Blog Archives

Ominous: RAND Memory Holes A China Report

11/26/2025

TL;DR Don't go to war with China because you won't win

Lisa Savage
Nov 26, 2025

RAND Corporation, often described as the think tank for the Pentagon, is where those with eyes to see can find outlines of plans to weaken Russia via proxy war with Ukraine (“Overextending and Unbalancing Russia,” 2019), or plans to invade Iraq and take control of their oil (“Iraqi Oil and the Global Economy,” January 2003).

What you won’t find on RAND’s website: their 2025 report “Stabilizing the U.S.-China Rivalry.” Because shortly after a lot of sabre rattling toward China from the newly minted U.S. Department of War the report vanished. Explanation: “This report has been withdrawn for further review.”

The report, while attributing the usual belligerence and intransigence to China, nevertheless argued persuasively that diplomacy should triumph over brute force intimidation. It did so while identifying three key areas where negotiation and accommodation should be attempted: Taiwan, the South China Sea, and the field of science/technology.

I was able to read the report as it had been saved from the memory hole by colleagues at the Global Network Against Weapons & Nuclear Power in Space. You can read it here uploaded to my Proton drive for educational purposes.
First I was struck that two of the focus areas are actual geographical locations literally a few miles from China’s border and tens of thousands of miles from the U.S.

Since China is on the rise as a global economic and military power, and the U.S. is on the decline, a reorientation toward diplomacy and away from military action would make sense. Unfortunately, making sense is not a feature of failing empires. Instead they tend to long to return to formerly glorious times (aka MAGA) and to be blind to realpolitik.

The removal of this report at this time suggests that someone in 47’s regime send word down the pipeline that their mind is made up to pursue hot war with China, and they do not wish to be deterred by facts.

Read Lisa Savage on Substack

0 Comments

What? Peace in Our time?

11/25/2025

0 Comments

Patrick Lawrence
November 24, 2024

The Trump regime’s 28–point Ukraine peace plan accepts Moscow’s core concerns as legitimate. That’s essential for any possible settlement of the war, or the broader crisis between Russia and the West.

President Donald Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin in a joint press conference after meeting in Anchorage, Alaska on Aug. 15. (White House /Daniel Torok)

There are any number of reasons you may not like, or may even condemn, the 28–point peace plan the Trump regime has drafted to advance toward a settlement of the war in Ukraine.

You may be among those many all across the Western capitals who simply cannot accept defeat on the reasoning — is this my word? — that the West never loses anything, and it certainly cannot lose anything to “Putin’s Russia.”
You may think that President Donald Trump and those who produced this interesting document, which leaked out in the course of some days last week, have once again “caved” to the Kremlin.

The outstanding contribution in this line comes from the ever-mixed-up Tom Friedman, who argued in last Sunday’s editions of The New York Times that Trump is to be compared with Neville Chamberlain and Trump’s plan with the much-reviled British prime minister’s “appeasement” of Hitler via the Munich Agreement of September 1938.

I cannot think of a klutzier interpretation of history or a more useless comparison, given it sheds not one sliver of light on what the document to hand is about.

Or you may stand on principle and attempt the well-worn case that Ukraine is a liberal democracy — let me write that phrase again just for fun — Ukraine is a liberal democracy, altogether “just like us,” and must be defended at all costs in the name of freedom, the rights of the individual, free markets, etc.

Or you may think this is no time for the United States and its European clients to relent in their unceasing effort to destabilize the Russian Federation. Those of this persuasion cannot, of course, acknowledge that Ukraine is nothing more than a battering ram in this dreadful cause, at this point much-bloodied. This dodge tends to swell the ranks of those professing the defense of democracy against autocracy as their creed.

Anyone paying attention to the reactions to the Trump plan among the trans–Atlantic policy cliques and the media that serve them has heard all of this and more these past few days. I find it all somewhere between pitiful and amusing.

Pitiful because those who so wildly overinvested in the corrupt, Nazi-infested
regime in Kiev prove incapable of acknowledging that Ukraine lost its war with Russia long ago, and this attempt to subvert Russia now proves a bust.

Amusing because those who so wildly over-invested in the corrupt, Nazi-infested regime in Kiev now squirm at the thought that the victor will have more to say about the terms of peace than the vanquished.

