.

The natural affinity that appears to exist between Trump and Putin is tempered only by the divergence of their personal interests. To each his own. Each enjoys presidential immunity for his acts and omissions. Putin’s is for life. Trump’s ceases with his presidency.

Their attitude towards the law is different but the result is the same. Putin uses the law and adapts it wherever necessary to fulfill his political goals. Trump considers himself to be above the law, irreproachable, and able to do whatever he likes, regardless of the law.

Where the law is not applicable, one might hope there is at least a sense of morality. Is there ? Their fans and supporters would surely affirm that both have a great sense of morality. Putin likes to demonstrate his religious faith in the company of his ex-KGB comrade, Patriarch Kirill, head of the Russian Orthodox Church. Trump maintains relations with the New Apostolic Reformation whose figures promote pro-Trump policies and are influential within the Trump administration. Following his attempted assassination in Pennsylvania, Trump declared: "God has now spared my life not once, but twice".

Both Putin and Trump benefit from presidential immunity. Both are irresponsible before the law. Both avoid discussing religion, instead emphasizing success, power, and dominance. Their reluctance to discuss themes of humility, repentance, or service—central to Christianity—has led some critics to argue that their faith is more of a political tool than a guiding principle.

So what should we expect from two irresponsible presidents whose morality is a means to an end in achieving their political ambitions ?

.

67 activist judges in the US lower courts have issued temporary orders halting or temporarily undoing Trump government decisions. Trump has abided by all those rulings where possible and is seeking to have them overturned in higher courts as per the constitution and the rule of law.

When a SCOTUS ruling on student loans went against him, the Biden regime simply ignored it and bragged about that.

But Trump is abiding by the law even though he will probably eventually have all these lower court rulings overturned legally.

When you hear of Putin allowing his power to be curtailed by lower court judges you can come back and tell us how he and Trump are the same.

.

Dear mhaze,

.

You wrote :

« 67 activist judges in the US lower courts have issued temporary orders halting or temporarily undoing Trump government decisions. »
.

The roots of judicial activism trace back to the early 19th century, when the U.S. Supreme Court began asserting its authority. A key example is Marbury v. Madison (1803), where Chief Justice John Marshall established judicial review, empowering courts to invalidate laws inconsistent with the Constitution.

This decision set a precedent for judicial involvement in shaping public policy.

Chief Justice John Marshall was an American statesman, jurist, and Founding Father, who served as the fourth chief justice of the United States from 1801 until his death in 1835. He remains the longest-serving chief justice and fourth-longest serving justice in the history of the U.S. Supreme Court, and he is widely regarded as one of the most influential justices ever to serve.

Among the “67 activist judges” that you mention are the following :

• John Coughenour, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, nominated to the federal bench in 1981 by President Ronald Reagan. He has a reputation for being a tough judge and has presided over high-profile cases, including the trial of Ahmed Ressam, the "millennium bomber" who was convicted of plotting to bomb Los Angeles International Airport on New Year's Eve in 1999.

Coughenour was the first judge to block Trump's executive order denying birthright citizenship to the children of people living in the U.S. illegally, calling it "blatantly unconstitutional" in a lawsuit brought by four states.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

• Royce Lamberth, a senior judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was nominated by Reagan in 1987. He served in the Army from 1967 to 1974 and worked in the District of Columbia's U.S. attorney's office before his nomination to the federal bench.

Lamberth temporarily blocked prison officials from transferring transgender women to men's facilities and terminating their access to hormone therapy. He is presiding over a lawsuit filed in Washington, D.C., on behalf of three transgender women who were housed in women's facilities before Trump signed an executive order that requires the federal Bureau of Prisons to ensure that "males are not detained in women's prisons or housed in women's detention centres."

• Joseph Laplante, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of New Hampshire, was nominated by President George W. Bush in 2007. He previously worked in the U.S. Attorney's Offices in Massachusetts and New Hampshire.

Laplante became the third federal judge to block Trump's executive order ending birthright citizenship for children of those in the U.S. illegally, saying he wasn't persuaded by the administration's defense. He said he would issue at a later date a longer preliminary injunction explaining his reasoning, according to the Associated Press.

• Carl Nichols, a judge on the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, was nominated by Trump himself in 2019. He worked for the Department of Justice between 2005 and 2009 and was in private practice before his nomination to the bench.

Nichols ordered a temporary halt to plans to put almost 3,000 U.S. Agency for International Development employees on paid leave and agreed to stop the 30-day deadline for USAID staffers to return home at government expense.

