Saturday 15th of March 2025
Home » Blogs » Gus Leonisky's blog

sinking to 40,000 leagues ....

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqM9s7y6Ey

The End Of Ukraine's KURSK Adventure Causes Hysteria In The West

 

MEANWHILE:

The EU is in tatters as the bloc’s leadership feigns solidarity with the tide rising against globalism. With a trade war looming between the EU and its biggest customer, the United States, heads in Brussels can be heard clanking together to stabilize a horrendous situation. A U.S. Russia reset and Donald Trump’s refocus on America’s problems first spell big trouble for a European confederation already on the ropes.  

The EU’s Precarious Position: Awaiting the Trump Pendulum Effect

BY Phil Butler

 

Europe is a decade or more behind Russia, the United States, and China in innovation, particularly militarily 

Ursula – The PANIC Button!

One look at the mainstream media assures us that EU President Ursula von der Leyen and her handlers are in deep panic mode. Take this Financial Times report as a case in point. British Journalist and Barack Obama cheerleader Gideon Rachman claims Donald Trump’s policies toward Europe have already caused “fundamental steps toward greater European unity.” As you might expect, Rachman cherry-picks some polls to prove his claims. According to polls in France, Germany, and the UK (naturally), most people see Trump as a threat. Naturally, the polls are from the UK’s YouGov truth tellers, primarily focused on Western European citizens.

What FT reports is, of course, not the complete story? Let’s forget that this data only comes from a small sampling of Western Europeans. Some key questions collide with the World Economic Forum altar boy’s thesis. First and foremost, when asked if they’d agree to be taxed more to build a giant European military, the majority of respondents replied not just no, but hell no. The same holds true for Europe, which borrowed more to fund a new European war machine. The numbers are here (PDF). Interestingly, only the British respondents thought their country was spending too little on defense (46%). On the other hand, the Italians believe their government is spending too much already (41%).

Here, two or more significant variables have yet to be considered. First, the devastating blows to an already weak EU economy if Trump does launch a trade war would undoubtedly drive a giant VW axle in the hearts of every German. Secondly, dear Ursula’s pledge of hundreds of billions for a spanking new EU army is not doable even with massive borrowing. The EU is already nearly $20 trillion in debt. Austerity in poorer EU nations has already drowned the hopes of hundreds of millions of people. And Romania becoming a dictatorship by annulment of the will of the people has only made matters worse.

Money from Air?

Let’s look at the economy first. This report from POLITICO.eu in December 2024 was a crystal ball look from Matthew Karnitschnig in Berlin. The piece’s title, “Europe’s economic apocalypse is now,” predicted the looming disaster before Trump even took office. To paraphrase, Karmitschnig said at the time:

“European capitals, already struggling to rein in surging deficits amid dwindling tax revenue, will face even greater financial strains, which could trigger further political and social upheaval.”

The analyst goes on to unveil the real problem with the European economy. Trump’s tariffs would only be an aggravating symptom of a much more chronic economic disease. Karnitschnig, uractiv’s Editor-in-Chief, says the foundation of Europe’s economy is wobbling on a shaky foundation. And he’s not the only expert saying this. Holly Elyatt, CNBC correspondent (and soon-to-be Elon Musk employee?) focusing on European macroeconomics and politics, pointed out recently:

“Economists say the trajectory for both countries is worrying, warning that the absence of growth, fiscal imbalances and political intransigence could lead to decline and a loss of standing for Europe, as a whole.”

Solidarity – Poof!

Some other takeaways include that Europe is a decade or more behind Russia, the United States, and China in innovation, particularly militarily. The Russians now have hypersonic weapons that, with a first strike, can destroy the entire European nuclear arsenal at sea and on land with almost zero response time. Add to this the numbers from the British survey when people in countries like Turkey were asked if their soldiers should defend France or Spain, for instance. Looking at the responses, it is clear that some members of the NATO bloc are not keen to fight for some of their comrades. Interestingly, no one seems interested in rescuing Italy should an attack be made on that country. Also, very few people in the survey believed the U.S. would aid the Baltic States should Russia attack.

