Kremlin website, 2/12/25

The leaders discussed issues related to the prisoner exchange between Russia and the United States. The US President assured the President of Russia of the American side’s commitment to fulfill all the agreements reached.

The leaders also discussed a possible Ukraine settlement. Donald Trump spoke in favour of stopping the hostilities as soon as possible and solving the crisis peacefully. In turn, Vladimir Putin pointed out it was necessary to eliminate the root causes of the conflict and agreed with Donald Trump in that a sustainable settlement could only be reached via peaceful negotiations.

Additionally, the President of Russia expressed support for one of the US President’s key arguments, which was that it was time for both countries to work together.

The issues of Middle East settlement, Iran’s nuclear programme, and bilateral economic relations between Russia and the United States were also brought up during the conversation.

The President of Russia invited the US President to visit Moscow and expressed willingness to receive visiting officials from the United States to discuss topics of mutual interest, including a possible Ukraine settlement.

Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump agreed to maintain personal contact in the future, involving in particular in-person meetings.

***

Trump’s Post on Truth Social About His Phone Call with Putin

Via Elon Musk’s Tweet, 2/12/25

pic.twitter.com/7NzFTkFjhk

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) February 12, 2025

***

Ukrainian President Zelensky’s Comments

Twitter, 2/12/25

I had a meaningful conversation with @POTUS. We long talked about opportunities to achieve peace, discussed our readiness to work together at the team level, and Ukraine’s technological capabilities—including drones and other advanced industries. I am grateful to President Trump for his interest in what we can accomplish together. We also spoke about my discussion with @SecScottBessent and the preparation of a new document on security, economic cooperation, and resource partnership. President Trump shared details of his conversation with Putin. No one wants peace more than Ukraine. Together with the U.S., we are charting our next steps to stop Russian aggression and ensure a lasting, reliable peace. As President Trump said, let’s get it done. We agreed to maintain further contact and plan upcoming meetings.

By Scott Ritter, Consortium News, 1/29/25

“I’m not looking to hurt Russia,” President Donald Trump recently declared in a statement he posted on his TruthSocial account. “I love the Russian people, and always had a very good relationship with President Putin.” 

Trump, however, comes from the school of “hard love,” where punishment is applied to achieve the desired results.

And punishment was on Trump’s mind as he expressed his love and admiration for the Russian people and their leader, Vladimir Putin.

“I’m going to do Russia,” Trump wrote, “whose Economy is failing, and President Putin, a very big FAVOR. Settle now, and STOP this ridiculous War! IT’S ONLY GOING TO GET WORSE.”

The odd use of capitalization aside, one would imagine that if you are in the business of expressing your love in a public fashion, you might want to make sure that your facts align with the reality of that for which you’ve declared amorous intent.

Otherwise, you will find yourself living in a fantasy world of your own construction, populated not by your ostensible paramours, but rather figments of your imagination.

If you’re sincere about doing the Russian people and Vladimir Putin a “big FAVOR,” you might want to make sure it’s a favor they want to receive.

Calling the Russian economy “failing” considering the plethora of data showing it is anything but that, probably isn’t the best way to start date night. 

“If we don’t make a ‘deal,’ and soon,” Trump threatened, “I have no other choice but to put high levels of Taxes, Tariffs, and Sanctions on anything being sold by Russia to the United States, and various other participating countries.”

“We can do it the easy way,” Trump warned, “or the hard way.”

Trump taking his second oath of office, administered by Chief Justice John Roberts in the Capitol rotunda, on Jan. 20. (Wikimedia Commons, Public domain)

But what happens if Russia, like any jilted lover, opts for the “hard way”?

In short — nothing good for the United States or Trump.

First and foremost, any “deal” Trump puts on the table has to be realistic. In short the Russians must believe that they will be in a better position taking the deal than they would be turning it down (something Trump, ostensibly a master negotiator, should know).

The “deal” that Trump is putting on the table, however, is a non-starter.

There have been recent reports in the media about the existence of a “100-day Peace Plan.”

According to these reports, the proposed agreement prevents Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO, instead of officially declaring itself to be neutral. The agreement would open the door for Ukraine to become a member of the European Union by 2030, and tasks the EU with taking responsibility for post-war reconstruction. 

There would be no “demilitarization.” Rather, Ukraine would maintain its army at its present size and continue to receive military support from the U.S. and NATO. Ukraine would need to likewise cede territories occupied by Russia to Russia and recognize the sovereignty of the Russian Federation.

But there are many elements of this “leaked” plan which simply ring false — such as linking finalization of the plan to May 9 — Victory Day, one of the most important holidays on the Russian calendar. This year May 9 will celebrate the 80th anniversary of the Allied Victory — the Soviet victory — over Nazi Germany.