Whad’ya mean we don’t get to dictate a settlement just because we’re the losers?

This, in a single sentence, is the position shared across the West and in Kiev. Trump’s latest sin — and this plan counts as another in many quarters — is that what he and his people now propose favors simple realities over elaborate illusions.

Those asserting that the Trump plan caters to the Kremlin are not altogether wrong, to put this point another way. They are merely wrong in their objections. These 28 points, with many elaborations —No. 12 is followed by 12a, 12b, 12c and so on — indeed give Russia a lot — but not all — of what it has spent years attempting to negotiate.

The missed point is plainly stated: It is a very wise and fine thing finally to recognize the legitimacy of Russia’s perspective. At this point what will serve Russia’s interests will also serve Ukraine’s and the interests of anyone who thinks an orderly world is a good idea.

A couple of things to note before briefly considering the contents of the Trump plan. I am working from a copy of the text apparently leaked to the Financial Times last Thursday.

Keep reading on Consortium News.

0 Comments

Back From the Dead: Resurrecting the Ukraine Peace Plan

11/24/2025

0 Comments

Ted Snider
November 24, 2025

Anchorage is not dead, and Budapest is still alive.

Between the Trump-Putin meeting in Anchorage Alaska and the proposed Trump-Putin meeting in Budapest, the diplomatic track that the U.S. and Russia were on seemed to die. In October, Trump and Putin had a “very productive” two hour phone call that led to a phone call between Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russia’s Minister of Foreign Affairs Sergei Lavrov that was to lay the groundwork for a meeting between Trump and Putin in Budapest.

But, by the time Rubio had hung up the phone, the Budapest meeting was off. Hopes for diplomacy seemed to be dead, and Trump said that “sometimes, you have to let them fight.” On November 19, though, that hope was reanimated.
The “tense” phone call between Rubio and Lavrov put an end to the Budapest talks when Rubio told Trump that Russia was firm on their “maximalist” demands, including Ukraine ceding Donbas, reducing their armed forces and guaranteeing they will never join NATO, and that they showed “no willingness to negotiate.”

But then hints emerged that restarting talks may not be impossible. At the G7 Foreign Ministers meeting in Canada on November 11-12, Rubio characterized his phone call with Lavrov by saying “there was agreement on both sides that the next time our presidents meet, there has to be a concrete result. We have to know going in that we have a real chance to get something positive coming out. And we’d love to see that happen.”

Moscow agrees that a summit should only be held when details have been worked out. Russian presidential secretary Dmitry Peskov said that “both sides will want to hold a summit in Budapest at some point but such a meeting should be thoroughly prepared.” A Russian diplomatic source responded to Rubio’s comment by saying that “The summit is definitely necessary, but it must be preceded by careful organizational and substantive preparation” before adding that “this is only feasible if the US firmly adheres to the Anchorage agreements.” Lavrov has repeatedly stressed that Russia “remains committed” to the outcomes arrived at in Anchorage, that “the Alaska process is not over” and that Moscow is waiting for Washington’s “response” to Russia’s “repl[y] to the American’s proposal.”

And that may be just what happened. Last week, news broke of the existence of a new 28-point peace plan. Despite speculation in the media that the new peace plan is a hurried response to weakened leverage in Ukraine due to the recent corruption scandal, the framework plan is the result of several weeks’ work.

Russian envoy Kirill Dmitriev says that he met with Trump special envoy Steve Witkoff and other members of the Trump team in Miami over three days from October 24-26. He also says, in what may be the crucial line, that “the basic idea was to take the principles Trump and Russian President Vladimir Putin agreed to in Alaska in August and produce a proposal “to address the Ukraine conflict.”

