariffs are taxes on Americans 
• Trade deficits reflect dollar strength, not weakness 
•  Retaliatory trade policy only hurts U.S. businesses 

"Economic nationalism may sound tough, but it’s American wallets that take the hit."

~ Jon Wiltshire

"Trump: What people don’t understand is... the country eats the tariff, the company eats the tariff and it’s not passed along at all… China is eating the tariffs. 

"Fact-check: False. Costs associated with tariffs are almost universally passed to consumers."

~ The Intellectualist

Compromise: A Ukranian example

"It is only in regard to concretes or particulars, implementing a mutually accepted basic principle, that one may compromise. For instance, one may bargain with a buyer over the price one wants to receive for one's product, and agree on a sum somewhere between one's demand and his offer. The mutually accepted basic principle, in such case, is the principle of trade, namely: that the buyer must pay the seller for his product. But if one wanted to be paid and the alleged buyer wanted to obtain one's product for nothing, no compromise, agreement or discussion would be possible, only the total surrender of one or the other.

There can be no compromise between a property owner and a burglar; offering the burglar a single teaspoon of one's silverware would not be a compromise, but a total surrender—the recognition of his right to one's property. ...

"Contrary to the fanatical belief of its advocates, compromise [on basic principles] does not satisfy, but dissatisfies everybody; it does not lead to general fulfillment, but to general frustration; those who try to be all things to all men, end up by not being anything to anyone. And more: the partial victory of an unjust claim, encourages the claimant to try further; the partial defeat of a just claim, discourages and paralyzes the victim. ...

"In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win. In any compromise between good and evil, it is only evil that can profit. In that transfusion of blood which drains the good to feed the evil, the compromiser is the transmitting rubber tube . . ."

~ Ayn Rand, composite quote from here articles 'The Cashing-In: The Student 'Rebellion',' 'Doesn't Life Require Compromise?,' and 'Galt's Speech.' [Hat tip for cartoon Maksym Borodin]

"All of this helps to explain why a forcible annexation of Greenland would ultimately also harm U.S. interests [as well]."

"All of this helps to explain why a forcible annexation of Greenland would ultimately also harm U.S. interests. To trade in the most stable and powerful military alliance in modern history for control over a frigid and sparsely populated island—plus a place for Trump in the history books—is a bad deal for the American people. But that doesn’t mean that the Trump White House will see things the same way."

~ Yascha Mounk from his post 'They Really Just Might Invade Greenland'

"Is there any actual US policy to get Russia to accept a ceasefire? Or is the US is an ally of Russian imperialism?"

"Ukraine has proposed a ceasefire without conditions. Russia will almost certainly reject this and try to dictate to [US Special Envoy Steve] Witkoff that the US help Russia achieve colonial control of Ukraine, something that Russia could never achieve on its own.
    "Then we see if there is any actual US policy to get Russia to do what Ukraine has done, to accept a ceasefire, or if the US is an ally of Russian imperialism and this whole process has just been a cover story for American submission to Russian wishes. If Witkoff comes back from Russia endorsing Russian demands regarding Ukrainian sovereignty we have our answer.
    "Russia has no more right to dictate anything that happens inside Ukraine than Ukraine has to dictate what happens inside Russia. And the 'root causes' of this war are all inside Russia, as the Russians are reminding us."

~ Timothy Snyder

"Europe is at a critical turning point in its history."

“President, Mr. Prime Minister, Ladies and Gentlemen Ministers, My dear colleagues,

"Europe is at a critical turning point in its history. The American shield is crumbling, Ukraine risks being abandoned, Russia strengthened. Washington has become the court of Nero ...

"This is a tragedy for the free world, but it is first and foremost a tragedy for the United States. Trump’s message is that there is no point in being his ally since he will not defend you, he will impose more customs duties on you than on his enemies and will threaten to seize your territories while supporting the dictatorships that invade you.