The chances of Vladimir Putin sullying this solemn occasion by buying into a peace “deal” which allows the Banderist nationalists — whose ideology and history are closely linked with Nazi Germany — to survive after Putin declared “de-Nazification” as a primary goal for the Special Military Operation are slim to none.

Kellogg’s ‘Peace Plan’

What we do know is that Donald Trump’s designated special envoy for Ukraine — retired Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg — has floated a “peace plan” to the president which has been apparently well received. The elements of this plan are drawn from a paper Kellogg authored back in the spring of 2024 — a paper as nonsensical and lacking in fact-based argument as one could imagine. 

The core elements of this plan involved the establishment of “normal” relations with Russia and its president — basically stopping the Russophobic demonization that was prevalent during the Biden administration.

Once the U.S. and Russia were talking again, to then open negotiations with both Russia and Ukraine about bringing an end to the conflict.

The “carrot” for Russia included postponing Ukraine’s membership in NATO for 10 years, allowing Russia to retain the Ukrainian territories it currently occupies and gradually lifting sanctions to lead the way to the normalization of relations with the United States — all subject to the conclusion of peace agreements acceptable to Ukraine.

For Ukraine, the “deal” offered both continued military assistance from the U.S. and NATO and bilateral security guarantees. While Ukraine is not required to officially recognize Russia’s control over the conquered territories, it would need to refrain from changing the status quo by force.

If Russia refused to cooperate, the U.S. would impose crippling sanctions.

And if Ukraine refused the “deal,” the U.S. would cut off all military aid.

This “deal,” while never formally expressed, had been hinted at before and after Trump’s electoral victory in November 2024. 

And it took no one with any insight into Russia’s goals and objectives regarding the Special Military Operation by surprise when Russian President Vladimir Putin summarily rejected this “deal” in an answer to a media question on Dec. 26, 2024.

Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov and Russian President Vladimir Putin in November 2024. (Alexei Nikolskiy, RIA Novosti, President of Russia)

Three days later Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov likewise threw cold water on the Kellogg “peace plan,” declaring that Russia was “not happy with the proposals made by members of the Trump team to postpone Ukraine’s admission to NATO for 20 years and to station British and European peacekeeping forces in Ukraine.” 

The Hard Way

But what exactly does “the hard way” mean?

According to Scott Bessent, Donald Trump’s new Treasury secretary, the answer lies in ratcheting up sanctions on the Russian oil industry. “I will be 100 percent on-board for taking sanctions up” that target the major Russian oil companies, Bessent said during his Senate confirmation hearing. 

But Bessent will be working against a history of the U.S. and its European allies overselling sanctions as a tool to tear down the Russian economy (the opposite, in fact, has happened.) Moreover, given Russia’s status as a leading oil producer, any successful application of sanctions could have a negative economic impact on the U.S.

This is something that seems to have escaped the attention of Keith Kellogg, Trump’s “peace deal” guru. Noting that, under the Biden administration, the United States and its allies imposed a cap of $60/barrel on Russian oil (the market price for oil hovers around $78/barrel), Kellogg observed that, despite this, “Russia earns billions of dollars from oil sales.” 

“What if,” Kellogg mused during an interview on Fox News, “you lower the price to $45 a barrel, which is essentially the breakeven point?”

The question is, “breakeven point” for whom?

Scott Bessent in December 2024. (Senator Ted Cruz, Wikimedia Commons, Public Domain)

The concept of “breaking even,” when it comes to Russia, has two separate fiscal realities. The first is what the price of oil needs to be for Russia, which is heavily dependent upon the sale of oil for its national economy, to balance its national budget.

This number is assessed to be around $77/barrel for 2025. Let there be no doubt — if the price of oil dropped to $45/barrel, Russia would face a budget crisis. But not an oil production crisis. You see, the second “breakeven point” for Russia is the cost of production of a barrel of oil, which currently is set at $41/barrel.

Russia would be able to produce oil without any interruptions if Kellogg were able to achieve his goal of cutting the price of oil to $45/barrel.

To achieve the goal, Trump would have to get the Saudis onboard the oil-price-manipulation bandwagon.

The problem is the Saudis have their own “breakeven point” realities. To balance its budget, Saudi Arabia needs oil to be selling at around $85/barrel. But the cost of oil production in Saudi Arabia is very low — hovering around $10/barrel.

Saudi Arabia could simply flood the market with cheap oil if it wanted.

So could Russia.

How about the United States?

The Permian Basin, in West Texas, accounts for all of the U.S. growth in oil production since 2020. 

Active Permian Basin pumpjack near Andrews, Texas, in 2009. (Zorin09, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY 3.0)

In 2024, for new wells to be profitable in the Permian Basin, the breakeven point was around $62/barrel. For existing wells, this number was around $38/barrel. 

If drilling were to stop in the Permian Basin, U.S. oil production would decline by 30 percent over the course of two years.