But he said in a hearing that his order was not a decision on a request from two federal employee associations to roll back the administration's dismantling of the agency, the AP reported.

.

mhaze,

Banjo never claimed Trump and Putin are identical, or that Trump has the same level of unchecked power as Putin. It points out something more nuanced: both leaders, in their own contexts, benefit from presidential immunity and exhibit a pattern of irresponsibility that comes with it. It’s less about legal mechanics and more about attitude - the way they each approach power, law, and morality.

That Trump's complied with 67 lower court rulings doesn’t refute the broader argument, and it doesn’t erase the fact that he frequently attacked the legitimacy of the courts, publicly undermined judges, and treated any legal resistance as partisan sabotage. That sort of behaviour demonstrates the very attitude Banjo was critiquing (i.e. acting as though the law is something to overcome or delegitimise, rather than be bound by.)

Your pivot to Biden and student loans is textbook whataboutism deflection - a tu quoque fallacy.

//When you hear of Putin allowing his power to be curtailed by lower court judges you can come back…//

This is a bit of a false test. It suggests that unless Putin and Trump are identical in how they handle power, then any comparison is meaningless. But that’s not how critique works. Nobody said they were the same in scale - just that they both show signs of using their power irresponsibly, and using faith or patriotism as props more than principles. It’s a comparison of traits, not of regimes.

If you want to defend Trump’s conduct meaningfully, try challenging the claim that he acts above the law or uses religion cynically. But turning the conversation toward Biden and setting up binary comparisons weakens your position.

.

Trump fails to dampen public support of Americans for Ukraine

.

For those who may have missed it, on the 14th of March, the Washington think tank, Brookings Institution, published the results of a public opinion poll to determine which of the two countries, Ukraine or Russia, most Americans supported.

The poll was carried out a week after the White House meeting between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and a few days after the White House announced it was suspending aid to Ukraine.

59% of Americans say they sympathize more with Ukraine while 2% say they sympathize more with Russia. And only a little more than a third (35%) say they support Trump’s decision to suspend aid to Ukraine.

The survey was fielded by SSRS on its Opinion Panel Omnibus platform from March 7-9, 2025, among a sample of 1,004 respondents. The margin of error is +/-3.7% at the 95% confidence level. The data were weighted to represent the target population of U.S. adults ages 18 or older.

Here is the link :

http://www.brookings.edu/articles/trump-fails-to-dampen-public-support-for-ukraine/?utm_campaign=This%20Week%20in%20Foreign%20Policy&utm_medium=email&utm_content=352900290&utm_source=hs_email
.

No doubt Trump and his advisers were among the first to become aware of the results of this poll – which may partly explain the slightly more amenable tone of Trump’s recent exchanges with Zelensky.

.

.

Here are the lawsuits against Trump's executive orders :

http://www.usnews.com/news/national-news/articles/how-many-of-trumps-executive-orders-are-being-challenged

.

The lawsuits aren't the point - or at least are a different point.

The issue here is that Trump is playing by the rules on these law suits when, if he he saw himself as above the law (Banjo silly claim was "Trump considers himself to be above the law, irreproachable, and able to do whatever he likes, regardless of the law") then he'd ignore these lawsuits and judicial Temporary Restraining Orders and carry on as he wishes. After all he has plenty of precedent to do so if he so desire, the most recent being Biden's bragging about ignoring the Supreme Court rulings. And plenty before that.
But he doesn't act as though he's above the law but instead is using the law to put these activist judges in their place.

"Both Putin and Trump benefit from presidential immunity."
Banjo seems very vexed by the courts confirming US presidential immunity as though it only applies to Trump. But it does and has applied to all presidents. For example, Obama was able to carry out extra-judicial murders of US citizens using his presidential immunity. Its not something new. Equally Biden knows it protects him which is why he didn't feel the need to pardon himself when he (or whoever controlled his autopen) was giving pardons out like they were M&Ms.

Ultimately we have a class of people who utterly misunderstand MAGA and America First and in their ignorance attribute actions and motives to Trump that don't stand the slightest scrutiny.

I wonder if they'll ever catch on.

Ah, there it is - the mhaze special. It's a familiar playbook by now:

- Shift the goalposts a little.
- Reduce the debate to a technicality that happens to suit your point,
- Claim deeper insight into Trump’s motives than anyone else.
- And cap it off with a jab about ignorance.

