He's already winding him up mercilessly. The context is that Putin's very substantial and prickly pride has been deeply wounded by being flatly ignored and personally banned by the entire western world for several years, and that his travel and international interlocutors are constrained to China, Iran, North Korea and, errr, back to China again. He is absolutely desperate to be out on the World Leader circuit again, as fast as possible. And in his optimistic moments his hopes are high.
Now, nationalist Russian sentiment is aggrieved - and is certain Putin is also angry - that Trump has failed to recognize with sufficient gratitude that Soviet Russia won WW2. They say Putin will assuredly give Trump one of his "history-lesson" rants whenever they do finally get to talk. He is given to rants of this kind: lengthy and rambling with a mind-numbing effect on audiences. Nobody outside of the aforesaid China, Iran and N.Korea is trained to "listen attentively" to these things any more: the days of Fidel Castro at the podium are a distant memory.
And in Trump, they have truly misread their man.
For all his gargantuan failings in many departments, Trump has a colossal amount of low cunning in the matter of personal encounters and human psychology. Both he and Putin have made vast capital from their differing abilities in human engagement, so they both operate psychological theories of a kind. But mano a mano? When dealing with anyone other than meet-the-people walkabout audiences, Putin self-evidently relies on pure menace and intimidation - he even considers this a matter for pride and the TV cameras - a very Russian thing. Look at the merciless, gleeful, premeditated way he literally set dogs on Angela Merkel, a well-known cynophobiac. It'll be water off Trump's back: the man doesn't give a toss for such things (and probably won't even grant a face-to-face meeting). But having already been baited, can we see anxious, urgent Putin going for everyone else's Plan A, viz abject flattery? Really?
Both Putin and Trump are of course themselves the subjects of endless psychological analysis and speculation, professional and amateur. But you know who can play them both? Well, maybe Xi, who has the luxury of considering his chess-by-post moves very carefully, and never needs to make a move he's not totally comfortable with. But Xi is unlikely to hold the key to restoring Li'l Volodya's fortunes in the Big World of Global Prestige.
The relevant answer is ... Zelensky. If you've seen one or other of the lengthy TV documentaries on the man, you'll be in no doubt whatever that the little comedian / showman / war leader is absolutely masterful in his personal dealings - with whole crowds of foreign politicians as well as one-on-one encounters. He, too, has had a very long time to ponder the arrival of Trump, but his conclusions and plans for this critical juncture will have been a lot more adroit than the twisted frettings of Putin. I'd rate Zelensky's chances quite highly of making a bit of strategic hay over the next couple of months.
On the other hand I doubt very much that Putin's upside scenario - Transactional Trump the famous isolationist, wants a quick PR win, and gives me everything I want - will play out anywhere other than in his most optimistic dreams. The downside - still in the global naughty corner come summer, Ukrainian drones still falling nightly on my oil refineries, and another trip to Pyongyang in the diary - looks a lot more likely.
And Zelensky will still have a ghastly, grinding war on his hands. Perhaps with a few more weapons in the armoury, though. And Xi will continue to sit there quietly at his own global chessboard, planning his Taiwan campaign.
ND
29 comments:
Zelenskyy? The man who cancelled elections, banned opposition parties and gaoled their leaders? The man who is illegally holding the position of Ukrainian President? The man who figured prominently in the Panama Papers leak of financial corruption?
I don't know what you are smoking, but it must be powerful stuff!
"He is given to rants of this kind: lengthy and rambling with a mind-numbing effect on audiences. "
Ah. A thought. Given what Nick writes - correctly - above, could we pit Starmer against Putin to see if they could bore each other to death?
"I don't know what you are smoking, but it must be powerful stuff!"
Not as much as Starmer, who, whilst clear we cannot afford £1.5 Billion PA to stop pensioners freezing to death, has managed to find twice as much PA, for 100 years, to give to Europe's most corrupt nation.
Half of that will probably go up Zelensky's nose.
Off topic, but has ANYONE come across anyone who has said they voted Labour?
Six months on and we haven't. Even friends of ours with NO interest in politics find him bizarre and revolting.
"For all his gargantuan failings in many departments ..."
Quite: I can understand people being reluctant to vote for him. What I can't understand is that many of those people were quite willing to vote for Hillary, Joe, and Kamala whose failings are manifestly far greater.
@ Wildgoose, @Elby
What does your personal animus against Z, or even your *accusations*, have to do with the substance of the post?
"If you've seen one or other of the lengthy TV documentaries on the man, you'll be in no doubt whatever that the little comedian / showman / war leader is absolutely masterful ..."
And there I was thinking that ND was a hard-bitten, seen-it-all business type. For any nation engaged in warfare against a more powerful enemy and in need of weapons, presenting a united and indomitable front is almost as important as what's happening at the front. It's part of the war.
I recall Roosevelt arguing against Americans who thought the UK would pack in post-Dunkirk, so no weapons should go.