"The king of the deal is showing what the art of the deal is all about. He thinks he will intimidate China by lying down before Putin—but Xi Jinping, faced with such a shipwreck, is probably accelerating preparations for the invasion of Taiwan.

"Never in history has a President of the United States capitulated to the enemy. Never has anyone supported an aggressor against an ally. Never has anyone trampled on the American Constitution, issued so many illegal decrees, dismissed judges who could have prevented him from doing so, dismissed the military general staff in one fell swoop, weakened all checks and balances, and taken control of social media. 

"This is not an illiberal drift, it is the beginning of the confiscation of democracy. Let us remember that it took only one month, three weeks and two days to bring down the Weimar Republic and its Constitution. 

"I have faith in the strength of American democracy, and the country is already protesting. But in one month, Trump has done more harm to America than in four years of his last presidency. We were at war with a dictator, now we are fighting a dictator backed by a traitor. 

"Eight days ago, at the very moment that Trump was rubbing Macron’s back in the White House, the United States voted at the UN with Russia and North Korea against the Europeans demanding the withdrawal of Russian troops. 

"Two days later, in the Oval Office, the military-service shirker was giving war hero Zelensky lessons in morality and strategy before dismissing him like a groom, ordering him to submit or resign. 

"Tonight, he took another step into infamy by stopping the delivery of weapons that had been promised. What to do in the face of this betrayal? The answer is simple: face it. 

"And first of all, let’s not be mistaken. The defeat of Ukraine would be the defeat of Europe. The Baltic States, Georgia, Moldova are already on the list. Putin’s goal is to return to Yalta, where half the continent was ceded to Stalin. 

"The countries of the South are waiting for the outcome of the conflict to decide whether they should continue to respect Europe or whether they are now free to trample on it. 

"What Putin wants is the end of the order put in place by the United States and its allies 80 years ago, with its first principle being the prohibition of acquiring territory by force. 

"This idea is at the very source of the UN, where today Americans vote in favour of the aggressor and against the attacked, because the Trumpian vision coincides with that of Putin: a return to spheres of influence, the great powers dictating the fate of small countries.

Mine is Greenland, Panama and Canada; yours are Ukraine, the Baltics and Eastern Europe; his is Taiwan and the China Sea. 

"At the parties of the oligarchs of the Gulf of Mar-a-Lago, this is called 'diplomatic realism.' 

"So we are alone. But the talk that Putin cannot be resisted is false. Contrary to the Kremlin’s propaganda, Russia is in bad shape. In three years, the so-called second-largest army in the world has managed to grab only crumbs from a country three times less populated. 

"Interest rates at 25%, the collapse of foreign exchange and gold reserves, the demographic collapse show that it is on the brink of the abyss. The American helping hand to Putin is the biggest strategic mistake ever made in a war. 

"The shock is violent, but it has a virtue. Europeans are coming out of denial. They understood in one day in Munich that the survival of Ukraine and the future of Europe are in their hands ...  

"It is a Herculean task, but it is on its success or failure that the leaders of today’s democratic Europe will be judged in the history books. ...

 

"Europe will only become a military power again by becoming an industrial power again. ... But the real rearmament of Europe is its moral rearmament. 

"We must convince public opinion in the face of war weariness and fear, and especially in the face of Putin’s cronies, the extreme right and the extreme left. 

"They argued again yesterday in the National Assembly ...  They say they want peace. What neither they nor Trump say is that their peace is capitulation, the peace of defeat, the replacement of de Gaulle Zelensky by a Ukrainian Pétain at the beck and call of Putin. ...

"Is this the end of the Atlantic Alliance? The risk is great. But in the last few days, the public humiliation of Zelensky and all the crazy decisions taken in the last month have finally made the Americans react. 

"Polls are falling. Republican lawmakers are being greeted by hostile crowds in their constituencies. Even Fox News is becoming critical. 

