Ukraine war before the midterm elections: is the wind and the tide turning in the USA?

Ukraine war before the midterm elections: is the wind and the tide turning in the USA?

In response to the attack on Crimea’s Kerch Bridge and in view of the increasing number of defeats, Putin now seems to be switching to rocket terror as Bomber Harris in order to bomb the shit and fighting spirit out of the war-weary Ukrainians. The previous bombings were only directed against critical infrastructure and not so much against the civilian population as Bomber Harris. So maybe a preliminary stage to the then eternal genocidal Slavic fraternity. A Chinese strategist named Chen Guodong once proposed, in the style of Chinese Douhet and Bomber Harris, that a wave of short-range missile terror could force Taiwan to surrender. Apparently the Putin- Russians are hoping for something similar here. The anti-aircraft systems supplied by the West, whether Nasams, IRIS or Patriot, are unlikely to provide comprehensive security. The FAZ also points this out:

„Air defense for Kyiv : Even more important than main battle tanks

After the recent Russian missile and drone strikes, Ukraine needs nothing more than air defense systems. Germany and America deliver. They cannot work miracles.(…) What effect the Western air defense systems can achieve depends on a number of factors. Full protection of Ukraine with their help is illusory. The country is the largest in Europe, the area is 1.7 times the size of Germany. Even the complete protection of all urban centers would hardly be achievable with the help of such systems alone. After all, they only have a limited number of missiles and not a hundred percent hit rate, especially not against incoming missiles. According to experts, it will also take months before all systems have arrived in Ukraine and the crews have been instructed in how to use them. The effect should therefore only be felt in the medium term.”

So the terror will remain. In addition, there is now a new General Surovikin, who now bears the nickname General Armaggedon, whoever came up with it, in order to inspire and scare the theorists of the Cuban Crisis and the end of a coming World War or Woke World War . who replaced General Dwornikow, once celebrated as the butcher of Syria, who has meanwhile mutated from a panacea to a failure and wimp.

„Putin’s new commander General Armageddon is supposed to bring about a turnaround in the war

Russia appoints Sergey Surovikin supreme commander in Ukraine war. The general is seen as a brutal and ruthless hardliner. This is also shown by his military actions in Chechnya and Syria. After more than seven months of war in Ukraine, Russia appoints a new supreme commander of the Russian troops. With the 55-year-old Army General Sergei Surovikin, for the first time an individual has officially taken over the leadership of the „military special operation“. Even though the Russian media considered Alexander Dvornikov to be the previous commander of the operation, this was never publicly communicated by the Kremlin. Surovikin, who previously commanded the “South” forces in Ukraine, is by no means a blank slate in Russia. In 2017, President Vladimir Putin bestowed on him the highest honorary title, Hero of the Russian Federation. In the West, on the other hand, he is seen as an unscrupulous military man who, according to the British Ministry of Defense, is „confronted with allegations of corruption and brutality“. The Surovik native from the southern Russian city of Novosibirsk is a veteran of the Soviet war in Afghanistan and the two Chechen wars. He became known to the Russian public in the course of the failed August coup in Moscow in 1991. At that time, a battalion shot dead three demonstrators under his leadership. Surovikin was arrested, but after seven months in prison he was personally rehabilitated by Boris Yeltsin. The reason: He was only following orders. In 1995, a court sentenced him to a suspended sentence for illegal arms trafficking, which was also later lifted. Known for „total ruthlessness“ According to a report by the Jamestown Foundation, a US military think tank, Surovikin is known in the Russian army for his „total ruthlessness“. As a commander in the second Chechen war, he was accused of physically assaulting junior officers. An officer reportedly fatally shot himself in the head in Surovikin’s office in 2004 after he had been reprimanded. A year later, Surovikin announced that he intended to kill three Chechens for every soldier he killed, the report says. Despite this, from the late 2000s, Surovikin had a steep career in the Russian military apparatus. In 2017 he became Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Air Force. „Surovikin’s willingness to rigorously carry out all orders defeated all conceivable questions about his controversial CV,“ the experts write. Surovikin has also proven his unscrupulousness in Syria. As head of the Air Force, he is said to have been involved in war crimes. He is accused, for example, of being responsible for the bombing of Aleppo, which reduced the city to rubble and ash. A report by human rights organization Human Rights Watch lists him as one of three commanders who „may bear responsibility for violations“ during Russia’s offensive in Syria’s Idlib in 2019 and 2020. Happy with the Wagner group With the appointment of Surovikin, Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu also wants to appease the numerous critical voices that were raised after the military setbacks in Ukraine. According to Russian media, military personnel and the Wagner mercenary group reacted euphorically to the appointment of the “responsible” Surovikin. Wagner boss Yevgeny Prigozhin, who recently repeatedly acted as a harsh critic of the Russian military leadership, praised Surovikin as „the best commander in the Russian army“ and „legendary“. He recalled the attempted coup in 1991: „After receiving the order, Surovikin without hesitation got into his tank and rushed to save his country,“ Prigozhin said, according to Russian exile media Meduza. Russian political scientist Greg Yudin told the British Telegraph that the promotion of Surovikin should set an example. „It is highly symbolic that Sergei Surovikin, the only officer who in August 1991 ordered the shooting of revolutionaries, killing three people, is now responsible for this latest attempt to restore the Soviet Union,“ Yudin said.