"Only yesterday Churchill had made his magnificent speech in the House of Commons".
I tend to assume Zelensky is a "made man", elected on a platform of improving relations with Russia but in reality planning with third parties to considerably worsen them - and doing just that in spades.
He has two potential endings, happily and wealthily in Miami or Tel Aviv, or perhaps a martyr a la Bandera. Which le Carre story is this?
"I find he's working with the VC. I take him out, shoot him, then announce that he died fighting the VC, make him a hero, big funeral, money for the village. You gotta win hearts and minds"
Maybe I'm too cynical.
I just found this, which I wrote as a comment to a Pat Buchanan article on NS2 in March 2021:
"The US is apparently arming Ukraine and offering intelligence to enable the reconquest of the Donbass, while Ukraine have upped military spending. War possibly in the next few months. If Putin doesn’t move militarily at that point, it’ll be Nagorno-Karabakh 2 (where Turkish support/drones was crucial) and a demoralising (most of the Donbass is Russian speaking) setback for Russia. If he defends the Donbass then prepare for Iran-style sanctions* and goodbye NS2, unless Merkel finds astonishing testicular fortitude.." * preceded by atrocity stories in all Western media a la babies in incubators"
Damn, I should have had money on it.
Oh dear my comments disappearing again. Responded to Anon above twice.
Anyway try again, but briefly
How anyone can see Zelensky as anything but a charlatan beats me
"I need ammunition, not a ride".
Would Ukraine exist if he'd have fucked off? I doubt it.
Those moments matter; the roadshow matters; the addresses to congress, parliament, the EU, all matters, and he's done a remarkable job of it; it's kept Ukraine alive to fight another day.
Ans maybe Trump can help finish this war, as Russia is on the brink of economic disaster (if it's not already beyond the point of no return).
"Russia is on the brink of economic disaster"
It's been on the brink of economic disaster nearly as long as Ukraine's been on the brink of military disaster... the World Bank figures for PPP GDP put it at #4, and the figures might even be better than the UK ones, which include a 10% boost for illegal drugs and prostitution, plus "imputed GDP", like my notional £2.5k a month rent on the house I own and couldn't afford now.
https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.MKTP.PP.CD?most_recent_value_desc=true
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2025/jan/24/children-england-gender-dysphoria-diagnosis-rise
"The prevalence increased from about one in 60,000 in 2011 (equating to 192 children and young people nationally) to about one in 1,200 in 2021 (equating to 10,291 nationally) – more than a fiftyfold increase."
Decades ago I crossed the US sharing an Amtrak compartment with a priest who worked on a reservation, and was eloquent about the many social pathologies of his flock.
"Imagine all this was yours, and you lost it", he said, as we admired half a dozen bison on a bluff above the Missouri - about the size of the Avon by the time you get to North Dakota.
I wonder if the Native Brits are starting to feel that way, too.
The US produces oil - so any attacks on the Russian oil makes them richer - I wonder if that would change Trump's policies.
Yeah, but Purchasing Power Parity nonsense. Sure, you can buy a house for $20,000. That doesn’t make Russia “richer” than Japan.
I meant if Russian oil production declines then the US becomes better off as they can sell oil for more.
The Ukraine war seems to be about depopulating it. So many left when they could and so many men dead. They say Zelensky is personally worth billions. I have a soft spot for Putin because he saved Syria...for a while. Trump is extraordinary with people, isn't he? It is like he has extra senses. His Joe Rogan interview was masterful PR. I shall now retire to think on puppies and kittens....
Semi-off topic - do you remember Terrible Tim From Tullett - Tim Morgan and his Perfect Storm?
His basic thesis was that the economy is an energy construct, and as energy gets harder to find/more expensive, so the real economy slows or contracts.
"Ah, but what about China and the Far East? They're still growing!" you might (and I did) say. Of course what I'd not realised was that they were burning coal, oil and gas at record levels, while the BBC were telling us they were "yesterday's fuels".
It looks as if EU elites are just facing the issue of no NS2.
"Trump’s return to the White House has sparked a wave of soul searching across Europe. His America First doctrine and threat of tariffs on EU goods have left Europe’s elite wondering how it can close the growing economic gulf with the US – and find the billions needed for extra military expenditure. In countless conversations at Davos, business leaders and politicians laid bare the problems facing the EU: from stagnation in the core economies of France and Germany and failure to rival the American tech titans, to the rise of populism and the Ukraine war on its doorstep."
You've lost your cheap energy supply, your people are getting poorer (and stroppier) , and we'd like you to double or triple your military spending. Sounds like a plan !
A big stroppy boy - Putin - faces another big stroppy boy - Trump. They are not going to thump each other directly but Putin knows Trump has the bigger thump and can afford the longer game.
But Trump does not want to overtly escalate or appear to cost the US taxpayer more. But he doesn't want to let Putin win either. Trump may make out he doesn't care but USA Inc and the Pentagon does. So Trump can play it cool, quietly putting the squeeze on Putin, getting the max out of Zelensky and getting the max out of the EU. Squeezing everyone's balls and quietly slipping a bit more weaponry to Ukraine as US intelligence sees fit.