In short, if Keith Kellogg were to successfully implement his “plan” to cut the price of oil to $45/barrel, he would effectively destroy the U.S. oil economy.

And if you destroy the U.S. oil economy, you destroy the U.S. economy.

Russia can ride out $45/barrel oil far longer than the U.S. can.

Donald Trump would do well to pay the wildcat oil producers of the Permian Basin — the ones who have sunk everything they own into a business venture that hinges on the promise of $78/barrel for the foreseeable future, and ask them how they feel about $45/barrel oil.

The bottom line is that if Keith Kellogg and Donald Trump made such a trip, they’d quickly understand the errors of their way.

Because if Donald Trump opts to go the route of “the hard way” with Russia, the consequences for him and the American people will be among the hardest imaginable.

YouTube link here.

By John Varoli, Substack, 1/20/25

Donald Trump returns to the White House today. The fate of mankind is in his hands. He can save us from a third world war by doing the right thing — end all support to the regime in Kiev and disband NATO; put an end to U.S. militarism and imperialism, and restore the Republic. This should be his top priority. But that seems unlikely.

A republic doesn’t seek control over others. Trump’s ambitions towards Panama, Greenland, Canada and Iran indicate that it will be business as usual.

Empire is Trump’s vision, and Elon Musk — who bought the presidency with his $250 million in donations — shares that ambition. During Trump’s rally in Washington DC yesterday, Musk endorsed U.S. domination, calling “to make America strong for the rest of this century, for centuries and forever”. That sounds like a ‘code’ for building an American reich that will rule for 1,000 years.

No, I don’t want to live in a “strong” America because in the minds of our ruling class “strong” implies violence and coercion. I want to live in the American Republic. I want to live in a prosperous, moral, law-abiding and productive America. Why are so many Americans obsessed with ‘strength’ and ‘global leadership’, which are euphemisms for empire and global domination? How does that make the lives of Americans any better and safer?

Restoring the Republic means ending all foreign wars and conquests, bringing the troops home, shutting all foreign bases, and ending military alliances. These are not radical words or fanciful goals. This is the vision for America set by the Founding Fathers almost 250 years ago. If you don’t like what I write, don’t lash out at me. Lash out — if you have the arrogance — at George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, etc.

Today, America is far from its original ideals. Since the conquest of Hawaii and the Philippines in the late 1890s, the U.S. has been a rapacious and constantly expanding empire (despite the valiant but often vain efforts of those courageous Americans who are ridiculed as “isolationists”). We are told that it’s our “Manifest Destiny” — our divine right to rule the world.

But nothing is more un-American than imperialism, which has very real material consequences that we face every day — in the form of inflation and high prices due to rampant state spending and corruption. Empire also leads to a paranoid government that extinguishes our freedoms in the name of ‘national security’ as it seeks to combat exaggerated foreign threats.

The U.S. is not a “shining city on a hill”; it has no special status in the Almighty’s plan. The tragic wars of the past 35 years, as well as America’s current war against Russia and the savage slaughter in Gaza, make that very clear. For America to become truly great, we must dismantle the empire. Entirely. Without question.

Throughout the 19th century, the U.S. maintained a policy of geopolitical neutrality, allowing it to focus on economic growth and development. This policy contributed to the country’s rapid industrialization and emergence as a peaceful global economic power without the destructive conflicts that plagued Europe. As a neutral power with one of the world’s largest economies, 19th century America truly served as a model for genuine freedom and democracy for the global community.

One of the most important and now forgotten arguments for neutrality is found in George Washington’s Farewell Address (1796), when he warned against permanent alliances, of which NATO is today a prime violation. Washington recognized that involvement in foreign disputes would drain national treasure, divide the nation, and endanger the very independence that the country had fought to secure. (All of which has sadly come true today).

Thomas Jefferson, too, recognized that foreign entanglements could corrupt our government and dilute its republican ideals. Also, the notion of a permanent military was condemned by the Founding Fathers, who recognized that a massive standing army would lead to tyranny, which is what we’ve had since 1945.

In 1821, John Quincy Adams, the country’s most experienced and prominent diplomat, and a future president, aptly expressed the sentiment of the early Republic. Aware that his rapidly growing country would become a global economic power, Adams warned the U.S. not to get involved in foreign wars.

“[The U.S.] goes not abroad, in search of monsters to destroy.
She is the well-wisher to the freedom and independence of all.
She is the champion and vindicator only of her own…
“[The U.S] well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy,
and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom.
The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force….
She might become the dictatress of the world. She’d be no longer the ruler of her own spirit….”

Yes, World War 2 was a righteous cause, but immediately after it ended the U.S. should have returned home and stayed home. Instead, under the influence of the British ruling class, the U.S. became involved in a competition with the Soviet Union, igniting proxy wars across the globe for decades. In 2001, this was followed by a crusade against a vague and undefined enemy — “global terrorism”, which in fact was merely an imperial war against the Middle East.