„Surovikin is not sentimental“

 Sources close to the Kremlin characterized “Meduza” Surovikin as a supporter of large-scale missile attacks on infrastructure, including civilian infrastructure. „Surovikin is not sentimental,“ said one of the two sources. According to the internet newspaper, Surovikin is known in the Russian army as „General Armageddon“ – „for his ability to act unconventionally and brutally“. This description matches the recent Russian attacks on Ukraine. Just two days after Surovikin’s appointment as supreme commander, Russia began shelling targets across Ukraine. For the first time in months, rockets are hitting the capital Kyiv again.”

 Partly a bit of nonsense: first of all, the General Armageddon in the coup was just a 24-year-old major at best and not a general who probably carried out orders rather than worrying about it. Under Yeltsin, he was probably forgiven for this as a youthful sin. Secondly, where did this title “General Armagddon” first came up and was then circulated, by the Western side or by the Russian side or by both? Is this his nickname from Russian realms within the Siloviki or a Western title to suggest greater danger. Or both. Third, what actually happens after a possible failure of General Armageddon after the „Butcher of Syria“ has already failed very successfully? Will World War III and Armageddon follow if General Armageddon cannot carry out his master’s orders due to structural factors?

 Mededev has now declared that the aim of the war is to topple the Ukrainian government, although he pointed out that is his personal opinion, especially since this is hardly feasible in a military sense conventionally and has failed on occasion. Mededev seems to want to endear himself to the hardliners and bring himself up as a replacement for Putin. A quick conquest of the entire Ukraine would only be possible with a targeted decapitation attack on the leadership and its command and communication centers in Kyiv and other cities. But has Putin the Pershing 2 comparable precision missiles and earth penetrators that could decapitate the Ukrainians‘ leadership and their CI4 structures ? But misslises are not enough, you would also need reliable target information. And do the Ukrainians already have a potential replacement structure for this case, with Klitschko replacing Selensky as a charismatic leader? So even this theoretical option seems difficult. Putin probably hopes above all to be able to use rocket terror to bomb Selensky to the negotiating table and break the Ukrainians‘ will to fight and fighting spirit. But it doesn’t look like that at the moment, as the Ukrainians seem more likely to let their country be bombed into ruins than to halt their offensive or deviate from the goal of retaking all territory. The US and NATO are also confident of victory, such as NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg:

„Russia loses on the battlefield“ NATO Secretary General announces additional military aid to Kyiv.

 According to Stoltenberg, Russia is giving up occupied territory because it cannot counter the advancing Ukrainian troops. NATO Secretary General Jens Stoltenberg sees the heavy Russian attacks on civilian targets in Ukraine as a „sign of weakness“. „In fact, Russia is losing on the battlefield,“ the Norwegian said before a meeting of NATO defense ministers. Russia is giving up occupied territory because it cannot oppose the advancing Ukrainian troops. The allies will „increase and maintain their support for Ukraine so that it can continue to defend itself and liberate its territory from Russian occupation,“ Stoltenberg announced. This Wednesday, the defense ministers of more than forty countries will first discuss further military aid for Kyiv in Brussels. After this meeting in the so-called Ramstein format, the ministers of the thirty NATO countries will meet on Thursday.