You're not panicking just yet, mhaze, but the defensive gears are clearly turning. You’re now drawing a razor-thin distinction between “acting above the law” and “disobeying court orders,” as though only the latter could qualify.

But acting as though one is above the law isn’t limited to outright defiance - it also includes publicly attacking judges, demanding loyalty from legal officials, and treating judicial constraints as political obstacles to be discredited or bypassed.

Trump’s done all of that. Repeatedly.

And once again, you dodge by pivoting to Biden, Obama, and this vaguely defined “class” of people who allegedly don’t understand MAGA. That’s not an argument - it’s just misdirection dressed up as insight.

"You’re now drawing a razor-thin distinction between “acting above the law” and “disobeying court orders,” as though only the latter could qualify."

Well there is a difference between the two even if you can't see it. But I never drew the distinction. I never talked about disobeying court orders (even though you put it in quotes!!) because Trump hasn't disobeyed court orders and hasn't, yet, proposed doing so.

Well if "publicly attacking judges", "demanding loyalty from legal officials", "treating judicial constraints as political obstacles" is acting above the law then every president since Washington has acted above the law.

The problem here is that the activist judges are the last line of defence for the deep state as it battles to salvage something of its power and ability to milk the US taxpayer from the MAGA assaults. The deep state has relied for decades on the inaction of the Congress and the Executive to allow it to do as it wishes and now all that is under attack by a democratically elected leader moving against an undemocratic bureaucracy. The judges are its last hope (http://tiny.cc/az6e001).

Trump could have initiated a constitutional crisis by ignoring the judical orders but has taken a different path which his team had mapped out long before taking office. that being to defeat these judicial orders individually and severally in upper courts. At the same time, expect to see Congressional action to fix what clearly is a problem in the US system. That problem being that of one unelected judge overriding the policies of a democratically elected leader who took those policies to the electorate and had them endorsed.

"And once again, you dodge by pivoting to Biden, Obama". Do you not get it deliberately or is it something worse. I'm simply pointing out that people like Banjo are fretting over actions by Trump which aren't in the slightest unusual in the US context. There have been contests between the judiciary and the Executive from the year dot. Trump's travails aren't the slightest unusual and his responses aren't the slightest unusual except that they are less extreme than most - FDR threatened to stack the Supreme Court if it stood in his way.

Banjo's claims were that Trump was acting above the law and you've tried (however ineptly) to support that. But Trump is acting very much within the law and in the traditions of all US presidents.

People can't understand the nuances of Trump's rapprochement with Putin and, due to TDS, apply nefarious motives to it. Trump wants peace and he wants to draw Russia away from the Chinese grip. Nothing more nefarious than that.

Hi Banjo Patterson,

What exactly do you propose that Trump do about Ukraine?

"Putin uses the law and adapts it wherever necessary to fulfill his political goals."
- What makes you assume the war in Ukraine isn't an existential treat to Russia, and that Russia wasn't forced to act after the West overthrew the country in 2014?

Regarding the Brooking poll, how many of those who took part are willing to go to the front lines and fight for Ukraine?

They may want 'something' done, I'm not sure what exactly CAN be done, but I doubt they'd hold the same opinion if offered the opportunity to put their lives where their mouth is.

What do you propose the West do?
Show me an outcome that doesn't result in further conflict, including loss of life and financial cost to everyone involved.

This war, the loss of life and the loss of territory never had to happen, if 1. U.S. with the help of USAID didn't overthrow the country (and spend billions winning the hearts and minds of westerners with it's bought and paid for media campaign which I think effectively fudges those poll results) 2. If they'd entered into the Minsk agreements in good faith, not used it to buy time to build up the military and 3. Enetered into agreements in Istanbul talks in April 2022 when the West convinced Zelensky to continue the war with western support.

Truthfully Ukraine joining NATO and building up it's western military was a recipe for disaster for the entire region including Europe anyway.

As for USAID, they didn't roll back all of the agency programs.
From what I understand there are still some 1000 programs still in effect.

Beyond that, Trump 2.0 is starting to look little better than Trump 1.0. There was hope that tings would not spiral out of hand in the M/E when he first demanded a ceasefire, but he now seems powerless to do anything there other than be pushed towards a war with Iran.
His attacks on the Houthi have been an error of judgement.

[Cont.]
His attacks on free speech are also earning him a lot of criticism.
The story behind that was that the student protests were actually working and having a significant impact with a majority of people starting to support the Palestinians over Israels genocide.

