Desperate bluffing by Putin

This post will come replete with major caveats in due course, but let's start with the headline.  Vladimir Putin is bluffing like crazy over the inevitability of his victory, and will continue doing so for the next three months (until after the upcoming "elections") against the seemingly slender hope that Trump will somehow ride to his rescue and force Ukraine to accept something that can be portrayed as "victory" for Russia.  Given that use of nukes is off the table, bluffing plus outright airborne slaughter in Kyiv are practically all he has left.

To sum up:

• the Russian 2026 "spring-summer offensive" has yielded miniscule net[1] territorial gains at the cost of phenomenal Russian casualties.  All objectives remain unmet.
• counting from the front line to St Petersburg and beyond, the Ukrainian medium- and deep-strike campaign, notably on oil and logistics assets, has: seriously incommoded Russian forces at the front (supplies must be brought up by drone and on foot); paralysed transport on major roads in the occupied territories, with critical shortages of fuel - & water - in Donetsk, and Crimea almost under siege; made significant dents in manufacturing facilities of the Russian industrial-military complex across a very wide swathe of the country; seriously hampered telecomms and air movements across western Russia; wreaked colossal damage on the oil industry, with severe shortages resulting (and forcing large-scale imports from Belarus, India and other nations) that must soon have significant inflationary, industrial and food-production consequences; via vast palls of black smoke over Moscow and St Petersburg, demonstrated vividly and demeaningly to the populace that nowhere is safe from highly accurate drone and missile bombardment.
• having thus far failed miserably in the planned effort to censor the internet in Chinese style, Putin faces a populace that can see all this quite clearly.  Not withstanding the existence of some loyalist diehards that will cling to Putin's infallibility as they did to Stalin's, the greater part of the people, realistic cynics as most Russians are, have clocked it all as being at the very least, not at all what they were sold back in 2022, but in fact starting to impinge on them directly.  To call this "unrest" would be to misunderstand how Russia has always been: but it's a near equivalent.
• the economy is in a bad way, and short term relief from Iran-war oil prices has been overtaken by those prices falling back again PLUS the abovementioned actual shortage of oil products.

There are very big decisions pending for after those elections, in two categories:

1. the economy: if nothing changes, really deep measures will be needed;
2. manpower: if Putin decides to soldier on, even just to the extent of trying to capture the rest of the Donbass (and his stated territorial goals extend a lot further than that), he'll need a very large intake of new conscripts - perhaps a million.

So: given that's all 3 months away, during which time Putin doubtless feels he can (just about) maintain a facade of BAU, he sees little downside to giving the Trump card one last play.  Look, we're advancing on all fronts - let me lend you this magnifying glass - and can carry on like this forever!  Get that clown to surrender, now - and cash in your Nobel Prize voucher!!  Yeah, right.  Even Witless-Dumkopf, even Trump himself, have probably spotted the flaws in that line of reasoning.

One other thing, before the caveats.  L'il Volodya also shows signs of losing it a bit.  It's always necessary to enter notes of caution here because he's been written off as a dying man for years.  But in a very high-profile set-piece "interview" he gave recently, he dropped a real Biden of a clanger and declared Ukrainian troops in a town deep inside Russia were only 2 km away from being totally surrounded.  He was obviously mistaking it for some tiny Ukrainian settlement he'd been briefed about but forgotten the name of - commentators have made various guesses because it's not entirely obvious which.  But this in the full glare of prime time Russian TV.  Not a helpful incident.

And the caveats?  It's basically the usual one, with a specific twist.  It's always wise to assume that there is no limit to the suffering that can be imposed on the Russian people, however cynical they may be.  That's one manifestation of "the mysterious Russian soul"[2] that they are so proud of.  And I doubt there are any moral limits to the extent Putin is willing to exploit that, even if there might be some political constraints in an internet age.  So my opening list of how bad things are in Russia needs to be considered in that light.  BUT it cuts both ways: Ukrainians are equally able to take it, as they've proved heroically for over four years in defiance of almost all expectations.  Are they crumbling in the next 3 months?  No, they ain't.  And of course they have the tremendous backstop of EU / UK funding, without which it would have all been up for them some while ago.

The special twist is this: all the evidence points to Putin not knowing in detail what's actually happening.  He uses neither mobile phone nor laptop.  The military accounts he receives are just the icing on the mighty traditional Russian layer-cake of filing "beautiful reports" at every stage along the chain; and we can probably assume the economic and industrial reports he gets are similarly sugared.  It's only occasionally that hard facts seem to get through to him.  This all makes it even more likely that he'll play the game of attrition by infinite suffering.  Scary stuff.

There is one last fallback for Putin - China: because we all assume Xi won't let him "actually lose the war".  But Xi also serves as a restraining influence: he's ruled out nukes in no uncertain terms; and note how the 2024 experiment using 10,000 North Korean troops in front-line roles quietly came to an end without being scaled up, or even just continued. 

And "actually losing the war" may not be a relevant criterion: look how badly things have become for Putin with China notionally having his back!  I don't think he'll be getting any change from the Donald either just now: a(nother) failed "peace process" is the last thing Trump needs before the mid-terms.  

ND

________________

[1] 'Net', because Ukraine has been successfully counter-attacking on a couple of fronts and re-seized territory of its own.

[2] Here's some more of my attempts to illuminate these big cultural differences. 

Toughing it out: Starmer, Putin, Trump

Toughing things out isn't quite the same as playing for time, although the latter (an intellectually very dull strategy, but often effective) can be part of it.  One reason it can work for the obdurate party is that an awful lot of opponents have read their Sun Tzu and are hoping to gain their victory by manoeuvre and psychology alone, i.e. without bloodshed - which involves the incumbent vacating the battlefield before any clash of main forces.

Well, the other side has a vote in these matters, which all parties need to remember.  We have three prominent examples in play right now.

Starmer.   We've long suggested that Team Starmer has every intention of toughing it out, and in the last couple of days he stated he would contest any leadership election that might be forced upon the Labour Party.  Quite obviously, yer Burnhams and yer Steetings are hoping he'll be driven away without a fight, perhaps out of sheer embarrassment.  Note that Burham said last week that IF there's a contest (and IF he's an MP), he'd stand.  That's a man waiting for a coronation, not one armed with a pre-drafted letter in 81 copies.  