The 28-point plan would limit the size of the Ukrainian armed forces to 600,000 personnel: a quarter fewer than it currently is but much bigger than it was before the war. Although there were reports that the agreement would end the supply of long-range weapons that are capable of striking deep within Russian territory, that wording is not present in the text of the agreement, which says only that Ukraine is prohibited from launching “a missile at Moscow or St. Petersburg without cause”. In return for these limits on their military, Ukraine would receive U.S. security guarantees against future Russian aggression. The text says, somewhat vaguely, that “if Russia invades Ukraine” there would be “a decisive coordinated military response.” But Axios has reported that the U.S. presented Ukraine with a side draft agreement that specifies that a “significant, deliberate, and sustained armed attack” by Russia on Ukraine “shall be regarded as an attack threatening the peace and security of the transatlantic community,” suggesting a NATO article 5-like promise. If true, that is an unexpected development. It was Zelensky’s White House request for security guarantees that led Trump to castigate him that he was “gambling with World War III.” More tellingly still, the U.S. and its NATO partners have demonstrated a consistent unwillingness during the current war to become directly militarily involved with Russia.

The agreement also grants de facto control of all of the Donas region of Luhansk and Donetsk, including the roughly 14% that Ukraine still controls. The plan stipulates that “Ukraine will adopt EU rules on religious tolerance and the protection of linguistic minorities,” suggesting protection for the Russian language and the Russian Orthodox Church.Protection of the rights and safety of ethnic Russian in Donbas and Crimea has been a non-negotiable goal of Russia since the start of the war. Russia will not end the war without guaranteeing this goal. The peace plan also aligns with the reality that Ukraine is on the verge of losing this territory on the battlefield with great additional loss of life, so “it is in Ukraine’s interest to reach a deal now.”

Though Russia would have de facto control of Donbas, the 14% from which Ukraine would have to withdraw would be designated as a demilitarized zone, and no Russian troops could be positioned there. There would also be no NATO troops on Ukrainian soil, ending Europe’s version of the peace keeping force.

In the new peace framework, the U.S. and the world would recognize Luhansk, Donetsk and Crimea as lawfully Russian territory. Though not stated in the agreement, there are unconfirmed reports that Ukraine would not be forced to make that admission. In Kherson and Zaporizhzhia, the current lines of control would be frozen with Russia possibly negotiating the return of some territory that it controls outside of these five regions.

There were hints that the agreement included a promise not to move NATO into. Dmitriev had said that the agreement “addresses Russia’s security concerns” and had described it as “actually a much broader framework, basically saying, ‘How do we really bring, finally, lasting security to Europe, not just Ukraine.” Those hints have now been confirmed. Point 3 of the agreement states that “It is expected that… NATO will not expand further,” and point 7 stipulates that “Ukraine agrees to enshrine in its constitution that it will not join NATO, and NATO agrees to include in its statutes a provision that Ukraine will not be admitted in the future.”
It is not entirely clear the extent to which Ukraine was invited to participate in the negotiations. The New York Times reports that the proposal was “drafted without Ukrainian involvement.” The Times reporting says that, according to a senior Ukrainian official, “the Trump administration had informed Ukraine of the talks but had not sought Kyiv’s input.”

The key figures in the negotiations seem to be Witkoff and Dmitriev. They seem to have done the real work with the help of Qatar and Turkey. Turkey has been involved in negotiations between Ukraine and Russia since the start of the war. The framework plan then seems to have been presented to Ukraine by Witkoff who met with Rustem Umerov, the secretary of the national security and defense council of Ukraine. The Financial Times reports that Witkoff “made it clear” that Washington “wanted Zelensky to accept the terms even though they included points that have long been red lines for Ukraine.”

There are other reports that suggest that Umerov was empowered by Zelensky to negotiate with the Americans and that “many of his comments were incorporated into the text of the 28-point plan.” One source told Axios that “many understandings were reached in the talks with Umerov.”

There are already reports, though, that Kiev has denied accepting the terms of the peace plan and that they consider many points impossible. One source told The Washington Post that agreeing would be “a complete capitulation of Ukraine, and Zelensky is not willing to agree to that.” Already a planned meeting between Witkoff, Zelensky and Turkish Foreign Minister Hakan Fidan has been postponed because Zelensky is “walking back from the understandings reached with Umerov and is not interested in discussing the Trump plan.” However, the next day,

Zelensky, “agreed to work on the plan’s provisions in a way that would bring about a just end to the war” and said he expects to talk to Trump soon. The U.S. is reportedly pushing for “an aggressive timeline for signature.”