Likewise, people are confident that Putin would run out of missiles and money, which is why people seem to take it easy:

“War in Ukraine: Putin’s expensive rocket terror

Russia wants to wear Ukraine down with new rocket attacks. Apparently, Moscow is aiming to destroy civilian infrastructure. But Russia’s supply is likely to shrink and production of new bullets will be crippled.”

 In addition, the following is reported:

“`Top Russian economist: ‚Putin is running out of money to pay soldiers‘

Vladimir Putin already lacks the money and equipment for the Ukraine war. According to the report, top Russian economist Sergei Gurijew sees an “enormous decline in the Russian economy”. Moscow – Germany has been in an economic dispute with Russia since the invasion of Ukraine. The traffic light coalition is currently trying to curb its effects – skyrocketing electricity and gas prices – on consumers and companies. But what about in Russia? The famous Russian economist Sergei Gurijew, who lives in exile, paints a bleak picture of this. He used to be chief economist at the EBRD, the development bank for Eastern Europe, and is now vice rector of the French elite university Sciences Po. In an interview with the Handelsblatt, he explains the „enormous decline of the Russian economy“.

Economist Guriyev: Putin must ‚unpack mothballed Soviet-era tanks‘

He cites several reasons for this: Western sanctions have halved imports of high-tech products to Russia. These would now be missing in many industries as spare parts or technologies. „Since Russian companies still had stocks of these products, the sanctions only took effect gradually,“ says Gurijew. This also means that Russia can no longer build modern weapons. Instead, Russian President Vladimir Putin must „unpack the old, mothballed tanks from the Soviet era“ for the Ukraine war, the economist tells the business magazine. The British secret services also assume equipment problems in the Russian army. „We know, and Russian commanders at war know that they are running out of equipment and ammunition,“ GCHQ director Jeremy Fleming said on Tuesday, according to a pre-release speech transcript quoted by the BBC. The Russian President is making strategic mistakes. Ukraine war: Putin is running out of money – also because of the drastic drop in energy exports In addition, Guriyev believes that Putin has less and less money to finance the costly war against Ukraine. According to the economist, the Russian treasury is suffering greatly from the fact that large parts of the central bank reserves have been frozen. In addition, there would be high tax losses. Although Russia was able to generate a budget surplus of almost 500 billion rubles from January to July, this shrank to 137 billion rubles in August due to the drastic drop in energy exports, reports the American business newspaper Financial Times. Accordingly, a monthly deficit of around 360 billion rubles (5.8 billion euros) was incurred for August alone. According to the Russian Economics Ministry, the Russian economy shrank by 4.3 percent in July compared to the previous year. For comparison: the German economy stagnated during this period, the government expects growth of 1.4 percent for the year.

It won’t get any easier for Putin in the future: Since the EU’s oil embargo will soon come into force, Russia will have even fewer revenue opportunities. Gurijew told the Handelsblatt: „If this continues, Putin will run out of money to pay more and more soldiers for the Ukraine war.“

 But what will be decisive is how the USA will act. And in the context of the upcoming midterm election, Trump, his supporters, Elon Musk and parts of the Republicans are attacking the Biden administration’s Ukraine policy and are demanding an end to the Ukraine war through a deal with Putin. Apparently, not only does Erdogan want to mediate, but Elon Musk is now also getting involved as an unofficial mediator, who has already sent a peace plan on Twitter, with the Eurasia Group claiming that Musk had a meeting with Putin before. Trump supporters criticize an alleged alliance between Woke Leftists and Neocons, who would have led the USA into more and more wars of choices and never-ending wars and are now also leading into the Ukraine war, which never would have happened under Trump and with a Trump- Putin deal. For example David Sachs in Newsweek, who sees World War III breaking out immediately, i.e. thinks very Merkelian, even though Trump and the Trumpians hate Merkel because of migration and liberalism:

“The Neocons and the Woke Left Are Joining Hands and Leading Us to Woke War III | Opinion

David Sacks , venture capitalist and co-host of the All-In Podcast

Elon Musk Slammed For Controversial ‚Russia-Ukraine Peace‘ Twitter Poll

Elon Musk got in hot water again on Twitter—for proposing peace. On Monday, Musk proposed a peace deal to end the war in Ukraine, for which he was denounced as a pro-Putin puppet by the Twitter mob that has formed to police the discourse on all things related to Ukraine.