The Europeans are using the war in Ukraine as a pretext to extract more money from EU citizens to rebuild their military in the wake of their failed military campaign against Russia, which is actually at the request of the Trump administration anyway.

If Trump 1.0 failed because of attacks against him by the deep state, which I may add 'has no reverse gear' then the current Trump 2.0 administration is failing because its stacked with Pro-Zionist 'children'.

.

Dear Armchair Critic,

.

You ask :

« What exactly do you propose that Trump do about Ukraine »
.

I think the wise thing for him to do would be to seek the advice of the major political leaders in Congress on a bipartisan basis as well as his military chiefs and principal allies, UK, France Germany and Poland before taking any further initiatives.

I see that as the first positive step he should take.

And as Europe has a vested interest in the final outcome of this major Ukraine-Russia conflict, I think he should work closely with the European alliance every step of the way from thereon.

Trump's failure to settle the conflict, as he boasted he would, has dealt his ego a tremendous, humbling blow.

We'll see if he has the intelligence and force of character to recognise that he was wrong and that others know better than him.

.

Starmer, Macron, Merz and Duda;
- They all going to want to continue the war.
'coalition of the willing' continuing arms supply to Ukraine or peace negotiations with U.S. security guarantees that require U.S. boots on the ground resulting in WW3.

High ranking members of U.S congress, President of the Senate is V.P Vance, Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (wants to continue arming Ukraine) Senate president pro tempore Chuck Grassley (also wants to continue arming Ukraine) Hakeem Jeffries (also wants to keep arming Ukraine)...

None of these people want peace, they want to win but it can't be done.
Lets assume you want to keep arming Ukraine and for the war to continue.
What's is your plan to win it, and what will that require?

As I said earlier on another thread it's an 'escalatory spiral model'

'The escalatory spiral model, also known as the conflict spiral model, describes how conflicts can escalate into larger confrontations through a cycle of action and reaction, where each party's actions are perceived as threats and provoke further escalation'.

The only way out is diplomacy, but none of these people you mentioned want that.
This path has already resulted in hundreds of thousands of lives lost and the further loss of Ukrainian territory.

But I invite you to please explain further what your recommendations would look like in practice.
I'm not trying to be tough, just realistic.
All of this could've been avoided if the earlier steps I mentioned were taken. America wants out, it's military stockpiles are dwindling, it wants to and the conflict over to the EU or make peace, so it can focus on China. (Still clinging to the unipolar world order, which is effectively dead)

Do you want EU citizens paying 5% of GDP and conscripting their own kids to go to the front?
The they're fools, they've already destroyed the source of their previous wealth success by cutting themselves off Russian gas.
I'm sure they were invested in overhrowing putin installing a puppet ruler carving the Russian Federation up and sharing the spoils amongst themselves.

Right on queue, mhaze!

As I had already predicted in my very last post, you're now attempting to reduce the debate to a technicality by fixating on the quote about “disobeying court orders” to make it look like I was making a false accusation.

Now THAT is "deliberately misconstruing."

I simply brought it up because you appear to be treating that as the only possible definition of “acting above the law,” which is far too narrow. My point was, and remains, that Trump’s behaviour - publicly attacking judges, demanding loyalty, framing legal checks as partisan warfare - is still a form of treating himself as beyond constraint, even if he hasn’t outright ignored a ruling.

I brought it up because you were drawing a razor-thin distinction, treating disobedience as the only meaningful definition of “acting above the law.” But that's far too narrow. Acting above the law doesn’t require physically ignoring rulings - it can also mean undermining the legitimacy of the legal system, demanding loyalty from legal officials, or framing legal limits as partisan sabotage. Trump has done all of that, openly and repeatedly.

Saying “well, other presidents have done similar things” doesn’t negate the critique - it just shifts the goalposts. You’re trying to normalise Trump’s behaviour by appealing to tradition or precedent, as if scale, tone, and context don’t matter. They do. No recent president has waged such a consistent and public campaign against legal institutions, or treated checks and balances as hostile forces to be outmaneuvered.

And invoking the “deep state” doesn’t change that - it just moves the conversation into conspiratorial territory where any resistance to Trump becomes illegitimate by default. That’s not a defense. It’s insulation.

You’re not engaging with the substance of the argument. You’re reframing it, deflecting from it, and layering it in a narrative designed to shield Trump from scrutiny rather than evaluate his conduct on its own terms.