The Kiel Institute for the World Economy recently reported, estimating that the Europeans would have to mobilize 300,000 troops and spend an additional $250 billion annually to match Russia. However, the institute’s figures and analysis do not add up if the sinking EU economy and political upheaval are tallied. An America-Russia reset would essentially turn Europe into a gigantic travel destination, subject to the whim of more prosperous nations and alliances. No one has figured the BRICS into the equation. China, Iran, India, and other players in the new multipolar order are also neglected in these calculations.

In a paper from 2024 entitled “Re-evaluating the East-West divide in the European Union,” Clara Volintiru, Director of the Bucharest Office of the German Marshall Fund and the Black Sea Trust (BST), examined the broader political backdrop of democratic backsliding and new geopolitical developments where EU unity are concerned. She and her colleagues highlight the deeper divide that economics or Trump upheavals cause. One argument goes like this:

“While we acknowledge that the EU has been instrumental in bringing peace and prosperity to Europe, this collection nevertheless argues that the severity, duration, and intractability of the East-West divide poses a real threat to European integration in the medium- and long run. This argument unfolds as follows. First, despite robust economic growth and some degree of socio-politic.”

The researchers also point to the “pendulum effect,” where opinions and policy swing from solidarity to nationalism (in my view). The author rightly questions the purpose of the EU if perfect integration cannot be achieved. Trump’s apparent onslaught against the liberal world order adds mighty weight to that pendulum.

 

Phil Butler, is a policy investigator and analyst, a political scientist and expert on Eastern Europe, he’s an author of the recent bestseller “Putin’s Praetorians” and other books

 

https://journal-neo.su/2025/03/13/the-eus-precarious-position-awaiting-the-trump-pendulum-effect/

 

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

russian president’s response....

Russian President Vladimir Putin confirmed on Thursday that Russia is ready to discuss a ceasefire but that the terms of such an arrangement should be clarified. Putin has said as far back as July 2024 that Moscow is not interested in short-term pauses but is ready to engage on addressing the causes of the conflict.

Washington and Kiev both endorsed a 30-day temporary truce following a meeting between their respective delegations in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday.

Here's a full transcript of the Russian president’s response:

 

Before I assess how I view Ukraine's readiness for a ceasefire, I would first like to begin by thanking the President of the United States, Mr. Trump, for paying so much attention to resolving the conflict in Ukraine.

We all have enough issues to deal with. But many heads of state, the president of the People's Republic of China, the Prime Minister of India, the presidents of Brazil and South African Republic are spending a lot of time dealing with this issue. We are thankful to all of them, because this is aimed at achieving a noble mission, a mission to stop hostilities and the loss of human lives.

Secondly, we agree with the proposals to stop hostilities. But our position is that this ceasefire should lead to a long-term peace and eliminate the initial causes of this crisis.

Now, about Ukraine's readiness to cease hostilities. On the surface it may look like a decision made by Ukraine under US pressure. In reality, I am absolutely convinced that the Ukrainian side should have insisted on this (ceasefire) from the Americans based on how the situation (on the front line) is unfolding, the realities on the ground.

And how is it unfolding? I'm sure many of you know that yesterday I was in Kursk Region and listened to the reports of the head of the General Staff, the commander of the group of forces 'North' and his deputy about the situation at the border, specifically in the incursion area of Kursk Region.

What is going on there? The situation there is completely under our control, and the group of forces that invaded our territory is completely isolated and under our complete fire control.

Command over Ukrainian troops in this zone is lost. And if in the first stages, literally a week or two ago, Ukrainian servicemen tried to get out of there in large groups, now it is impossible. They are trying to get out of there in very small groups, two or three people, because everything is under our full fire control. The equipment is completely abandoned. It is impossible to evacuate it. It will remain there. This is already guaranteed.