And there's probably quite a few Labour MPs who don't want to be put on the spot, too, when the Whips come round with nomination papers and thumbscrews.  Well, who knows what a few more weeks and Mandy-scandals will bring for TS - but since 'shamelessness' is his second name, he can probably hold on until the last minute.  So there you go, boys: you're gonna have to winkle him out.

UPDATE:  this, from the Graun - https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2026/jun/10/keir-starmer-aides-war-gaming-over-leadership-contest-with-andy-burnham

Trump.   Obviously not in such imminent political peril; but he sure ain't enjoying where he finds himself vis-à-vis Iran and world opinion generally.  (WTF did they go ahead with that Beijing visit for - I mean, either of them, Trump or Xi?  Literally nothing achieved.  At least, though, it doesn't appear Trump gave away the farm this time, which was the danger.  What might he do to cajole Xi to go ahead with the planned Washington visit, though?) 

Anyhow, in what's clearly an orchestrated effort, there has been a splurge of "Trump really knows what he is doing" articles - a demeaning task for the poor writers involved because manifestly he hasn't a f*****g clue.  I'd spotted a few in UK media, and thought it was empty sycophancy: but US contacts tell me it's been a blizzard over there.  The joke is, one of the oft-repeated lines is that Trump is pursuing clearly-stated Original War Aims - and then they cite different ones!  Of course, there have been so many to choose from, sometimes all in the space of a single morning in Trumpworld.  Does it all make the Donald feel happier?  Who can tell.   

Putin.  Ah yes, Li'l Volodya again, with two more humiliations in the past few days: the Ukrainian bombing of St Petersburg, literally casting a dark cloud over the SPIEF-fest; and the Armenian elections, which he had convinced himself had been sufficiently 'influenced' as to give a pro-Moscow result.  (This comes after Victory Day, Hungary, Iran, Cuba, Syria, Azerbaijan, etc etc - and of course the Chinese gas sale debacle.   Not to mention the casualties ... we've done this all before.)

But no: he's refusing to engage with Zelenskyy's insolent letter, and maintaining that Russia is on the path to inevitable total victory & fulfillment of his Original War Aims - however fatuous that sounds to, err, absolutely everyone.  So as we order industrial quantities of popcorn for the months ahead, let's just poke a little more fun by recounting what happened during SPIEF under that dark, oily pall.

• the WiFi failed
• overseas visitors were provided with VPN and SIMs so that they could access WA, etc (banned and 'blocked' in Russia)
• the useless Max messenger (the mandatory replacement for soon-to-be-banned-altogether Telegram) received its official launch - and promptly disappeared from the AppStore
• journalists were asked not to take photos of the lavish parties 
• ditto of the hookers provided for delegates
• residents had their hot water switched back on for the week (in St Petersburg the hot water provided by municipal district heating schemes is switched off in summer), presumably so they could present a fragrant atmosphere in the street 

But still he's not for turning ...[1].  These world leaders, eh? - they're so ... tough.

UPDATE:  reporting within Russia has it that the cyber aspects of Putin's personal security regime have been switched off.  This makes protecting him in some aspects more difficult: but has been occasioned by acute fears stemming from the ease with which Israel was manifestly able to track Iranian and Hezbollah leaders.  As we know, Putin is a physical coward [2] who seriously hopes to live to be 150.  But just because he's paranoid - aspects of which are noted by the FT - that doesn't mean 'someone' isn't out to get him.  (But probably not Mr Z.)

ND

_______________

[1]  Tellingly. however, in occupied Ukraine the Russians are seriously digging in - vast underground citadels being built.  They clearly envisage the need to defend what they now hold, rather than feeling confident of pushing ever further forward into the territory they assert is theirs for the taking, as Putin reckons is happening right now.  It's readily understandable, not least because Ukraine has rendered vulnerable every movement of vehicles and rolling stock, across the occupied territories and a significant swathe beyond, seriously incommoding Russian logistics.  Summer shortages of oil and even water in some of these areas will be acute.  It's truly hard to envisage how the much vaunted Russian "2026 Offensive" will materialize in any manner worthy of the name.

[2]   Let's get ahead of the "how do you know this?" trolling, with (a) his obvious blind terror of covid  - back to SPIEF again, anyone allowed to attend his address & press conference in person had to go through rigorous covid testing, even in 2026 (and he wasn't going to kiss them anyway); and  (b) seemingly, a new-found terror of hantavirus (sic!).  It has seriously been floated in Russia that the Special Military Operation should be brought to a conclusion swiftly, because of ... wait for it ... the risk of hantavirus running riot among front-line troops.  WTF?  There's only one reason why that sort of arrant nonsense appears: it's because someone who wants a prompt end to the SMO knows which of Putin's buttons to press.

How long can Russia keep this up?

An odd barb sometimes thrown in this blog's direction (from who-knows-what troll factory) is that since Russia's invasion of Ukraine four years ago (four!) we have been predicting the imminent collapse of Russia itself.  Well, we haven't.  Ever.  In fact, right from the start we have said that ultimately there's nothing to stop Putin taking Ukraine if he really wants to - which, if anything, was far too generous to L'il Volodya and his ramshackle army.  Further, we've always remarked that the Russian capacity for enduring privation and general suffering should never be underestimated. 

But it is beginning to look as though Putin's stamina is waning.  There are so many straws in the wind: in no particular order -

• the 'victory' parade, hugely-reduced in scale and betraying obvious fears for its security, to the point where Putin could be humiliated (the word used by Russian milbloggers) by Zelenskyy's gracious 'permission' to go ahead with the parade
• widespread and debilitating fuel shortages, courtesy of Ukraine's remarkable drone campaign ...
•  ... which, incidentally, has - yet again - blithely crossed one of Russia's stated nuclear red lines in terms of its scale ("the massive launch / take-off of aerospace attack weapons ... and their crossing of the state border of the Russian Federation")
• Russia's re-engagement with US negotiators, with the usual risible sabre-rattling
• the background PR planning for a sudden 'declaration of victory' - even based on today's status quo, if necessary
• serious domestic discontent at frequent blocking of the www and the (supposedly) imminent closure of access to Telegram, all in the name of 'security'
• internal dismay at the Hungarian election result, adding to keenly-felt impotence over Syria / Cuba / Venezuela
• serious economic issues, macro and micro - see below
• angst over the pitiful battlefield performance thus far in 2026 - zero net progress** in the spring/summer offensive campaign (intended to capture the remaining Donbass territory by autumn: Kkarkiv, Kherson and Odessa are rarely mentioned these days); casualty rates exceeding enlistments; and Ukraine has achieved, at least for now, superiority in the 'battlefield air interdiction' (BAI) stakes, courtesy of its swarms of very smart drones and their equally smart deployment in Russia's immediate rear, over and above the deeper oil refinery campaign 
• etc etc: I could go on.

