By Andrew Howard, Politico, 10/8/24

Republican presidential nominee Donald Trump has spoken to Russian President Vladimir Putin “maybe as many as seven” times since leaving office in 2021, journalist Bob Woodward reports in a forthcoming book obtained by CNN.

Woodward also writes that Trump, while in office, sent Putin Covid-19 testing machines for his private use during the height of the pandemic. The reporting, which the Trump campaign vehemently denied, quickly reignited allegations of an overly cozy relationship between the two leaders that Trump has for years worked to downplay and dismiss.

Trump campaign aide Jason Miller told Woodward for the book that he had not heard of such calls. Campaign spokesperson Steven Cheung was adamant in denying Woodward’s reporting and vicious in leveling personal attacks against the veteran journalist best known for his work at The Washington Post during the Watergate scandal.

“None of these made up stories by Bob Woodward are true and are the work of a truly demented and deranged man who suffers from a debilitating case of Trump Derangement Syndrome,” Cheung said in a lengthy statement that also called Woodward an “angry, little man.”

The Trump campaign spokesperson said Woodward’s book “either belongs in the bargain bin of the fiction section of a discount bookstore or used as toilet tissue.”

Vice President Kamala Harris was swift to jump on the reporting, telling Howard Stern on Tuesday the reporting “is just the most recent stark example of who Trump is.”

“People in America were struggling to get tests, and this guy is sending them to Russia, to a murderous dictator for his personal use?” Harris said.

Woodward also reports that President Joe Biden blamed former President Barack Obama’s handling of Russia’s 2014 invasion of Ukraine’s Crimea Peninsula for the Kremlin’s wider invasion of Ukraine in 2022. “They fucked up in 2014,” Biden said to a friend, according to Woodward. “That’s why we are here. We fucked it up. Barack never took Putin seriously.”

Biden saved especially harsh language for the Russian president and his ongoing war in Ukraine.

“That fucking Putin,” Biden told advisers in the Oval Office, according to the book. “Putin is evil. We are dealing with the epitome of evil.”

The book, according to CNN, details Biden’s conversations with national security officials leading up to Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022. After seeing details that Russia planned to invade, Biden replied: “This would be so crazy.”

“Jesus Christ!” Biden said. “Now I’ve got to deal with Russia swallowing Ukraine?”

The book also details exchanges between Biden and Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu, including Biden accusing Netanyahu of having “no strategy” for the war in Gaza that has killed more than 40,000 people. Woodward details a moment when Biden called Netanyahu a “bad fucking guy,” which POLITICO reported in February.

Other details of the book, which chronicles the many tensions of Biden’s time in office, include Biden saying he should have never chosen Attorney General Merrick Garland, Sen. Lindsey Graham comparing Mar-a-Lago to North Korea — “everybody stands up and claps every time Trump comes in,” Woodward reports the South Carolina senator saying — and Biden calling Trump “that fucking asshole” in private.

Biden’s propensity to use bad language in private is nothing new. POLITICO detailed his private language back in October of 2021, where he would repeatedly use the F-word with aides and in meetings.

Kremlin, 10/18/24

Dmitry Kiselev: Mr President, you have mentioned the Ukrainian crisis. Just yesterday, while addressing the EU summit in Brussels, the ‘expired president’ Vladimir Zelensky said that the sole alternative to Ukraine joining NATO would be acquiring nuclear weapons. Simultaneously, the Bild newspaper published an interview with some anonymous Ukrainian tech-savvy, who claimed that Ukraine only needs a few weeks to build its own nuclear weapons and then make a strike at Russian troops.

What does it all mean?

Vladimir Putin: This is yet another act of provocation. In the modern world, creating nuclear weapons is not a difficult task. I do not know whether Ukraine is capable of doing this now though. It is not easy for Ukraine today, but generally there are no big difficulties in this regard, with everyone knowing how it is done.

This is a dangerous act of provocation, because, obviously, any step in this direction will meet an adequate response. This is the second point.