Ukraine-Russia Peace:

– Redo elections of annexed regions under UN supervision. Russia leaves if that is will of the people.

– Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake).

– Water supply to Crimea assured.

– Ukraine remains neutral.

— Elon Musk (@elonmusk) October 3, 2022

The president of Ukraine himself, Volodymyr Zelensky, accused Musk of supporting Russia—even though Musk’s company SpaceX donated Starlink to Ukraine’s war effort at an out-of-pocket cost of $80 million. (Full disclosure: Musk is a friend and I am an investor in SpaceX.) Ukrainian Ambassador to Germany Andrj Melnyk was less subtle, telling Elon to „f***k off,“ while David Frum tweeted without evidence that „Russian sources“ had used Elon to float a „trial balloon“ of a peace proposal because they’re afraid of losing Crimea. Scores of blue-checks on Twitter followed their lead, ordering Musk to stay in his lane.

What matters in this story is not that Musk was told off, but rather, that a Twitter hive mind is using the same intolerant cancellation tactics that they use to shut down debate on domestic political issues in order to shape U.S. policy toward Ukraine. They are doing so by demonizing dissent, defaming opponents, and closing off as ideologically unacceptable any path to peace or even deescalation.

The online mob has decided that any support for a negotiated settlement—even proposals that Zelensky himself appeared to support at the beginning of the war—is tantamount to taking Russia’s side, denouncing voices of compromise and restraint as Putin apologists. This removes them from acceptable discourse and shrinks the Overton window to those advocating the total defeat of Russia and an end to Putin’s regime—even if it risks WWIII.

We’ve seen this before: „Woke mobs“ on Twitter routinely demonize and defame their political opponents, impugn the motives of anyone who questions their goals or tactics, and squelch dissent even in their own ranks by declaring the debate on certain topics over.

What makes the „I stand with Ukraine“ version of the Twitter mob unique is that it brings together two forces that used to be sworn enemies of one another—the woke Left and the neoconservative Right. It turns out they share many of the same loathsome ideological and personality traits, and have a similar „slash and burn“ approach to political engagement. It’s a new political marriage.

Just over a decade ago, former President Barack Obama defeated Hillary Clinton in the Democratic primary to become president due in no small part to his opposition to the Iraq War. At the time, the Left despised neocon hawks for pushing the Bush-Cheney administration’s disastrous Forever Wars in the Middle East. Moreover, the Left supported Obama in his policy toward Ukraine when he refused to escalate with Russia over Crimea, pointing out that America has no vital security interests in Ukraine, though Russia does. As a result, Russia would always be able to maintain „escalatory dominance,“ Obama said. „This is an example of where we have to be very clear about what our core interests are and what we are willing to go to war for.“

But since neoconservatives largely walked out of the Republican Party over Trump and disavowed all of their conservative domestic policy views to become commentators on MSNBC, the Left has discovered a new love for interventionist foreign policy, as long as it serves „democracy“ and opposes „autocracy“—an increasingly malleable term that both the wokes and the neocons now use to define not just Putin but also democratically elected leaders like Viktor Orban in Hungary, Giorgia Meloni in Italy, and Donald Trump in the United States.

Despite voting for Obama because he promised to break with neoconservative foreign policy, the Left has now joined with neocons to oppose Obama’s restrained foreign policy in Ukraine.

This shift is disorienting, but on a purely tactical level, it makes a certain amount of sense. Neocons invented the cancellation game before there was even a Twitter board on which to play it. Neocons arrogantly dismiss the other side’s point of view as argued in bad faith and not worth considering, and label anyone who dares question the cause as a heretic or traitor.

David Frum set the neocon standard for this tactic when he branded the small number of pundits on the Right who opposed the Iraq War as „Unpatriotic Conservatives“ at the outset of that strategic disaster. Fast forward to today and anyone who suggests that NATO expansion could have been a contributing factor to the current Ukraine crisis, or that the sanctions imposed on Russia are not working and have backfired on a soon-to-be-shivering Europe, or even that the U.S. must prioritize avoiding a world war with a nuclear-armed Russia, is denounced as a Putin stooge.