Oh, and on the global scale, no joy from Xi on the long (very long)-awaited deal for more gas sales to China, a farce that we've often written about here in the past - check the 'Gazprom' tag - another serious strategic disappointment.

Even so, I still don't reckon on near-term "collapse", or defenestration of Putin.  He has plenty of tools to prevent either.  But I do say he's now beginning to think seriously in terms of an off-ramp: and many powerful people in Russia are even more seriously trying to get this to the top of the agenda.

In the midst of it all, the IISS has published this sober analysis.  It doesn't predict imminent collapse either; but it does set out the genuine problems and major dilemma Putin faces.  Between now and Xmas, I'm guessing we'll see recognisable, tangible movement taking place - in one direction or another.

ND 

________________

** Ukraine has in fact started making systematic small-scale territorial (re)gains all over the front, which in recent weeks have been larger than Russia's own small territorial gains.  On both sides these are to be understood in context: they are trivial in extent - largely infiltration sorties - and essentially opportunist in nature.  But there's a big difference: Russia's are intended, and indeed celebrated, as purposeful steps towards the taking of the Donbass; i.e. they are meant to be strategic.  Ukraine's, by contrast, are tactical spoiling measures - highly disruptive for any coherent Russian offensive this year.  But if they do indeed have that effect, they add up to having an important strategic consequence.

Negotiating with Iran? Waters always muddy there

So are there any substantive negotiations taking place, as Trump avers?  Or "talks"?  Or even "talks about talks"?  Well something, probably: but there's very good reason to be genuinely confused rather than just plain disbelieving.

Here's a first-hand story.

Back in the mists of time, when dinosaurs (Saddam, Khomeini etc) roamed the earth, I was working for a US oil company.  Then, as now, there was an American embargo on selling stuff to Iran; but the Iranians needed specialised oil products that they were unable - strange though this may sound - to produce locally themselves: and somehow we had State Department approval to sell it to them.  But it had to be done very discreetly.

Negotiations commenced, in London and Hamburg, with no American staff members involved.  There were several difficult issues to resolve, so it wasn't a simple horse-trade on price; and the whole thing was quite drawn-out.  We had an OK working relationship with our Iranian opposite numbers.

Then one day another Iranian turned up unannounced at our London offices and sought a meeting: he knew all our names & telephone extensions.  We hastily convened, and he laid out on the table all the paperwork relating to the deal, announcing that we would be dealing with him from now on.  Being somewhat taken aback, we were entirely non-committal and progressed nothing beyond making a few notes.  Upon his departure we called our previous contacts, who told us to have nothing to do with this individual, and that the whole episode was "a mistake" and should be forgotten.

We could only conclude there were competing middle-men in play and that in this murky world, copies of the paperwork could be procured for a price.  The complicated deal eventually came to completion after several more weeks.

But not without another remarkable episode.  With a particularly knotty issue being thrashed out, one of our interlocutors suddenly leaned forward and said in agitated tones:  you must concede this point to me, otherwise my family will be arrested!

I have been in many a difficult & protracted negotiation, including with Russians and Chinese counterparties.  But this is not a gambit I have met, before or since.  I have to tell you that we politely ignored his personal anxieties (genuine or otherwise) and proceeded with getting to the ultimate handshake by more conventional horse-trading.

Yes, customs & practices in that part of the world are, well, a bit different (I could tell you other stories about dealing with Arab counterparties - and Russians** & Chinese, too.)  For all his vaunted "New York real-estate expertise" Steve Witless-Dummkopf doesn't look to me like the kind of person who'd be much good at figuring out what's really going on.  Heaven help us all.

ND

_________________

** The critical trap with Russians is their readiness to fall silent in meetings for very sustained periods of time - the record in my experience was something like 45-50 minutes: a tactic designed to make the other side's nerve crack & offer just any concession they can think of to break the apparently awful deadlock.  Well, if that's all you are made of, it'll work every time.  But 'silence implies nothing' is the operative axiom.  Oh, and never get stuck with a firm homebound airline booking (which most people do, just to get out of the miserable surroundings).  They'll back you up against it every time. 

TACO Trump signals he's had enough

Such has been the volatility of events in the Gulf, commentators have had very little of substance to offer beyond the macro comments that Trump has been dancing to Netanyahu's tune, that the mullahs' regime has a lot of intrinsic resilience & indeed strength in many dimension, and that the Gulf states need to come up with a new business plan.  OK, we can all conjure up lurid worst-case scenarios.  But what does it mean for mortgages and prices at the pump?  Etc etc.  

This uncertainty manifests itself in endless commentariat hedging (e.g. HMG, BBC) but also in outright hysteria.  The very dubious Fatih Birol of the IEA has delivered himself of the view that the current situation is like the first two oil crises (1973-4 & 1979) plus 2022, all rolled up into one.  Well, no, it isn't - yet.  Like, not even remotely.  I worry when people like him have influence on world affairs (if indeed he does).

Back, then, to Trumpety-Trump.  His demeaning and very public flailing and railing over the past week clearly signals he doesn't like how things have turned out, one little bit.  (Why wasn't I told Iran wasn't like Venezuela?)  So now we know that a combination of negative market sentiment and negative MAGA sentiment marks the limits of his manic confidence.  That's a comfortably low threshold for him recognising a need to sober up.  One might have feared his personal pride, running up against the brick wall of Iranian intransigence, would result in a ratchet effect all the way up to a small nuke.  We need our leaders to have some kind of restraints.