And third, most importantly, the current Ukrainian leadership claimed that Ukraine should have nuclear weapons. As I have mentioned on many occasions, they had stated that even before the crisis entered its hot stage; although it was a soft statement, it was made anyway. And such a threat will elicit a corresponding response from Russia.

I can say straight away: under no circumstances will Russia allow this to happen.

Dmitry Kiselev: But could it happen that, say, the British secretly provide these nuclear weapons to Ukraine and then claim that it was Ukraine that built them?

Vladimir Putin: Let’s avoid making any hypothetical assumptions and wild guesses about the British or whoever secretly supplying weapons. Such efforts cannot be hidden; they require proper resources and actions. It cannot be done covertly just as you cannot hide a cat in a bag. And we are capable of tracking any steps in this direction….

Nadim Koteich (retranslated): Mr President,

As someone who has a thorough understanding of military strategies, do you see any surprises or perhaps feel any disappointment in the Russian army’s performance in this war that has been going on for a long time, longer than you expected?

And the second question: could you determine when you will achieve victory in Ukraine?

Vladimir Putin: You know, setting any deadlines is a very complicated and even counterproductive action.

We have just spoken about the possibility of peace talks. We are all for it. I described how it could be implemented. If this is a totally earnest stance that both sides adhere to, then the sooner the better.

Regarding the army: you know, the character of warfare is ever-evolving in today’s world due to technological progress. It is rather difficult today to give a totally accurate assessment of tomorrow’s events.

Moreover, just recently, people were saying that the today’s warfare was a confrontation of technologies. Today, I have already heard our participants in combat operations saying that the today’s warfare is a “war of mathematicians.”

Here is a specific example: electronic warfare means are used to intercept [the enemy’s] means of destruction and suppress them. The other side makes certain assessments and makes changes to the strike weapons software. Within a week, ten days, three weeks, the other side increases its efforts and makes adjustments to the software in its electronic suppression means. The process continues endlessly. Of course, it is totally evident that the Ukrainian army is unable to do it, neither can they use high-precision and long-range weapons as they simply do not have them. It is evident that this is being done by NATO, its member countries, and military specialists.

Do you see the difference? NATO is fighting us, but they are fighting this proxy war using Ukrainian soldiers. Ukraine does not spare its soldiers in the interests of third states. But it is NATO that uses high-tech weapons, not Ukraine, while the Russian army fights by itself, creating its own military products and developing its own software, which makes an immense difference. I have noticed that the Russian army is definitely becoming one of the most high-tech and efficient ones, especially recently. When will NATO get weary of fighting us? Well, ask them. We are ready to continue this fight – and we will be victorious….

Dmitry Kiselev: Mr President, the sentiment in the West regarding Ukraine has changed. Earlier there were talks about Ukraine’s inevitable victory and settling everything on the battlefield, but now there are active speculations about ceding territories in exchange for the remaining part of Ukraine joining NATO. How do you like this idea?

Vladimir Putin: I do not understand when you talk about ceding territories, because those territories which our soldiers are fighting for on the battlefield, these are our territories. These are the Lugansk People’s Republic, the Donetsk People’s Republic, the Zaporozhye and Kherson regions. This is the first thing.

Second. Without any doubt, apart from this, we need to resolve the issue of ensuring long-term interests of Russia in the security sphere. If we are talking about some specific peace processes, then these should not be the processes connected with a truce for a week or two or for a year what would allow NATO countries to re-arm and stockpile new ammunition. We need conditions for a long-term, stable and lasting peace which would ensure equal security for all participants in this difficult process. This is what we should aspire for.

And if someone spoke at some point about the necessity to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia, ensure victory over Russia on the battlefield, they already saw for themselves that this is impossible and unrealistic, and changed their point of view. Well, they were right to do so, I commend them for that….

By Ben Aris, Intellinews, 10/7/24

Iran cancelled all flights in and out of the country at all airports over the weekend in anticipation of an Israeli counter strike following last week’s missile attack.

It was Jewish new year at the end of last week which delayed the decision on a strike that Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu says is coming. Everyone is on tenterhooks waiting to see what will get hit. One possibility is Iran’s expensive oil refinery network, but the White House is pushing hard for that not to be on the list as it would cause prices to spike just ahead of the US elections if Iran’s 1.6mbpd were taken off the market.