And if in the coming days there will be a physical blockade, then no one will be able to leave at all. There will be only two ways. To surrender or die.

And in these conditions, I think it would be very good for the Ukrainian side to achieve a truce for at least 30 days.

And we are for it. But there are nuances. What are they? First, what are we going to do with this incursion force in Kursk Region?

If we stop fighting for 30 days, what does it mean? That everyone who is there will leave without a fight? We should let them go after they committed mass crimes against civilians? Or will the Ukrainian leadership order them to lay down their arms. Simply surrender. How will this work? It is not clear.

How will other issues be resolved on all the lines of contact? This is almost 2,000 kilometers.

As you know, Russian troops are advancing almost along the entire front. And there are ongoing military operations to surround rather large groups of enemy forces.

These 30 days — how will they be used? To continue forced mobilization in Ukraine? To receive more arms supplies? To train newly mobilized units? Or will none of this happen?

How will the issues of control and verification be resolved? How can we be guaranteed that nothing like this will happen? How will the control be organized?

I hope that everyone understands this at the level of common sense. These are all serious issues.

Who will give orders to stop hostilities? And what is the price of these orders? Can you imagine? Almost 2,000 kilometers. Who will determine where and who broke the potential ceasefire? Who will be blamed?

These are all questions that demand a thorough examination from both sides.

Therefore, the idea itself is the right one, and we certainly support it. But there are questions that we have to discuss. I think we need to work with our American partners. Maybe I will speak to President Trump. But we support the idea of ending this conflict with peaceful means.

https://www.rt.com/russia/614170-putin-ukraine-conflict-us/

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.

 

jonathan powell's song sheet....

In the topsy-turvy world in which Keir Starmer and his aides operate, the US putting the onus on Russia to agree to a truce with Ukraine marked a significant victory.

The proposed 30-day ceasefire between Russia and Ukraine is the culmination of two weeks of high-wire negotiations involving Ukraine, the US, UK, France and Germany.

 

Within hours of the plan becoming public on Tuesday, UK sources let it be known that among its architects was Jonathan Powell, a veteran of the New Labour years who has emerged as one of the most important figures in shaping British foreign policy under Starmer.

Powell was in Ukraine over the weekend thrashing out the terms of the proposal in writing with Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his chief of staff, Andriy Yermak, before Ukraine and the US entered crunch negotiations in Saudi Arabia on Tuesday to get it over the line.

The Guardian has been told that Powell has been pivotal in steering the UK response to the fallout between Donald Trump and Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on 28 February. He successfully argued that Starmer should not issue an immediate reaction on social media and instead get on the phone to both leaders.

“Jonathan Powell has earned his money,” said Emily Thornberry, the Labour chair of the Commons foreign affairs committee, on Wednesday. “The idea that he’s been out in the United States and speaking to the Americans and the Germans and the French, and crafting the offer and then going to Ukraine and crafting the response: it’s an achievement,” she told BBC Radio 4’s Today programme.

Thornberry said Powell brought a “depth of understanding and a calm” to the role. Aged 38 when he started working for Tony Blair in opposition, he served as chief of staff for the entirety of Blair’s premiership and helped to negotiate the Good Friday agreement. Before that, he was a diplomat who worked on negotiations to return Hong Kong to China and arms control talks with the Soviet Union in the mid-1980s.

At 67 he was brought back into government from Inter Mediate, the conflict resolution not-for-profit organisation he founded. Those who have worked with him in the past year say he is a calm and seasoned operator who does not seek the limelight. “He has an air about him of a person who has done this all before,” one colleague said.

The same person said Powell was “very much the PM’s choice” for national security adviser, having impressed while leading the government’s negotiations to return the Chagos Islands to Mauritius, a much-maligned deal that now looks set to be waved through by Trump.