Western critics are already screaming that the plan is a betrayal that amounts to Ukraine giving up its sovereignty. It does not. Indeed, the first point of the agreement is that “Ukraine’s sovereignty will be confirmed.” It gives up concessions Ukraine was prepared to give up in the Istanbul talks at the start of the war and land that it will be forced to give up if the war goes painfully on.

The good news is that the plan has finally done what Russia has requested and what diplomacy requires: it has detailed on paper the points that will need to be negotiated. Now that negotiation can begin, including on points, like the size of the Ukrainian armed forces and security guarantees, that may still be malleable in negotiations. Washington has been stressing to Ukraine and Europe that the framework is a “live document” that can still take all positions into account.

The bad news is that the peace that will come from this plan – if peace comes from this plan – is the peace Ukraine could have had in Istanbul in the first days of the war had the United States, the UK and Poland not pushed them off the diplomatic path. This war was always going to end with Russia in Donbas and Ukraine out of NATO. But had the realities that are being faced now been faced then, Donbas could have had autonomy while remaining a part of Ukraine, and hundreds of thousands of Ukrainians would not be dead.

Let’s hope those realities are confronted now and a real European security structure emerges. The alternative is an ongoing war that will not change the peace plan that will eventually emerge but that will be signed with a lot more blood at a future date.

0 Comments

Donald Trump Not Invited to Dick Cheney’s Funeral But Look Who Did Show Up

11/20/2025

0 Comments

Joshua Scheer
November 20, 2025

Wikimedia Commons

Can you think of no greater honor than to be snubbed by this family and this man?

For me, the moment Kamala Harris embraced Dick Cheney was the breaking point of her nascent campaign for the presidency and the Democratic party’s convenient forgetfulness of the worst of the Bush years. It even made me wonder — briefly — whether Trump could actually be the lesser evil. He isn’t, of course. But they all are part of the corrupt two party system, all part of the same machine.

Cheney’s crimes against humanity are almost too long to list: the devastation across the Middle East, the rise of ISIS, the deaths of countless U.S. citizens, Iraqis, Palestinians, and so many more. The neocons should have faded into history, yet we keep resurrecting them. We’re far past any legitimate need for global war, except for the endless demands of capitalist interests that profit from perpetual conflict.

We have the resources to build a world centered on human well-being, and yet Dick Cheney remains a symbol of the worst of the neocon era, and of how easily we forgive and forget simply because we, myself included, despise Trump.

Here are the people who decided to come to Cheney’s funeral; may we never forget this. From the Guardian: “In the front pews was a bipartisan group: former president Joe Biden, former vice-presidents Kamala Harris, Mike Pence, Al Gore and Dan Quayle, former House speaker Nancy Pelosi and the U.S. Supreme Court Chief Justice, John Roberts …In a further twist that perhaps illustrated the degree to which Trump has reshaped the nation’s political landscape and forged unlikely alliances, the liberal MS NOW host Rachel Maddow made an appearance at the service.”

Sadly, though Dick is dead his neocon and hateful ways are not, and this demonstrates that in clear focus.

Here is a good read from our friends at FAIR about Dick.

Remembering Dick Cheney, ‘Polarizing’ War Criminal

“The corporate media in the United States have rarely met a servant of empire who isn’t eligible for hagiography in death, whether or not they presided over mass murder worldwide. In the case of Dick Cheney, who died on November 4, media outlets have summoned everything in their power to sugarcoat the blood-drenched career of the most powerful US vice president in history, a position he notoriously occupied for the duration of the two-term administration of George W. Bush from 2001–09.”

0 Comments

The Science of Political Propaganda

11/20/2025

0 Comments

Glenn Diesen
November 20, 2025

Propaganda as a science seeks to manipulate the audience without appealing to reason. Freud’s idea of group psychology overwhelming the rational individual was developed further by his nephew, Edward Bernays, who laid the foundation for the propaganda literature. Joseph Goebbels developed the Nazi propaganda based on the work of Bernays, and the same literature has been at the foundation of NATO’s propaganda.

Follow Prof. Glenn Diesen:
Substack: https://glenndiesen.substack.com/
X/Twitter: https://x.com/Glenn_Diesen

0 Comments

<<Previous