As we reported another target could be Iran’s six uranium refining facilities, which to me seems much more likely. I have been thinking about this and it seems increasingly obvious that one of the outcomes of these conflicts is that it will push emerging powers to seek a nuclear weapon. It’s the defining characteristic of these wars.

Russia attacked Ukraine and while Nato has helped Ukraine, as we have been complaining, that help is half hearted and restrained. The West will not give Ukraine what it needs to win, despite promising that to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy during the Istanbul peace deal in 2022. It’s because of Russia’s nuclear arsenal: if Russia is about to lose the war against Ukraine there is a non-zero chance it could use a nuclear bomb to change the game. Russia would only need to explode one over Siberia in a test, no need to take out downtown Kyiv, for this to work. The threat of the bomb has very effectively curbed Western support for Ukraine and if I were Zelenskiy I’d be pulling my hair out as he can’t win and won’t get what he needs to win.

Now compare this to Iran’s situation. It has very large convention resources, if you include those of Hamas and Hezbollah, but it doesn’t have a bomb. It’s close, but not there yet. As a result the US has not only given Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu everything that he asked for – the US has committed $18bn in military aid since October 7 last year, plus another $8.7bn last week – but more than that US pilots flew alongside Israeli F-16s and F-34s both in April and in the latest attack last week.

The US has no compunction about sending in troops and planes to help Israel as nothing can happen. Iran doesn’t have the bomb.

As an aside, Zelenskiy has also being playing the nuclear card: he claims that Russia has been using Chinese satellites to map Ukraine’s four remaining nuclear power plants (NPPs) and intends to hit them to take the other half of Ukraine’s generating capacity out before winter and potentially causing another Chernobyl. But no one seems to be taking this particularly seriously.

Of course, as I have speculated earlier, the chances of Russian President Vladimir Putin actually using a nuke, even in a Siberian test, is very low indeed in my opinion, as all it would do is bring Nato into the war in some way and then Zelenskiy might get what he needs to win, or at least make some real progress against the Armed Forces of Russia (AFR). At the moment Putin is winning the war, as the front in Donbas continues to crumble, so he has no need to escalate.

Now the veneer of building an international rules-based order that started with the Helsinki Accords has been dropped and we in a straight up might-makes-right geopolitical tussle between the developed world and the emerging markets, having a nuclear weapon has become the defining difference between the being able to resist the US hegemony or being the victim of some potential missile-backed bullying.

Put yourself in Ayatollah Khomeini’s shoes now: if he had a bomb then there is no way that the Israelis could hit his country, or those of Iran’s friends, with impunity. Moreover, the US would not be in support. It would stand off and supply Israeli, but not openly get involved.

This means that it’s now in Russia’s interest to supply all the friendly countries with nuclear technology to build a club of nuclear enabled emerging markets that can resist the US’ overwhelming military firepower – the proliferation of nuclear weapons. To some scary regimes.

This process has already started when Moscow stationed some nuclear weapons in Belarus last year. Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko keeps bragging about how he will nuke Europe if Nato attacks him, which of course is all bravado at this point, until it isn’t.

But more subtly, as bne IntelliNews has been reporting, uranium is the new gas and Russia’s exports of nuclear technology are booming. Russia is building over two dozen NPPs around the world, mostly in developing markets. And although Kazakhstan dominates the supply of raw uranium ore, it is Russia that dominates the capacity to refine the ore into U235. It could in theory arm every one of its friends.

Even more worrying, is the fact that North Korea has a bomb and in theory could supply countries like Iran with a ready-made weapon, which has become easier to do now that North Korea and Russia have tied their military supplies together; North Korea has supplied Russia with an enormous amount of artillery shells.

Currently there are only eight officially declared nuclear powers – US, Russia, UK, France, China, India, Pakistan, and North Korea, although it’s an open secret that Israel also has nuclear weapons. Less publicly knowledge is that Japan also certainly has nukes on its soil – US weapons – that are there to protect against China.