On the downside (and speaking of small nukes), we're left with the enduring problem of Netanyahu, who might very well find himself owning the broken vase in a short while from now.  Now there's a man who doesn't sober up just because the Dow Jones slips a few points and the neighbours are banging on the walls.

On the plus, we have a lot more realistic input on the thorny issue of what air defence needs to look like in the late 2020's, coupled with a pressing need for the west's armaments industry to gear up for several years of serious production.  We might also escape the nightmare of Iran becoming a failed state, which would make the Syrian and Afghan exodus of the last decade look like a picnic outing.

What it all means for NATO / Cuba / the mid-terms / Taiwan / Russia-Ukraine / Starmer etc etc etc ... time will tell. 

Finally, it seems Trump won't be going on the planned trip to Beijing in the immediate future.  Given that in all probability he'd have been induced to give away more of the family silver to the Chinese, that's a good thing.  Let's hope he never goes there again.

ND 

Trump screws up as bigly as Putin

From the outset of Putin's crassly conceived invasion of Ukraine, this blog has consistently criticised the sheer military and strategic incompetence of it.  We can hardly forbear to do the same for Trump.

The Donald's theory of victory appears to be this:

• prolonged, well-telegraphed buildup of forces
• decapitate[1] the leadership
• tell Iran to install new leader acceptable to Trump
• new leader to hand over lots of oil via some splendid "deal"
• walk away after a couple of weeks, handsomely in profit
• not crow too openly about having tweaked Xi's nose
• approach the mid-term elections as the Man Who Brought The Mullahs To Heel

In short, the 'Venezuela' gambit, attempted on a country that only a complete moron would mistake for Venezuela[2].  Another lightning "deal": it's the only trick he knows.  Not a breath of strategy worthy of the name.  Not a braincell in evidence.  Tariffs all over again, with actual explosions.

We needn't dwell on how the reality is best described as Netanyahu coopting[3] the military might of the USA to make real Bibi's longstanding wet dream: it's how the whole world openly discusses it including, belatedly, 99% of the American public, which until now had been either (a) hoping Trump might somehow work out for the best (Maga Republicans) or (b) not daring to oppose Trump openly, for fear of some vaguely defined domestic retribution (Democrats plus liberal elites of all colours[4]).

If you want to lose sleep seriously this weekend, have a read of this.  Small-boat crossings on the increase?  We haven't seen a tenth of it.

ND

_____________

[1] Well, tag along with Netanyahu's decapitation plan & pretend to be in control - read this, too.

[2] Funnily enough, the Venezuela gambit was working quite well, and Cuba was being lined up for a "quick deal" too, which could have played very nicely for the mid-terms[5].  Not any more.

[3] Did I say "coopting"?  How about "hijacking and expending"?  All Hesgeth's blather about "effectively unlimited magazine depth" was always, even a week ago, absolute nonsense.  Stocks are already being drawn down from US forces in S.Korea.  Taiwan looks increasingly like a lost cause, and S.Korea will presumably be readying its own nuclear programme.  Indeed, probably the only reason L'il Kim doesn't chance his arm right now is the recognition that DJT is capable of anything. 

[4] It was really noticeable how The US Establishment (media, judiciary, academia, NGOs, think tanks, institutes etc - even those that are essentially on the right) - initially went completely silent after November '24, and withheld much-needed criticism all through last year.  Presumably they all feared for their funding (or worse) - and rightly so in many cases.  That winter of silence has been thawing of late.

[5] The Dems had better not be complacent in their approach to the mid-terms: conventional wisdom of the "don't worry, it'll all be over soon" kind has been the downfall of many a lazy politician.  The whole of the British left thought that about Thatcher in 1981.  And we must be very cautious before assuming the US military will "refuse to obey illegal orders", as some spineless Dems have been urging.

Iran, and two men's revealing speeches

First, the utterly unspeakable Hesgeth, who should by rights be languishing in a gaol somewhere for his outrageous breach of security in running that insecure and actually compromised Signal chat last summer.  There he is, mouthing off in ways scarcely befitting an unrestrained junior under-boss of a New York crime family, just before the capo decided he's heard enough ill-judged, unseemly braggadocio.  (The Mafia idiom comes readily to mind in so many of Team Trump's doings.)   And the empty boasting about the "effectively unlimited" magazine depth of US forces - it's clearly untrue, and who thinks it's clever?  Xi will be at risk of splitting his sides. 

Then, there's Starmer's performance when announcing that Trump may use UK bases "for strictly defensive strikes".  Just look at the body language, from a man who, like a real political pro, can normally hold it together quite well when he's delivering absolute, calculating lies.  His voice was shaky; he looked ill with worry; he wouldn't take questions.  A shockingly unconvincing performance, in logic and delivery.  

The sequence of events for this hollow man is obvious:

1. Lose by-election due to Moslem vote going Green
2. Half a dozen Cabinet ministers see their futures dwindling 
3. Hasty strategy meeting (i): must start heavy-duty pandering to 'the community'
4. Trump off on another rogue mission of Netanyahu's devising, wants to rope in the UK: no!  Channel Harold Wilson / Vietnam!  Make it clear we're on the side of (peaceful) Moslems!
5. Trump lets it be known bigly that this is the Wrong Answer: reminds Starmer the RAF is already heavily engaged in the region; and that he'll do whatever he pleases anyway; but that "disloyal optics" are not permitted
6. Hasty strategy meeting (ii): "jolly helpful" that an itty bitty Shahed has landed somewhere in the Akrotiri region, and that RAF is been providing top-cover for Jordan (& Turkey?) anyway. Defensive defensive defensive!  New statement.  Grip podium.  Square circle.  Pander to both sides - & try to be convincing.  Come on man, you can do it!

Then, hasty strategy meeting (iii).  Ramp up on those other pandering-plans.  Where are we with the new Blasphemy law?  Hurry that up.  And are we doing enough "blend and extend" to ensure the Grooming Gangs inquiry focuses on London, and child abuse in general?  We need to do more: get Khan on the phone again, and those Anti Social Media campaigners.

Gah.  It's so transparent.  But, I tell you - he intends to tough it all out.

