Best Of

Some US lady on the World This Weekend still suggesting that the US can somehow betray Ukraine and Europe, cozy up to Russia, and still have us as an ally against China.

Both arrogant and ridiculous.

I think that was KT McFarland, who was Deputy NSA for a period in Trump I.

It’s not wrong in one sense, in that China will always be a rival to, and at odds with, the Western alliance (which we may need a new name for as Japan and Korea take their seats).

The tricky bit is that the West minus the USA needs to put Russia in its box, not fall into the Chinese orbit, AND cease relying on the USA as a reliable partner. The world is a dangerous place and liberal democracies (which looks like it might currently not be a label that can be applied to the USA) must stick together.

Do that, and really mean it, and the USA will eventually come crawling back to the rest of the West, because it isn’t big enough to oppose China, and manage the rise of India and the larger African nations, alone.

It’s no longer a slam dunk that China is less reliable than the U.S.

I'm afraid it is.

The US is nothing like the same level of geopolitical threat than China is, and it's silly to pretend otherwise just because Trump is a reprehensible person.

I will automatically think less of any poster who says otherwise.

Nobody particularly cares about your approbation or disapprobation.

Anyone who can witness the Dmitriev-Witkoff plan and think that the U.S. remains the only choice is simply not thinking straight.

You cared enough to respond immediately, which tells us everything we need to know.

We don't need to resort to hyperbole to make points about Trump, and we should keep our assessments in proportion - lest we make naive decisions.

Oh get over yourself.

If I have time, I generally respond to anyone who responds to me.

Except WilliamG who I find extremely tedious.

I try to do likewise, Gardenwalker, although I do not make an exception for William. I do not however answer TSE. It's not that I don't like him or anything, it's just that he's a lawyer and I'm always afraid he might send me an invoice.

Have we discussed this woe is me article about inheritance tax..

https://inews.co.uk/inews-lifestyle/money/mum-died-148k-inheritance-tax-bill-robbery-4043112?utm_campaign=social_fb_posts&utm_medium=social&utm_social_handle_id=118077678252869&utm_social_post_id=589120167&utm_source=fb

Yes it's a £150,000 bill but the estate is worth over £1 million - the tax rate is about 12%..

But there is something inherently (if you pardon the pun) unjust about inheritance tax. You are taxed all your life and then taxed when you die. Even though most people will never pay it, though many will be close to touch it with property, it feels instinctively wrong and is why it is largely disliked.

It was Osborne who turned around the fortunes of the floundering Conservative opposition with commitment on Inheritance Tax.

This is what is always said but it is not really true. For the vast majority troubled by IHT their major asset is their house on which they will have a substantial gain from the time that they bought it. And they have paid no tax on that gain at all. Unless they have bought an annuity the next largest asset is likely to be pension funds. On which they have not only not paid tax but had tax relief. If they own a business then there will be unrealised (and untaxed) capital gains on heritable assets and goodwill. The taxed income people complain about is likely to be a relatively modest contributor to the estate because it is bloody difficult to have meaningful savings out of taxed income in this country, thus maintaining the financial dominance of our ruling class.

If people are to inherit life changing sums of largely untaxed funds I think the government (on our behalf) is due a cut.

I very much enjoyed reading the article - a real treat.

I don't really agree with the conclusion. The part of the West in this war has been led by the USA behind the scenes, and it was felt that a low level war over a long period would weaken a geostrategic enemy and pull it away from Western Europe. That has been a success, though not necessarily to the advantage of Western Europe to my mind.

To make clear - I am not blaming Russia's calamitous and blood-soaked invasion on the US - that was Russia's decision alone. I am saying that the US was not by any means a bystander in the events that preceded it, and has pursued its own geostrategic ambitons (though they have now changed) in its policy toward it.

But now the US has lost interest. Given this fact, if there is a peace plan, what Europe should really be doing is sweeping up the glass and breathing a sigh of relief.

Regarding the peace plan itself, it seems that what Russia still wants is for what remains of Ukraine to be a weakened, non-NATO aligned country - very similar to its original doctrine. The invasion was an absolutely insane way to go about this - really it failed as soon as they didn't reach Kiev. The outcome was always going to be that Ukraine would be fortified and on a path to NATO accession.

The only solution I can think of that could possibly satisfy Russia is a new country, Eastern Ukraine, to border Russia. It would include Russia's current territorial gains in the war, and Ukraine would have to give up more in the North. The state would be nominally autonomous but would essentially be a Russian protectorate.

In return, the rest Ukraine would be free from territorial dispute, and allowed to join both the EU and NATO.

So Russia would have a buffer, Western Europe would have a buffer, and hopefully that would be a basis upon which peace could be restored.

Thanks. I’m sure the West and Ukraine would grudgingly accept a ceasefire on current lines, like Korea.

But, a proposal which requires Ukraine to surrender its fortress belts, and partly disarm, is simply a pause before renewed war.

All manner of fucked up briefing going on in the US.

What's pretty clear is that this was essentially a 'plan' written by Russia, which the US tried to force Ukraine into accepting.
Someone in the administration (not entirely clear who) leaked it to Axios.

It was strongly (and publicly after the leak - see his posts on X) advocated for by Vance, and the faction around him, and spun as a plan authored by the US after 'input' from Russia and Ukraine.

We know, obviously, that there was little or no negotiation with Ukraine, and very public talks between the US (Witkoff) and Russia.
And that neither Europe nor the UK were informed or consulted at all.

Once public, there was almost universal outcry and condemnation from Ukraine's allies.
And now Rubio is briefing GOP and Democratic senators this.

King: According to Secretary Rubio, this plan is not the administration’s position — it is essentially the Russians’ wish list that is now being presented to the Europeans and to the Ukrainians.
https://x.com/Acyn/status/1992407926037000619

From the senate press conference:

SenatorRounds confirms that the 28 point plan was delivered to @SEPeaceMissions
: "This was a proposal which was received by someone who has identified and they believed to be representing Russia in this proposal. It was given to @SteveWitkoff..
https://x.com/nickschifrin/status/1992364072860582183

And now from the Deputy Spokesman at Rubio's State Department:

This is blatantly false. *

As Secretary Rubio and the entire Administration has consistently maintained, this plan was authored by the United States, with input from both the Russians and Ukrainians.
https://x.com/StateDeputySpox/status/1992400253547651236

*It clearly isn't blatantly false.

Trying to force a deal is blowing up in their faces. They will have to back off. The damage this is doing *to the US* is increasingly serious.