Best Of

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.

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

Today’s Rawnsley is on the under-commented efforts by a handful of Lords to filibuster the nationally popular AD legislation, and the wider challenges the HoL is giving the government:

The passage of time has turned the peers, especially those of the Tory variety, bolshie. As the government has become increasingly unpopular, the Lords have waxed more aggressive about attacking Labour’s programme. They are much more powerful from a constitutional point of view than is generally appreciated because they can eat up huge amounts of parliamentary time and ministerial energy.

Almost entirely unreported in the media, anti-government peers have been dragging out proceedings and bogging down legislation for months. Labour might have a massive majority in the Commons, but in the bloated Lords it has just a quarter of the members eligible to attend proceedings.

Law and precedent are supposed to curb the unelected house’s capacity to make mischief. The Salisbury Convention holds that peers should not thwart a government when it is fulfilling a manifesto commitment, as Labour is with both the employment rights bill and the removal of the hereditaries.

Members of the Lords have put forward more than 1,000 proposed changes to the law to facilitate assisted dying. Hundreds of these amendments are apparently the work of just seven opponents of the legislation. Assisted dying is a complex and contentious issue that merits detailed scrutiny. It is a different matter if procedural sabotage is the intent. The Lib Dem peer Lord Goddard warned his fellow peers that they had “a duty” to treat the bill “with respect, not disdain, not threatening to derail it or run it out of time”.

More than one minister I’ve spoken to is bewildered that Number 10 seems reluctant to call out the delaying antics and wrecking tactics of vandals in ermine. I am similarly baffled that the government isn’t making more noise about it.

It's a Private Members' Bill not a Government Bill, so of course the Government is not going to call out what's going on. In truth, it's a poorly drafted Bill that saw the largest proportionate drop in support between 2nd and 3rd readings of any recent legislation as MPs woke up to that. The Lords are doing their job.

Fascinating read, thank you Sean F.

A couple of points:

Yes, civilised democracies are not necessarily losers; but they can be. The civilised democracy experiment is new. What, I think, it needs to maintain is not a Sparta culture but a substantial 'warrior class' and also a 'warrior ethos' throughout the majority of the population. Through most of my life this has been marginalised and treated by most of the middle class as if it is a matter mostly to be delegated to other groups and other nations, especially the USA, and other means, especially the nuclear deterrent. The evidence that the UK population is really willing for massive sacrifice in place of surrender is not strong and I only have to look into myself to see that.

Second, and changing the subject, the article ends with the ringing words:

“In crises, the most daring course is often safest.”

By the end of the week we will perhaps know if the current government has heeded the message. If the budget does a 1981 and cuts spending, raises taxes and explains the fiscal plan and how delusional we have been since 2008 then Labour may have a chance of regaining credibility.

There is still, I think, in this country, a willingness among part of the elite to take part in military service, which does not apply everywhere.

The battlefield must be a terrifying place. But as ever, if you want peace, you must prepare for war.

Though the mithering in the west is a step back from that.

We're mostly not being asked to throw ourselves onto the battlefield, just to stump up the cash to produce the machines for the Ukrainians to use.

We've been reluctant to do that for a while. Alan Clark's Diaries note how his Defence Review was the only way John Major was going to be able to afford tax cuts.

One of the (many) things that disgusts me about pro-Russia types, is the argument that Western people are being required to make big sacrifices. All we’re being asked to do is empty our pockets of loose change.