ND

Crossing Putin's Red Lines

It's an observation often made, here and elsewhere, that the Ukraine-supporting West (as well as Ukraine itself) has many times crossed a large number of Putin's soi-dissant 'Red Lines' [1] since he mounted his inept, failed full-scale invasion of that country exactly four years ago tomorrow.  Before and during this string of Putin-prodding acts of lèse-majesté, there was a head of steam building up among the weaker hands that he would respond with nuclear retaliation.  Well, he never has - despite waving his wiener in that direction very demonstratively, several times.[2] 

Well now.  Last week, Ukraine's extremely effective campaign of deep strikes - sometimes very deep - into Mother Russia itself moved into new territory.  In the past they've blown up entire ammunition depots (with explosions registering on earthquake detectors); seriously incommoded the Bear's very large petrochemical industry; and made some telling attacks on selected hi-tech armaments manufactories.  Not to mention the astounding Operation Spiderweb.  Oh, and very probably a handful of assassinations in Moscow.  

But last week they excelled themselves: 

... a FP-5 Flamingo missile strike against the Russian state-owned Votkinsk Machine Building Plant in Votkinsk, Udmurtia Republic (roughly 1230 kilometers from the international border). The Ukrainian General Staff reported that the Votkinsk Plant produces Yars-series intercontinental ballistic missiles (ICBM), submarine-launched Bulava ballistic missiles (SLBM), 9M723-1 type Iskander-M ballistic missiles, and 9-S-7760 Kinzhal aeroballistic missiles.  Russian opposition outlet Astra and a Ukrainian open-source intelligence project reported that the plant also produces Topol-M missile systems and Oreshnik intermediate-range ballistic missiles (IRBM). Geolocated footage published on February 20 shows smoke rising from the Votkinsk Plant.  Udmurtia Republic Governor Aleksandr Brechalov acknowledged that Ukrainian drones struck and damaged an unspecified facility in Udmurtia.

Here's the thing: as part of the sabre-rattling, a couple of years ago Putin updated his public policy on use of nuclear weapons, in a manner designed to convince the West that the threshold for a Russian nuclear response is now quite a bit lower.   The new doctrine states that the use of nuclear weapons is possible in the event of the disabling of critical nuclear facilities, or massive attacks that pose such a threat.

So how does he classify last week's attack?  If he was looking for an excuse to go nuclear - in the middle of the current "trilateral negotiations" - it rather looks as though he might find one.

I say this simply as an observation.  Let's see if we all have further 'observations' in the course of the next days and weeks.

ND

________________

[1] Too many to list them all, but here are some (NOT including the demands that NATO withdraw from the 'new member states' etc etc made before the invasion):

• No Western arms of any kind to be supplied 
• No MiG 29s from former E.Bloc countries
• No former USSR tanks ditto
• No weapons whatsoever from Germany
• No HIMARs
• No Patriot missiles
• No Storm Shadows
• No Western tanks
• No F-16s
• No strikes inside Russia
• No Ukrainian counter-offensives into territory already captured

He probably would have included "no 6-month incursions into Kursk" - if he'd imagined for one instant that the Ukrainians were capable of it.  (Or given reliable reports by his ever-mendacious military.)

[2] Of course, Xi has told him to wind his nuclear neck in - an injunction that is probably still in force.

Starmer's China Triumph: errr ... visa-free travel!

The scene: a small, bare office on an industrial estate near Beijing Capital International airport.  Sitting nervously on a metal chair, nursing a plastic beaker of water and facing a plain table adorned with two small pennants, one a Union Jack and the other the Chinese flag, is The Most Important Man In Government Jonathan Powell, legendary Xi-whisperer (self-styled) and Starmer's right-hand man on all foreign matters. 

A loud voice off, shouting into room:   You bow low!

Powell leaps to his feet, turns to face the figure walking in through the door and doubles over at the waist with as much gravitas as he can muster.

Enter Yu Bau-Lo, 3rd Deputy Under Secretary at the Chinese Ministry of Protocol.  

Yu:  Mr Powell, get up.  Very busy.  Have many executions of Ming gang to supervise.  What you want?

Powell:   Err, Mr Yu, greetings ... I, err, we, err, came good with the approval for your new London embassy, just like we discussed.

Yu:  Yes.  So what?

Powell:   Err,  we were, err, hoping there might be something in return?  Something big, that Sir Kier could announce?  

Yu:  He could say "I got to meet President Xi.  In person.  Camera present, photo taken."  This is great honour.  Everyone in world deeply impressed.

Powell:  Err, we were hoping for something, like, err, tangible? 

Yu:  We will send copy of photograph meeting with President Xi.  Can have framed.

Powell:   But, but ... we need a deal - everyone needs a deal these days!

Yu:  OK, (looks through notebook entitled "Sops") - we give you visa-free travel!  Big concession - only Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, EU, Canada, Turkey etc etc etc get visa-free travel.  North Korea desperate for visa-free travel!

Powell, crestfallen:   Surely there must be something more than that?  The embassy ...

Yu:  Don' push luck Mr Powell.  OK, final word: half-rate tariff on Scotch whisky.  

Powell, utterly crushed:  Thanks ... we're very grateful.

Yu, turning to leave as shots ring out offstage:  OK.  You go now.  (With back turned)  Anyhow, Chinese people don' drink Scotch any more - Indian whisky really good these days**.

As overheard by ND

__________________

** It's true!

Venezuela through Russian and Chinese eyes

In the previous post I suggested: 

... the Venezuela adventure is ... forcing Putin to eat more shit as he is lamely reduced to asking that his tanker crew will be nicely looked after.  Yep, lots of random shit happens on Planet Trump ... both Russia and Xi are utterly dismayed, as ever, by the casual ease with which perfidious western nations sweep away years and even decades of patient strategic effort: this time Venezuela, the latest in a long series  

- that series including Libya, Syria and Iran-as-Middle-East-counterweight (and supplier of arms to Russia).

Taking Russia first: Putin really had set a lot of strategic store by Venezuela - proportionately, a lot more than Xi, for whom these things are merely road-bumps, however annoying and tactically unpredictable.  Ditto Syria, ditto Iran.  Putin is beholden to N.Korea, FFS, at the same time as trying to project a superpower profile, so these setbacks are pretty hard to swallow.  The Bear with the sore head is unlikely to cut anyone any favours on its western borders, witness the performative missile strike on Lviv; but he'll be watching Iran with an awful sense of déjà-vue doom.  Where to parade his plonker now, except in the Donbas?