In the case of Pakistan and Israel, it’s the same logic as both countries needed a bomb to counter their enemies that had one. The proliferation was supposed to stop there, but now there will be a strong impetus for more countries to get a weapon, starting with Iran. And with all this Russian nuclear tech and refined uranium sloshing about it is going to get easier to organise.

Finally, it should be said that this is not definitely going to happen, nor if it does will it happen quickly. The Kremlin is not crazy and is well aware how dangerous it is to arm a dozen more countries, many with balmy authoritarian regimes, with nuclear weapons. The key to watch for is someone suspending the nuclear test ban treaty. The Kremlin was specifically asked about this last week and came back with a deafening silence. I see it was asked in Washington too last week too, again to no comment. But the mere fact that this question has now come up, and come up twice in a week, suggests that we have moved a step closer to that red line.

By Jorge, Liboreiro, Euronews, 10/9/24

Under the G7 plan, the windfall profits earned by Russia’s frozen assets will be used to gradually repay a multi-billion loan for Ukraine.

European Union countries have given their green light to an unprecedented plan to issue a €35 billion loan to support Ukraine’s war-battered economy using the immobilised assets of Russia’s Central Bank as collateral.

The deal is part of a broader initiative by G7 allies to provide €45 billion ($50 billion) to Kyiv as soon as possible. The country is struggling to contain a renewed Russian offensive that has badly damaged its power system and depleted its military stocks.

The €35 billion will be “undesignated” and “untargeted,” according to EU officials, meaning the Ukrainian government will have maximum flexibility to spend the assistance. Brussels hopes to start doling out the money early next year.

The agreement, reached on Wednesday evening by ambassadors, comes a day after Hungary confirmed it would block a key change in the EU sanctions regime until after the United States elects its next president on 5 November…

Read full article here.

By Dave DeCamp, Antiwar.com, 10/9/24

US intelligence determined in September 2022 that there was a 50% chance of Russia using a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, a new book by journalist Bob Woodward alleges, The Associated Press reported Wednesday.

According to the book, titled “War,” the warning came in late September 2022, with US intelligence believing Russia could use a nuke if its forces were surrounded in Kherson City. Russia withdrew from the city not long after, in November 2022.

The book says the warning caused alarm within the Biden administration as it moved the chance of Russia using a nuclear weapon from 5% or 10% way up to 50%. Around the same time, President Biden said publicly that the risk of nuclear “armageddon” was higher than it had been at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

“I don’t think there is any such a thing as the ability to easily use a tactical nuclear weapon and not end up with Armageddon,” Biden told donors at a fundraiser in New York City in October 2022. “We have not faced the prospect of Armageddon since Kennedy and the Cuban Missile Crisis.”

Despite the huge risk of nuclear war, Biden did not alter course on US involvement in the proxy war, which has only escalated since then. The Woodward book says that the US issued several warnings and threats on the potential consequences of what could happen if Russia used a nuclear weapon in Ukraine.

Woodward says that Biden told National Security Advisor Jake Sullivan to “get on the line with the Russians. Tell them what we will do in response.” In September 2022, Sullivan said publicly that Russia would suffer “catastrophic consequences” if it used a nuke and said the US conveyed that in private conversations. A few months later, The Wall Street Journal reported that Sullivan had been holding secret talks with Russian officials.

The Woodward book says that Biden also sent a message to Putin that there would be “catastrophic consequences” if a nuke was used, but there has been no known contact between Biden and the Russian leader since Russia launched its invasion in February 2022.

The book also says that when Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin spoke with then-Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu in October 2022, he warned, “Any use of nuclear weapons on any scale against anybody would be seen by the United States and the world as a world-changing event. There is no scale of nuclear weapons that we could overlook or that the world could overlook.”

The risk of the Ukraine proxy war turning nuclear is still very high as Putin has ordered changes to Russia’s nuclear doctrine in direct response to threats of escalation from the West, specifically the idea of the US and NATO supporting long-range strikes inside Russian territory. The US appeared poised to sign off on the long-range strikes but seems to have backed down, at least for now.