Warping the debate in this way allows delusional and contradictory thinking to go unchallenged. Thus, we get the argument that Putin is a madman who will kill indiscriminately to achieve his aims—but he is also somehow definitely bluffing about using nuclear weapons. And he’s only using that bluff because he’s losing the war—but if he’s not stopped in Ukraine, he will go on to conquer the rest of Europe. Putin’s regime must fall because he has killed or jailed all the liberal reformers and yoked himself to a hardline Far Right, but somehow he will be replaced by a liberal reformer when his regime collapses.

It’s nonsensical, and a real debate would expose some of the delusions in this thinking. But we aren’t allowed to have one.

As long as this woke-neocon alliance is allowed to set the terms of the debate, we will continue to see a one-way ratchet toward greater and more dangerous escalation of this conflict.

There will be no peaceful resolution to this conflict that America doesn’t at least have a hand in negotiating, and we should be leading the effort. Instead, we’ve been deferring to the Ukrainians and their maximalist demands, upping the sanctions on Russia as Putin ups his rhetoric against the West. Someone blew up the Nord Stream pipeline just in case another key nation such as Germany had any thoughts about coming to the bargaining table. And now we are playing a game of nuclear „chicken“ with a Russian leader who, if his unhinged „War against the West“ speech last Friday is any indication, has thrown away his steering wheel.

A regional war turned into the First World War because all parties made maximalist demands and assumed others were bluffing. It can happen again, especially if the media, social media, and foreign policy elite join forces and use woke cancellation tactics to preclude discussion of any alternatives. Right now, we are locked on an escalatory path, and the destination ahead is Woke War III.

David Sacks is a venture capitalist and co-host of the All-In Podcast.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

Josh Hammer in Newsweek is also in favor of de-escalating and ending the war, especially since the war goal of recapturing the whole of Ukraine would prolong the war forever, cost taxpayers‘ money, increase the risk of nuclear war and is also unrealistic:

“The U.S. Needs To Change Course Right Now in Ukraine | Opinion

Josh Hammer , Newsweek opinion editor and host, „The Josh Hammer Show“
On 10/7/22 at 6:30 AM EDT

We are now more than seven months removed from Vladimir Putin’s regrettable incursion into eastern Ukraine and Crimea. But despite that elapsed time and all the various developments since then, the United States‘ formal position on the conflict has changed markedly little. That overly simplified and Manichaean position, in short, is one of Ukrainian maximalism: Putin is evil, Volodymyr Zelensky is noble, and—here is the big logical leap—the United States will thus support the Ukrainian effort to retake every square inch of territory in the Donbas and Crimea from its nuclear-armed adversary, seemingly no matter the cost to the U.S. taxpayer.

The formal White House „readout“ of President Joe Biden’s Tuesday call with Zelensky aptly summarizes the U.S.‘ position: „President Joseph R. Biden, Jr., joined by Vice President Kamala Harris, spoke today with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to underscore that the United States will never recognize Russia’s purported annexation of Ukrainian territory. President Biden pledged to continue supporting Ukraine as it defends itself from Russian aggression for as long as it takes…“ (Emphases added.) Translation: We will defend your war to retake every square inch of historically contested and ethnically mixed territory no matter what the people living there say they want, no matter the cost, and despite the fact that the fate of Zelensky’s regime in Kyiv is secure.

At this stage in the war, virtually all of this pablum is asinine and counterproductive to the actual U.S. national interest in these contested areas. Our national interest in the Ukrainian theater is not coterminous with Zelensky’s absolutist stance; our interest is for de-escalation, detente, and peace. But if we want to achieve those ends—especially as the threat of nuclear warfare is bursting out into the open, many in the West recklessly double down on calls for Ukraine’s ascension to NATO, and the war-hungry Zelensky is himself calling for a NATO-led „preemptive strike“ against Russia—Biden needs to recognize reality and change strategic course immediately.

From day one of Russia’s incursion, this column has argued that (1) Ukraine, like Russia, is a deeply corrupt and oligarchic country, and Zelensky is a highly flawed leader; but (2) despite his myriad flaws and status as a pawn of the Davos/NGO globalist class, Zelensky remaining in power in Kyiv is preferable to the obvious alternative of a Belarusian/Alexander Lukashenko-style Moscow puppet state. But Russia, with the exception of few nearby flare-ups here and there, retreated from Kyiv and its surrounding areas all the way back in May. Put another way, it is clear beyond any reasonable doubt, at this point, that Zelensky isn’t going anywhere; he and his government are here to stay. The fate of Kyiv is secure.