China looks very different.  Xi pretty much believes in regional hegemony!  So Venezuela may be a bit of a setback to a maturing long-term plan, and oil is oil; but hey, Taiwan is the only thing he really cares about, period.  

Also, he's looking forward to wiping the floor with Trump - again - this year.  He played Trump brutally last year.  You say 'tariffs', Mr Trump?  Nope, and we raise you rare earth metals.  Now, hand over your very best chips, lots of them, before we reduce your remaining industries to rust and dust ... That's the way, Donald, there's a good boy.  Now run along.

And 2026 is the mid-terms ...  Venezuela, pffft.  Trump and Xi are scheduled for a couple of summits this year, and the Chinese will be expecting to ream him again.  What else of gigantic strategic value will Trump give away this time?  The dawning of the Chinese era stands to be accelerated materially in just a few months. Scary stuff. 

ND

UPDATE:  see thread below - this is getting complicated !  

https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2026/jan/17/china-blocks-nvidia-h200-ai-chips-that-us-government-cleared-for-export-report

Ukraine - more first drafts of history

Last year's Predictions compo invited short essays on Ukraine.  I largely ducked this one but there was a very decent effort by Caesar H, including: 

Trump comes up with a Big Deal that makes sense to him, Zelensky signs off on it begrudgingly, Putin doesn't. Trump, having paper thin skin, takes this badly ... by year end some of Russia's gains will have reversed, and there'll still be an embedded Ukrainian presence in Russia, and Trump will start suggesting giving them nukes in response to Russia's usual bellicosity about using them. Think of the geopolitical version of "I offered you a way out asshole, you slapped my hand away, so I'm going to crush your nuts until you cry like a little bitch".    I expect this theory to disproven by February of course 

Putting aside the nukes bit, it was actually a very fine prediction.  Putin seemed at first to be playing a decent hand with Trump, but his early political gains have been squandered (does anyone really know how to play Trump?  Even Netanyahu?).  I believe Ukr still holds a few square meters of Russian soil to this day; and although none of Russia's gains as of Jan 2025 have been reversed, several of their advances during 2025 have indeed been reversed - though the definition of "advances" changed during the year**.   

I have no idea what the collective western brainpower around the most recent "coalition of the willing" table thinks they've come up with this week.  They all know, for 100% certain  - even, or perhaps especially Witless, who's had several lengthy in-person lectures from L'il Volodya - that the idea of NATO boots on the ground / air patrols in Ukr airspace are an absolute Red Line for Putin, despite the endless red lines of his that the west calmly breezed through in 2022 / 23 / 24.  

Is it a Cunning Plan?  Designed to get a wholly predictable 'Неt' that will enrage the Orange One?  If so, the parallel Venezuela adventure is reinforcing the C-Plan nicely, forcing Putin to eat more shit as he is lamely reduced to asking that his tanker crew will be nicely looked after.  What a piece of serendipity that is!  Yep, lots of random shit happens on Planet Trump.

I don't have a conclusion on Ukraine right now, because a massive and fairly binary pivot-point looms (and of course may fade away again, as have several before).  Just a few observations:

• while there's still nothing to stop Putin having what he wants in terms of the Donbas (as I've said all along), he doesn't seem willing to pay the price (or at very least is understandably reluctant), and still hopes to get it on a plate via a 1-1 with Trump
• the only possible way he'll get more than just the Donbas (in terms of territory or in any other dimension) is also from Trump
• once again, both Russia and Xi are utterly dismayed, as ever, by the casual ease with which perfidious western nations sweep away years and even decades of patient strategic effort: this time Venezuela, the latest in a long series

We'll shortly have another post on this last point.

ND

_________________

** Russia has more-or-less given up on even small-scale armoured thrusts (they all get eliminated piecemeal), or even the motorbike / quad-bike "dragoon" charges of 2024, settling instead for a pretty feeble doctrine of "infiltration on foot in 2s and 3s".  Sometimes this is genuine recce, but mostly it is simply for the sake of probing, and often for no more than raising a flag, having a quick photo taken by a drone, then the job's done, the map is updated, and nobody in the Russian command much cares for the subsequent fate of the probers.

On this last point, honest Russian milboggers are incensed by the endemic Russian practice of over-claiming territorial gains, in what they call "beautiful reports" from lower echelons to higher command and even to Putin himself.  They observe that "victories on credit" frequently result in carnage for the troops on the ground: they are either ordered to "make the maps true" by hurriedly and suicidally advancing into the falsely-claimed territory, and/or having resources taken away because, their having already "gained their objective", they no longer need them.  They also observe that promotions and medals are frequently awarded on the basis of "beautiful reports" alone.

Putin 'apologises': an interesting development

Returned from a couple of weeks away to find interesting news on several international fronts.  One little-noticed development that particularly caught my eye is that Putin has publicly "apologised" to Aliyev for the shooting down of an Azerbaijani airliner last year, and acknowledged formally for the first time that Russian air defences were what caused the disaster.  When it happened 10 months ago, Putin commiserated over the event - well, he kinda had to, it happened over Russian airspace, FFS - but said only that Ukrainian drones had been in the area.  Ever since, Aliyev has been demanding full acknowledgement, apology, punishment of the guilty, and compensation; and only now does he get just the first two of these, along with a statement that the details are still being looked into.   The inverted commas around "apologised" are required because of course it was done in the most ungracious, weasel-like manner.  (Needless to say, the Russian 'patriotic' media space reckons Aliyev is seriously out of order for having the temerity even to mention the matter, and should be subjected to a Special Military Operation of his own as soon as, errr, resources allow.)  

Why apologise now?  We need to take into account something else that happened recently - when Putin went to Beijing for the VJ-Day 80th anniversary celebrations.  Xi engineered things so that as Putin was going into a reception, who should he meet at the door but Aliyev, and was forced to shake his hand as though Aliyev was receiving him into the occasion.  Being bounced like this went down exceedingly badly in Moscow: it was widely viewed as a humiliation for L'il Volodya.  