Sooner or later Putin will feel too much of a squeeze and come to the table. No one is going nuke, generals as well as corporals want to stay alive. Behold Starmer's face when he feels Donald's icy grip down below - help me out here Rachel.
I see the British Army are scrapping all their drones, which they paid Israel a billion or so for in 2010. Tech has moved on, just as the Hawker Hind and the Fairey Battle didn't last long in WW2.
Pity they couldn't just keep a permanent Channel patrol with them - apparently we can "see off" a Russian spy ship, but not rubber dinghies.
Funnily enough, my energy bill hit its peak (some £400 a month) *before* February 2022. When both Nord Streams were full operational. Well, they were in theory. Unfortunately Russia ran into endless — just endless — “technical issues” which meant the poor things proved disappointingly incapable of actually transporting natural gas. Oh, and massing troops on the border of Ukraine, threatening gas transit through that country too. And double oh, Gazprom quite forgetting to book any pipeline transit for days at s time.
Since Russian gas has practically ceased, my bill has fallen to a much more reasonable £220 a month. Not as low as I’d like, but much better when we “enjoyed” “cheap” Russian gas. Still too Hugh of course, but that’s down to the various renewables gimmies we have to pay. But there was a post previously on that topic so I don’t need to repeat that here.
Edit: Still too *high*
(Unless we can blame Hugh Grant…)
Silly me, I thought we were talking about gas prices? I don’t think you could send much electrical energy down the Nord Streams. And I’m quite stumped as to where we are talking about too, it’s like we’re back to “the country of Europe” again. Is it the EU? Or just Germany? Or somewhere else? (France, for example, laughs at the notion of high electricity prices).
If it is just Germany, and it is electricity prices, rather than gas, then, well, we’ve been through that countless times here. Germany’s energy policy is about the worst imaginable. Maybe start by turning those (perfectly good) nuclear power stations back on again?
And how, I wonder to myself, does industrial powerhouse Japan manage, with its nosebleed electricity prices (https://www.globalpetrolprices.com/Japan/electricity_prices/), while all Germany can do is complain?
No more of a charlatan than Winston Churchill, needs must when you're being invaded by your giant neighbour.
Of course I know people who voted labour, all you're saying is you live in a right wing silo and don't get out much. I think they were foolish but that's another matter.
Saying Zelensky feature prominently in the Panama papers is going a bit strong. Looks like before he was president he squirreled away money out of the country.
Do you want to elaborate on why you think he is illegally president by Ukrainian law?
OT, but ND enjoys military tech bloggers and linked to one a few posts ago. Here's "Big Serge" on military obsolescence, ironclads and Crimea.
https://bigserge.substack.com/p/modernity-at-sea
"In 1861, the Royal Navy launched the HMS Warrior - an iron hulled warship with mixed steam and sail propulsion. The most powerful ship in the world when she launched, the Warrior was made utterly obsolete just a decade later with the 1871 launch of the Devastation. The idea of a ten year old ship being essentially useless in combat would have been insanity to a 17th or 18th Century admiralty, but now it was unremarkable."
As seen in the comment above, we're binning a billion-plus worth of drones, most of which have never been used, because 10 years have rendered them redundant.
Ten years lifespan is very unusual for a ship.
However Before the jet age, ten years was average for an aircraft design. The Flying Fortress of 1934 was only just about managing in 1944. The Se5a biplane of 1917, was in service in some airforces until 1927. But only because of austerity. And that it was a very advanced design in 1917.
Jet aircraft seem to have longer lifespans. The essential avionics and radar, etc etc, being updated to keep the frame viable.
Clive's category error, shared by all UK governments, is to consider buying a house the equivalent of buying shares or bonds. A house should be considered a box for living in, and in a well ordered society a box for raising children in.
When the price of petrol goes up, the Guardian (and indeed all UK media) writes about "fuel woes" and wonders if it'll affect government popularity. When the price of housing rises, we read "housing market strengthens".
"Sure, you can buy a house for $20,000. That doesn’t make Russia “richer” than Japan."
Is a country richer when rents are half of incomes? Someone is richer, but not the tenant.
We live in a strange world where technology plus a continued flow of cheap labour mean you can sample some of the upper-middle class lifestyle of the 1950s - beach holidays in exotic places, meals out twice a week - while living in a single room which costs half your salary.
Oh, and the continued degradation/enshittification of public spaces, partly because councils have no money.
I live in the sticks, and as a child every stream that went under a lane would have a little barrier either side to stop people falling in. I've not seen a new one for decades, the old ones are collapsed/vanished. Annoying to step in one in the dark while avoiding a car, but we have a couple where the stream is more of a pool and very deep when it rains. I suppose we'll have to wait for the tragedy.
Post a Comment