At this juncture, the fighting—and in Russia’s case, the recent (likely sham) annexations—is taking place in four far-eastern subregions of Ukraine, and, to a lesser extent, Crimea. Those are the disputed lands that the Biden administration, and „liberal Western democracy“ types more broadly, have deemed to be so existentially important to Ukraine and the integrity of „the West“ that reconquering them is worth seemingly any military, economic, and humanitarian cost—up to, and very much including, the harrowing specter of open nuclear warfare between NATO and Russia.

Even worse, when it comes to the disputed lands themselves, reputable Gallup polling from 2014—the year Putin first marched into Crimea—showed that 73.9% of Crimeans thought becoming a part of Russia would improve their lives and their families‘ lives (only 5.5% disagreed). As for the various enclaves of the Donbas, such as Luhansk and Donetsk, they are very much divided between ethnic Ukrainians and ethnic Russians; Luhansk, for instance, has a nearly even, 50-50 demographic split.

Let’s be as clear as possible: The median American citizen does not, and should not, care whether an ethnically divided, strategically unimportant, historically contested Slavic subregion or two in eastern Ukraine ultimately takes orders from Kyiv or Moscow. Elon Musk, in a much-criticized tweet earlier this week, had the right idea: „Ukraine-Russia Peace,“ he argued, can best be achieved by „Redo[ing] elections of annexed regions [such as Luhansk and Donetsk] under UN supervision,“ and „Russia leaves if that is will of the people“; „Crimea formally part of Russia, as it has been since 1783 (until Khrushchev’s mistake)“; „Water supply to Crimea assured“; and „Ukraine remains neutral [between Russia and NATO].“

One can certainly quibble with Musk’s details—the United Nations, for instance, cannot be a trusted, neutral arbiter or supervisor of anything. But this is certainly the right idea for what the U.S., and by extension the West, should be doing and should be aiming toward. The Biden administration, if it had any common sense, would use any and all leverage to get Zelensky and Putin to the negotiating table as soon as possible, thus unequivocally taking the threat of nuclear catastrophe off the table and extricating the United States and NATO from the harrowing prospect of something no Cold War-era president would have ever countenanced: open and direct military confrontation with the world’s largest nuclear arsenal. That certainly involves disavowing the possibility of NATO membership for Ukraine.

That our present ruling class demonstrates no interest in common sense de-escalation, and instead demonstrates a seemingly interminable interest in escalation and Ukrainian territorial maximalism, speaks volumes about how out of touch that ruling class is. If nothing else, hopefully the American people speak up and begin to rein in our sordid, war-hungry ruling class at the ballot box next month.

Josh Hammer is Newsweek opinion editor, host of „The Josh Hammer Show,“ a syndicated columnist, and a research fellow with the Edmund Burke Foundation. Twitter: @josh_hammer.

The views expressed in this article are the writer’s own.

One might almost think that Musk wants to nominate himself for US President, but since he was born in South Africa, he is out of the Games of Throne as US President or Republican nominee. He has a feud with Trump because he criticizes his China policy, especially since Musk himself has just opened a Tesla plant in Shanghai and is involved in business with China and proposed a deal with China under which Taiwan should become a special administrative zone of China. Pompeo’s Russia and China policies also contrast with his positions, while De Santis is still a foreign policy blank and Musk doesn’t like the Democrats either. But when it comes to Russia and Ukraine policy, he could agree with Trump and Trump could take up his ideas for a deal with Putin, especially since Trump likes Putin, dislikes Selensky and also sees Biden and his son as part of the Ukraine mafia. So it remains to be seen whether the tide will change in the US as a result of the midterm elections. Should there be a peace agreement and a division of the Ukraine, the question remains whether the USA will build a US military base in the rest of Ukraine as a further expansion inhibitor of further Russian aggression and/or sign a defense treaty with the rest of Ukraine based on the Japanese model, or at least join a UN force. Uncertain under Trump, who doesn’t like the UN and might not want to get involved any further in the Ukraine issue, even grant Putin a neutral rest of Ukraine.which he can then conquer . But very likely with Pompeo and Biden. But the fighting will continue for the time being, even if Lavrov said Russia was ready to conduct negotiations with the USA.But Puti said that he won´t meet with Biden before or during the G 20 summit in Bali. Therefore Xi and Biden will meet.

Kommentare sind geschlossen.