Which it was.  On massive international occasions where diplomatic choreography is everything - particularly where China is involved and symbolism is paramount - nothing like that happens by coincidence.  Putin was set up then; and afterwards presumably taken aside and told to get on with the public apology.  Much as Moscow likes to big up Putin sitting next to Xi, one couldn't but notice who was sitting on the other side ...  Yep, it was Jong-Un the Wrong'un.  That's Xi saying to the world: meet my two surly stooges - the guys who are wholly beholden to me.

Putin has never been forgiven by China for invading Georgia during the 2008 Beijing Olympics - a truly monstrous breach of protocol.  It would have been against the rules even during ancient times: the Games marked a truce across the whole of Greece.  But for proud, prickly China, it was an outrage.  In the Jan 2008 C@W annual predictions compo, I forecast the invasion but with one erroneous detail: I said it would be after the Olympics.  I mean, what kind of idiot would do it during ..?

ND

Who fares best against Trump?

The Donald is, by his own estimation, a legendary deal-maker and negotiator.  Well, he does get (some) things done, and indeed sometimes gets his own way.  But how much of this is deal-making?  And how good are his deals?  His reputation in the New York real estate sector sucks is, errr, equivocal.

He's been in action quite a bit this year!  So there's something to score: and we can form an early view on his performance as a negotiator up against several prominent counterparties.  

vs China:  Trump is losing, hands down.  The Chinese are playing him like a fiddle, and he's steadily backing down on the tariff war, step by step.  Yet surely, by every standard of US foreign policy as espoused in the past decade by both his and the Democrat party, this is the only game that truly matters.  Sheesh... this really matters!  - did he think he could simply swat Xi aside one spring afternoon while he was mostly busy, errr, earning his Nobel Peace prize, annexing the whole North American land mass, remodelling the White House, peddling his crap merchandise, running feuds against everyone he's ever had a grievance against etc etc etc?

vs Russia:  jury still out, perhaps, but Putin won't be particularly disconcerted by their exchanges to date.  Relative to the extraordinary prior claims made by Trump ("peace in Ukraine in one day!"), and his huffing and puffing about "consequences", the current state of play is pretty demeaning for him.

vs Mexico and Canada:  given how things looked at the start of the whole tariffs round, OK-ish for M & C.  They've mostly stood their ground, and the world hasn't fallen down around their ears by any means.  Makes Trump's early rhetoric look pretty silly - and that's just on trade.  As for annexing Canada ... (I think we can hear the laughter from here - and Greenland probably isn't too worried just now, either.)  

vs India:  jury definitely still out, because India has options.  Trump has dealt his blow - but will he get any pleasure from what happens over the next months and years?  Not at all clear.  How clever is it to send Modi scuttling to Beijing, hmm?

vs Starmer:  surely, 2-1 to Trump.  Starmer has chosen to grovel, in return for some relative 'gains' (negatively defined, which is the only thing we can say) when compared to the EC, see below.  But it has suited Trump to give a little pat on the head to the biggest arse-licker, just pour encourager les autres.

vs the EC:  a seriously bad result for the EU, courtesy of the unelected EC which holds much of Europe's fate in their hands.  Feeble stuff.  A bit of a surprise, given how comprehensively the EC wiped the floor with Cameron and May.  But from this distance, that probably tells us more about them than it does about the EC.

vs Iran:  personally, I can't call this one yet.  Need to keep it in view: could tell us quite a lot.

Crazy man, crazy times.

ND

How troubled is China about Trump's tariffs?

I mean, really troubled -?  Obviously, China has done very well out of the pre-existing "free trade" regime (everything is relative).  Obviously, the CPC (a) talks a good fight, and will always counterpunch stoutly as a reflex; and (b) ultimately doesn't mind imposing suffering on its people, provided the cause is sufficiently important strategically.

Whatever: they seem to have come to the table.  Sometimes the calm, confident-sounding bellicosity is a face-saving reflex.  Then again, Trump changes his story every day or so to maintain the spin on the wobbly plate of his bizarre policy-making, and is pretty keen on saving his own, errr, tanned face.  And as neutral venues go, Switzerland looks a bit more of a western location than, say, Singapore or Dubai would have done.  So far, so convenient for Trump's spin.

That said, there are a couple of other straws in the wind.  Firstly, following Xi's appearance in Moscow - a priceless morale-boost for Putin, so we know where the balance of obligations should now lie - and to China's serious annoyance, Russian online media have been showcasing clips of a tic of Xi's: he was spotted in Moscow letting his head drop a bit to one side, seemingly an involuntary slump before bringing himself back upright again.  It's been bruited about that this may be a sign of stroke, etc, yadder yadder.  Well, maybe he was just bored stiff: people are always speculating about health and striving for clickbait opportunities ... but, hey, this is Xi, the sole arbiter of Putin's future, in Russia, being poked by Russian media.  

And what it there's a soupçon of truth in it?

I'd say, the Taiwanese better start trembling.  That man wants them in the bag before he goes.  In all the crazy circumstances, who could be utterly amazed to wake up one morning to a fait accompli in the East China Sea?  Tariffs or no tariffs.

ND

Epochal change in our economic situation

What are the epochal economic changes in my lifetime?  I'm no student of macroeconomics, as any reader here will know, so I don't have a ready list.  The rise of China comes first to mind, along with its concomitant, the (relative) de-industrialisation of the West, and its precursor, the collapse of (left-wing / doctrinal) communism.  The oil crises of the 1970s.  Economic migration towards the West and the suppression of labour costs.  And ... economic "neoliberalism"?  The period of the "great moderation"? - maybe.  The banking crisis 2007-09? - not really: what changed?  Any others people care to nominate?  [I'm not looking for lists of new technologies here.] 

Anyhow, now we have a serious new candidate: the Keynsian turn of Germany announced just days ago, which is probably just the cornerstone of the EU letting rip, as many in the EC and several member countries have wanted to for decades now.  So much latent borrowing power!  Assuming it actually happens as presaged, expenditure on weaponry (of course) but also infrastructure, stands to become a truly massive boom, with the added twist that there could be a strong strategic reluctance to outsource all this upsurge in manufacturing and construction to China.