However, as we know all too well — the war is not meant to be won, it’s meant to drag on for decades. We could have negotiated with the Soviets in the late 1950s and ended the Cold War, but we chose not to. We could have refrained from getting involved in the Middle East, but we let Israel drag us into its affairs.

Today, our ruling class has new crusades — against Russia, Iran and China. These external threats are fabricated and exploited to scare the American people into accepting a foreign policy that is neither vital to our national interests nor aligned with our principles. In the meantime, our parasitic ruling class grows wealthy as the state spends trillions of taxpayer dollars on national security, war and conquest.

Imperial-globalists (both liberal and conservative) claim that if the U.S. retrenches from the international arena then there’ll be more wars and chaos. That is not true.

In an effort to remake the world in its image, the U.S. often imposes its values on others through the barrel of a gun. This only creates more instability and resentment, rather than fostering goodwill. We must stop being an oppressive ‘global gendarme’ that interferes in the affairs of almost every other country.

The desire to project American power and intervene in the affairs of other nations always has unintended and unforeseen consequences. Take, for example, Saddam Hussein in Iraq and Bin-Laden in Afghanistan — both were on the CIA payroll during the Cold War. But those unruly vassals came back to haunt us. Likewise, I suspect Ukrainian terrorism will become a huge problem for the West in the coming years, as irate Azov Nazis will feel used and betrayed by Washington.

In reaction to the U.S. abuse of its vast economic and military power over the past 35 years, most countries today support a multipolar world based on non-interference and mutual respect for national interests. We should join them.

By adopting a policy of neutrality and non-interference, the U.S. would avoid bloody and costly quagmires, and could focus on rebuilding its own infrastructure, economy, and social fabric. Neutrality would ensure that the U.S. remains a genuine beacon of peace and stability in the world. This would be true leadership. Only then would America be great again — as the Founding Fathers envisioned nearly 250 years ago.

Reuters, 2/6/25

Summary

-Task force was focused on sanctions enforcement, seizing assets

-Department switches focus to border and drug cartels

-Foreign bribery enforcement also implicated

WASHINGTON, Feb 6 (Reuters) – The U.S. Justice Department under President Donald Trump is disbanding an effort started after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine to enforce sanctions and target oligarchs close to the Kremlin.

A memo from Attorney General Pam Bondi, issued on Wednesday during a wave of orders on her first day in office but not previously reported, said the effort, known as Task Force KleptoCapture, will end as part of a shift in focus and funding to combating drug cartels and international gangs.

“This policy requires a fundamental change in mindset and approach,” Bondi wrote in the directive, adding that resources now devoted to enforcing sanctions and seizing the assets of oligarchs will be redirected to countering cartels.

The effort, launched during Democratic President Joe Biden’s administration, was designed to strain the finances of wealthy associates of Russian President Vladimir Putin and punish those facilitating sanctions and export control violations.

It was part of a broader push to freeze Russia out of global markets and enforce wide-ranging sanctions imposed on Moscow amid international condemnation of its war in Ukraine.

The task force brought indictments against aluminum magnate Oleg Deripaska and TV tycoon Konstantin Malofeyev for alleged sanctions busting, and seized yachts belonging to sanctioned oligarchs Suleiman Kerimov and Viktor Vekselberg.

Cases investigated by the task force are likely to continue, but the work will no longer be centralized at Justice Department headquarters.

“Are we going to suddenly see a surge of sanctioned oligarch wealth flood into the United States? I don’t think so,” said Andrew Adams, the first leader of the task force who is now at law firm Steptoe. “What you will see is a sharp decline in the pace of charges that target facilitators that are specific to Russia.”

Prosecutors assigned to the task force will return to their previous posts. The changes will be in effect for at least 90 days and could be renewed or made permanent, according to the directive.

Trump has spoken about improving relations with Moscow. He has previously vowed to end the war in Ukraine, though he has not released a detailed plan.

The emphasis on drug cartels comes after Trump designated many such groups as terrorist organizations, part of a crackdown on illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking.

The shift also implicates enforcement of a U.S. foreign bribery law that has led to some of the Justice Department’s largest corporate cases over the last decade. The unit enforcing that law, known as the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act, will now prioritize bribery investigations related to cartels, according to the memo.

A wide range of multinational firms has come under Justice Department scrutiny over the law, including Goldman Sachs, Glencore and Walmart.

“It is a radical move away from traditional FCPA cases and toward a narrow subset of drug and violent crime related cases that have never been the focus of FCPA enforcement,” said Stephen Frank, a lawyer at law firm Quinn Emanuel Urquhart & Sullivan who worked on FCPA cases as a federal prosecutor.