Powell has also become No 10’s de facto chief adviser on foreign policy, filling a vacuum left by John Bew, who had the role under three Conservative prime ministers. This has prompted concerns in sections of Whitehall that Powell is spinning too many plates and cracks will begin to show.

“The two biggest concerns that I’m consistently hearing is that he’s got way too much on, and he’s having to travel the whole time as he’s effectively the chief envoy,” said a foreign policy expert who is plugged into Whitehall.

The Guardian reported in January that Morgan McSweeney, Starmer’s chief of staff, intended to appoint a foreign policy adviser to bolster the No 10 operation. Special advisers were told on Tuesday that the role would be filled by Henna Shah, an ally of McSweeney who has been serving as No 10 director of party relations and will play a supporting role to Powell.

Peter Ricketts, who served as national security adviser under David Cameron, said: “Each PM designs No 10 and the staff around them to suit them. Tony Blair used Jonathan Powell in much the same sort of way as Keir Starmer is doing and it suits the Starmer style – no drama, quiet, effective work in the background.

“The issue for Jonathan to watch is that he’s keeping very much on side with David Lammy [the foreign secretary] – this quiet backchannel work needs to be done in close coordination with Lammy and John Healey [the defence secretary] so both ministers feel they have full confidence in him,” Ricketts said.

Powell’s centrality to the negotiations has raised questions about whether Lammy is being sidelined as the UK’s chief diplomat. One diplomatic source said: “Power in foreign policy affairs tends to swing between Downing Street and the Foreign Office. Boris Johnson, Liz Truss and Rishi Sunak all largely left it to the Foreign Office, but Starmer has brought it firmly back into No 10. David Lammy is currently a bit player, but he’s not the first foreign secretary to find himself in that position.”

Lammy’s allies say he has been closely involved in the ceasefire negotiations over the past week and spent a year laying the groundwork for engagement with the Trump administration, including by building a strong relationship with the vice-president, JD Vance. Unlike Joe Biden’s administration, where much of the power rested with the national security adviser, Jake Sullivan, under Trump there are several influential figures shaping foreign policy, including Lammy’s direct counterpart, Marco Rubio.

Powell also helped advise Lammy and Starmer on foreign policy issues in opposition, and the foreign secretary is said to have argued that Powell should be brought into government after Labour won the election.

“He has enough political intuitiveness to be able to adapt,” the foreign policy expert said of Powell. “He is given the authority to speak and act on behalf of the prime minister, which hasn’t always been the case with his predecessors.”

Kiran Stacey contributed to this report.

https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2025/mar/14/jonathan-powell-the-veteran-negotiator-being-lauded-over-us-ukraine-detente

 

 

---------------------------

 

Jeddah, where the United States sings the score that England writes: because a Trumpet is easily fooled.

 

by Mendelssohn Moses

No, it wasn't enough. After the terrible Sebastian Gorka1, a subject of Her British Majesty and unelected advisor to Trump, we learn with horror that Jonathan Powell, a hydra emerging from the stagnant waters where Tony Blair bathes, and security advisor to Prime Minister Starmer, is said to be the architect of the Jeddah trap.

Indeed, the reports published in the English press on Powell's role with Washington are so frank that it is hard to believe that the USA could be so stupid (not to mention another topic that is being discussed behind closed doors among the Usual Suspects: the imminent disappearance of Trompe from the position he occupies, a subject that must occupy all these fine people 24/7 from now on. And since Trompe talks a lot without knowing how to choose his enemies, the operation will, I fear, be all too easy).

According to the Financial Times2 usually more cautious, it would be Powell who "steers" (shepherd) talks between the former Ukraine and the USA: "Starmer is counting on Powell to get the US to approve the arrival of an Anglo-French force." in former Ukraine as well as the so-called ceasefire.

Unelected (of course), this Powell, who was already inviting himself to Washington in December 2024 for in-depth conversations with Trump's transition team, has since invited himself there several times in recent weeks, in order to meet with National Security Advisor Waltz and senior officials.