The markets don't think it all looks so obviously great for the USA, either: are we seeing the turning-point in a 25-year bull run on the DJ, and maybe early suggestions of the USD going out of favour?  US recession, even, as the tariffs bite?  Nice one, Donald - though at least there will be plenty of ongoing demand for his natural gas.  

Writing as a non-economist, I'd say that the whole thing also sounds rather inflationary, too - for all of us.   The older I get, the gladder I am for my substantial inflation-hedge. 

What do we all reckon, at this critical juncture? 

ND

PS - did you notice the Irish offered themselves as part of the Macron/Starmer coalition of the willing?!  See, this is real ! 

How the Romans felt when Nero was emperor

Some pretty dire scenarios are easily envisaged, but it's anyone's guess now, on any geopolitical question you care to speculate on.  Has global politics ever hinged on pettiness and petulance to this degree?  Even remotely?  "well, checks and balances ..."   Really?

There is, at least, one thing we may be sure of:  Xi will be determined to make his move on Taiwan before November 2028. 

ND

While Trump & Putin deal bilaterally ...

It looks for all the world as though Trump, against all his self-vaunted reputation as a dealmaker, has rather publicly gone into bilaterals with Putin on a basis that may be designed to achieve something for "America First", but nothing whatever for Ukraine.  And maybe that's exactly the correct summary of the situation.

But even if he has, Putin has also made some capital errors in this process: he's wetting himself with such pleasure at being talked to again by someone other than China and NK, it's not clear he can help himself.

Just count his well-advertised desiderata:  I'm not sure which, if any, count as Red Lines, but just look at the list.

• Russia gets all of the oblasts of Crimea, Luhansk, Donetsk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson (Kharkiv has sometimes featured on this list, and we know what he really wants is Odessa, for a free crack at Moldova and total blockade of Ukraine from the Black Sea)
• Ukraine to undergo regime change (we must assume he has a List of Names), and a programme of 'denazification' which is a long list of demands in itself
• Ukraine substantially to disarm
• NATO to withdraw from X, Y, Z (list varies), and deploy no forces whatever to Ukraine
• Ukraine never to be admitted to NATO (sometimes demand extends to EU) 
• end of all sanctions etc
• return of all assets (no doubt "+ interest" etc)
• end of all blacklistings, charges of war crimes etc etc
• return to the comity of nations in all dimensions, G8, sports, etc etc: (we may guess he has a list of specific showy performative demands to seal this)
• tickets to the Oscars, Wimbledon, Pope's funeral 
• I have probably forgotten a few

So: how many of these could Trump conceivably deliver?  (without at very least expending every last drop of personal credibility in the RoW, and US political capital with the EU.)

So Putin won't get all this (that's putting things mildly): so he risks looking like he's spent a helluva lot of blood and treasure for equivocal results.  May not go down well back in Moscow.

OR: he simply wants to set Trump at the throats of Europe.  Now that, he might achieve.  But not all of Trump's merry men are knaves or fools, by a long shot.  And not necessarily the bombastic, unequivocal, easily-understood 'victory' Putin would be hoping to celebrate in Red Square, even though it might be epoch-making in the long run.

This ain't over by Xmas. 

PS, I didn't miss the interesting BTL suggestion from Mr Cowshed that Trump wants to set Putin up against Xi.  Nice theory!  Even more difficult to imagine, though.

PPS:  Forgotten a few?  Didn't even mention return of the small Kursk salient held by Ukr since last August!

ND

Trump's trade war may give us a new data-point

Trump seems to have fired the first salvos of a new global trade war.  Does he imagine, as did Putin with his shooting war, that opponents will rapidly fold and it'll all be over in days or weeks?  Well, maybe.  But Colombia might not have set the pattern.

Old Pa Drew was in the international foodstuffs game and, having been a WW2 soldier in his time, brought me up to the slogan "trade is better than war": and I'm a free-trader.   Well, but it was never a cure-all, as I readily admit.

On the other side of the account, history records nations who viewed sea-faring merchant activity as the work of the devil, and sought to ban trading altogether.  Which is a debate we perennially return to here at C@W in rather more subtle form: what's the appropriate degree of dependency on trade, as opposed to national self sufficiency?  There's no scientific way of resolving this question, even though there are metrics one might try to deploy.  

In any event, some trade-dependencies are faut-de-mieux:  I was once posed a deliberately provocative question in a seminar by a Chinese energy economist, relating to Europe's dependency on cross-border electricity trade to keep our highly interconnected grids functioning: this was surely a major strategic weakness and a Very Bad Thing, she demanded.  I politely replied that, yes, sometimes import dependency can work against you, and that *ahem* some countries were dependent on imports for their oil ...

Anyhow: the rationale for trade is, of course, that it engenders efficiencies.  The Trump Trade War might just give us some hard data on just how costly are the inefficiencies his stymying of free-flow might bring about.

Then again, maybe everyone hastens to do his bidding...

Looking forward to hearing from some of you supporters of mercantilism and self-sufficiency out there.  (I'm caricaturing a bit, I know.)

ND  

DeepSeek: capitalism at its finest!

Trump is right that DeepSeek is a wakeup call.  For a very long time many on the capitalist side of the argument (including myself) have taken a degree of complacent comfort in the highly derivative nature of Chinese technology.  One of out BTL commenters even went so far as to say that reports of a Chinese stealth fighter couldn't possibly be true.  Of course, we've long noted the undeniable, gargantuan successes of China's mercantile strategy, but hey, that's how Japan, S.Korea and Taiwan joined the club. 

And now, DeepSeek!   Assuming it isn't a fake - and I think we may - it represents an all-time classic example of capitalism at its finest:  people with strong commercial motivation, creativity, and sufficient political freedom - highly qualified, but sufficient - to give rein to it;  and the innovations flow!

And of course in a frontier space like LLMs, random disruptions and breakthroughs are to be expected.  We just need to recognise that a western cultural backdrop is not the only fertile context.  

So 'wakeup call' is all we need to say.  Provided that those who hear it are not just the complacent, comatose denizens of Silicon Valley.  Now, what was it about that stealth fighter again?

ND

Does Trump know how to play Putin?

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