"The Trumpists are no longer in their majesty. They control the executive, the Parliament, the Supreme Court and social networks. 

"But in American history, the freedom fighters have always prevailed. They are beginning to raise their heads. 

"The fate of Ukraine is being played out in the trenches, but it also depends on those in the United States who want to defend democracy, and here on our ability to unite Europeans, to find the means for their common defense, and to make Europe the power that it once was in history and that it hesitates to become again. 

"Our parents defeated fascism and communism at great cost. 

"The task of our generation is to defeat the totalitarianisms of the 21st century. 

"Long live free Ukraine, long live democratic Europe.”

-Claude Malhuret speaking to the French Senate Tuesday March 4 2025.

 

There is no 'leader of the free world' anymore.

"There's no leader of the free world anymore. ...

"[T]he Trump Administration's ... stupid trade war isn't about leverage to get other economies to open up; it is old fashioned autarky* ... the economics of hardened Marxists and moronic economic nationalists ...

"[I]t is however the moral depravity of the line on Ukraine which deserves the most opprobrium.

"There is no morality in surrendering to an aggressor all that it has [grabbed] so that you have 'peace' while the aggressor rebuilds...  and at the same time your erstwhile ally has blackmailed you into signing a predatory deal to hand over resources [without even] vague promises of security. ...

"[T]o be even-handed between Russia and Ukraine is a complete moral inversion. [Trump] has been excoriating about Zelenskyy, but said nothing negative at all about Putin or the behaviour of Russia. ...  He has only demanded that Ukraine stop....

"Of course everyone wants the war to end. It could end tomorrow if Putin just decided to end it and withdraw. But he's a psychopathic kleptocrat who feeds young Russian men (from poor backgrounds) and North Korean men to their deaths. ...

"If the war does ends soon on [Trump's terms, with a capitulation to Russia granting it time to rearm and come again] then it will only prolong the inevitable. Russia can spend a few years rearming, and use its renewed economic potential after sanctions are lifted by the US, to steal military capability and be ready for another attack. ... 

"[Contemplate this:] If the territorial integrity of sovereign states doesn't matter in Ukraine, then maybe it doesn't matter anywhere that the Trump Administration doesn't care about, and that includes any country—in Europe, Asia, in the Indo-Pacific ...

"[T]he cost ... of letting it be known that the US is isolationist and won't act to protect any nation states from attack ... is going to be much higher than the tens of billions taken to bolster Ukraine. 

"Even Marine Le Pen is critical of Trump on Ukraine, because by and large, European countries want to ensure defence against the predatory criminal gangster state to the east that treats its neighbours with impunity.

"Perhaps a deal will be struck,... [Perhaps] Europe will do all it can to support Ukraine. Regardless, it is now a time for small countries everywhere to acknowledge that it's all on now — that the US doesn't care if you are attacked, that you have to fend for yourselves with any other allies.

"There is no 'leader of the free world' anymore."

~ Liberty Scott from his post 'There's no leader of the free world anymore'

Why America (and New Zealand) Should Be on Ukraine's Side and Not Putin's Side, explained in 8 minutes.

 

'A Day of American Infamy' [update 2]

"In August 1941, about four months before the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor, Franklin Roosevelt met with Winston Churchill aboard warships in Newfoundland’s Placentia Bay and agreed to the Atlantic Charter, a joint declaration by the world’s leading democratic powers on 'common principles' for a postwar world. ...
    "The Charter, and the alliance that came of it [including the supply of military equipment to Britain by Lend-Lease] is a high point of American statesmanship. On Friday in the Oval Office, the world witnessed the opposite. Volodymyr Zelensky, Ukraine’s embattled democratic leader, came to Washington prepared to sign away anything he could offer President Trump except his nation’s freedom, security and common sense. For that, he was rewarded with a lecture on manners from the most mendacious vulgarian and ungracious host ever to inhabit the White House.
    "If Roosevelt had told Churchill to sue for peace on any terms with Adolf Hitler and to fork over Britain’s coal reserves to the United States in exchange for no American security guarantees, it might have approximated what Trump did to Zelensky. Whatever one might say about how Zelensky played his cards poorly — either by failing to behave with the degree of all-fours sycophancy that Trump demands or to maintain his composure in the face of JD Vance’s disingenuous provocations — this was a day of American infamy.
    "Where do we go from here?"