In order to steer the Jeddah meeting, Powell had already met Zelensky and Yermak in kyiv on the weekend of March 8; Powell would have inspired, so to speak, a written proposal intended, according to the Financial Times, to smooth out the disputes between Ukraine and the US and to concoct the so-called Jeddah ceasefire mirage. Thus, Powell is said to have played the role of psychology "coach" by encouraging Zelensky to "thank" the US for its support and to sign the chimerical agreement on so-called rare earths.

This Friday, March 14, Powell will be invited back to Washington after consulting with the usual "European" suspects, in order to convince Waltz of the indispensable presence of Anglo-French troops in the former Ukraine and of the Big Brother role that the USA should assume. A nuclear umbrella, no doubt.

Published in the Daily Mail ("How the UK saved Ukraine from the brink") a delightful photo taken of Powell this weekend in Kyiv, wearing chunky rubber-soled shoes, sitting next to Yermak, wearing the latest chunky rubber-soled sneakers, to embellish an article on the Jeddah talks. While acknowledging, just in passing, that Russia does not recognize these talks, the London paper praises Powell's role as drafter of the Ukrainian position, while dozens of articles in the compliant English and American press wave the same slogan: "The ball is now in the Russian court" and asserting that Russia "must" (!) approve "their" ceasefire.

However, it is no secret that Russia was not present at the Jeddah talks. It has never said that it wanted a ceasefire in the current circumstances, where equipment and military advisors from some thirty hostile countries are piling up in the former Ukraine.

In a word, the Jeddah talks were de facto between England and the USA.

Russia would be wise to let them talk quietly in their corner.

And Trompe, who has enough problems at home, to avoid

• to be advised by the English

• to allow himself to be lured into the trap of "negotiations" concerning the former Ukraine, which do not concern him and which he must disavow.

Or in the words of Alexandre Mercouris: “Walk away from it. Don't own it».

Furthermore, according to various reports published recently, including3, the candidate chosen by England to succeed Zelensky would be Zaluzhny, currently the ambassador of the former Ukraine in London. At the moment, the latter is undergoing a formatting program and is being specially trained for this purpose.

In December 2024, we could read in Mynews24.co.uk, that England is implementing the replacement of Zelensky by Zaluzhny ... the latter now appears in numerous videos and gives interviews .. which would confirm that a new configuration is being prepared directed against the current Ukrainian government. However, other points of view are being heard. According to parliamentarian Alexander Dubinsky, there would be no difference between Zelensky and Zaluzhny, because the two would be "colleagues" (sic) in the service of MI-6.

Dixit Dubinsky: "It's obvious: Zelensky will not hold elections, but will pave the way for his MI6 "colleague": Zaluzhny. The operational structure for the latter will be presented by Poroshenko... Ukrainians will be asked to elect not a President but a "Supreme Commander," a hetman of the Eternal War. The Zaluporokhobots (? – ed.) operate under the aegis of the Kuchma-Pinchuk clan, whose headquarters are in London.».

Note that Scott Ritter's documentary, "Agent Zelensky», on Zelensky and MI6, has been deleted from all platforms available in France, unless I am mistaken.4

Mendelssohn Moses

 

https://en.reseauinternational.net/jeddah-ou-les-usa-chantent-la-partition-que-redige-langleterre-car-un-trompe-ca-se-laisse-facilement-tromper/

 

MEANWHILE RUSSIA'S PRESIDENT, VLADIMIR PUTIN, SAID YES IN PRINCIPLE TO THE CEASEFIRE, BUT WITH CAVEATS WHICH OVERALL MEAN NIET, GO TO HELL, BUGGER OFF, ETC....

 

READ FROM TOP.

 

YOURDEMOCRACY.NET RECORDS HISTORY AS IT SHOULD BE — NOT AS THE WESTERN MEDIA WRONGLY REPORTS IT.

 

         Gus Leonisky

         POLITICAL CARTOONIST SINCE 1951.