~ Bret Stephens from his editorial 'A Day of American Infamy 

PICS: Bottom, war leader Winston Churchill at the White House 3 January 1942, wearing his air-raid suit (Imperial War Museum); top, a war leader at the White House with two thugs (Getty Images) 

UPDATE 1: 

"What does seem clear is that Trump is putting an end to the foreign policy the United States has pursued since the end of World War II. Indeed, his worldview seems to rest on two assumptions that run directly counter to the way in which, for all the serious differences between them, every president since 1945 has thought about America’s role in the world.
    
"The first is that Trump has a fundamentally zero-sum view of the world. America’s relationship with allies like Japan or the United Kingdom has been based on the assumption that both sides would benefit from the partnership. In particular, America would provide its allies with a security guarantee; in return, it would enjoy international stability, reap the benefits of free trade, and have huge sway over the rules governing the world order. Even if the United States might be a net contributor in the short run, expending more for its military budget than its partners, these alliances would over the long run serve the country’s 'enlightened self-interest.'

"Trump, by contrast, seems to believe that every deal has a winner and a loser; since American allies in Europe or East Asia are not unhappy about the current arrangements, this must mean that it is his nation that’s the sucker. ...

"The second assumption shaping Trump’s foreign policy is his belief that spheres of influence are the natural, and perhaps even the morally appropriate, way to organise international relations. ... [and] that maintaining an alliance structure that ignores spheres of influence is naive, needlessly costly, and fundamentally sentimental. ...

"Panama and Greenland are in America’s sphere of influence, and so Trump believes that he is entitled to make outrageous demands on them. Conversely, he seems to regard Ukraine as falling into Russia’s natural sphere of influence ...

"If Trump gets his way, the world will become much more transactional. America’s erstwhile allies in the western hemisphere will either need to learn to stand on their own feet or to pay financial tribute to their protector. Those which happen to be located in the vicinity of the world’s most powerful authoritarian countries will need to accommodate themselves to the diktat of Beijing or Moscow ..."

~ Yascha Mounk from his post 'Help Me Understand... The New World Order'

UPDATE 2:

"In light of the events of the past week [which includes the US siding with Russia and North Korea on a UN resolution condemning Russia's invasion of Ukraine, and a three-ship Chinese naval circumnavigation of Australia], the Washington faction of NZ's Ministry of Foreign Affairs & Trade faces a new and major problem. ...

    "President Donald Trump’s affection for dictatorial regimes; the brutality of his transactional approach to international affairs; and his apparent repudiation of the 'rules-based international order' in favour of cold-eyed realpolitik; makes it difficult for America (and its increasingly apprehensive allies) to retain their footing on the moral high-ground.
    "It is difficult [therefore] to criticise the transactional elements of the relationships forged between China and the micro-states of the Pacific – the Cook Islands being only the latest in a succession of Chinese-initiated bilateral agreements negotiated in New Zealand’s 'back yard' – when the United States is demanding half of Ukraine’s rare earths in part-payment for the American munitions supplied to counter Russian aggression.
    "What those three Chinese warships have produced, however, is a much more compelling argument for aligning New Zealand’s defensive posture in general and its military procurement in particular with Australia’s. In the much colder and more brutal world that is fast emerging from the collapse of the 80-year-old Pax Americana, only the Australians can be relied upon to protect us – and only then if they are satisfied that the Kiwis are pulling their weight."

 ~Chris Trotter from his post 'What Are We Defending?'