What makes you assume the west can dictate an outcome, they can't.
And why aren't you listening to what Russia says?

Lavrov’s WARNING to the West | Russia Ready to Use ‘ANY MEANS’ to Defend Itself
http://www.youtube.com/live/eC-k5gcpDwI

What outcome do you expect to achieve, or think is even possible?

I tried to tell you all in the beginning 3 years ago it wasn't going to go well, but still people think there is something to achieve other than death, destruction and everyone both paying for it and drawn into it.

What do you think will happen if Aussie troops are sent there.
Russia will see all western troops as enemy combatants for starters (so you can count them as dead already, andthe Brits especially will false flag and blame Russia to get and peace ended and the war going again.

Russia has no reason to trust the West, and is happy to dictate the outcome on the battlefield, and it won't be long before the collective west move to send troops, because it won't be long before the armed forces of Ukraine faces complete military collapse.

It would be better to make a deal now than any other eventual outcome, which will include the loss of more Ukrainian territory.

"Well if "publicly attacking judges", "demanding loyalty from legal officials", "treating judicial constraints as political obstacles" is acting above the law then every president since Washington has acted above the law."

"Saying “well, other presidents have done similar things” doesn’t negate the critique - it just shifts the goalposts."

No its pointing out to you that that's the way the world works. Asserting that Trump is acting above the law when he's just doing what every president before and, presumably, after him has done isn't the slightest bit incisive. Its just TDS at its most fundamental. Verbally attacking activist judges is no more acting above the law than activist judges seeking to overturn lawfully made policies. Its just how the system works. I'm not surprised you can't see that.

This notion that we should just adjudicate on Trump's actions in isolation is just a way of saying that you want to say he's wrong irrespective of what goes on in the real world.

Reality Check
Delusional West's Ultimatum to Putin.
http://youtu.be/4iGuBxUg3-E

mhaze,

You’re still missing the point - deliberately, I suspect. No one is shocked that presidents clash with courts.

Trump doesn’t just clash, though, he personally vilifies judges, demands loyalty from legal officials, publicly undermines the legitimacy of the judiciary, and routinely frames any legal check as an act of persecution. These aren’t standard presidential behaviors - they are the pathologically antisocial acts of a person how has a documented history treating institutions as enemies unless they serve his personal interests.

What further sets Trump apart is not just that he engages in these acts, but the frequency, brazenness, and totalising way in which he does so. It demonstrates that his view of power is one that is transactional, self-serving, and fundamentally hostile to accountability.

Calling that critique “TDS” isn’t just a dodge - it’s a rhetorical cop-out. Dismissing criticism of Trump as "TDS" is nothing more than a means to avoid engaging with the substance of it by writing it off as irrational hatred. It’s a tactic designed to shut down discussion, not participate in it. And, ironically, it requires its own kind of blind loyalty: the assumption that any negative judgment of Trump must come from emotional bias, never evidence or reason. That’s not debate - that’s deflection by slogan.

And the idea that Trump’s actions can’t be meaningfully examined unless we judge them only in the context of what past presidents have done? That’s not a defense - it’s just a way of shielding your words of support for Trump by attempting to render all criticism pointless. If every norm-breaking move can be brushed aside as “just politics” or “nothing new,” then we’re left with no standard at all.

You’re not defending Trump - you’re insulating him. And you’re doing it by pretending that every boundary he pushes was never really a boundary to begin with.

"These aren’t standard presidential behaviors "

Clearly you have very little understanding of presidential history vis a vis the judicial branch.

And Russian...
The last time they had NAZIs on there doorstep they lost 27 million people putting an end to it.
It's as stupid as Trump thinking he can pressure the houty.
They consider it an honour to die fighting the oppressors.
- And you can't beat that mentality.

US sends a carrier fleet, attacks houthis,
Houthis send 100 decoy drones at said carrier fleet.
US expands all missiles (requires 2 for each target) at a million plus missile, which are in short supply.
US fleet leaves for port requiring resupply, or gets sank.
Houthis continue firing hypersonics at Israel because they're withholding aid from the Palestinians.

mhaze,

You’ve already invoked FDR, and we addressed the inadequacy of that situation. If you’re sitting on other examples of presidents who openly vilified judges, demanded personal loyalty from legal officials, and persistently framed legal checks as partisan attacks, feel free to name them.

There must be an abundance of examples you could cite since you've suggested that this sort of behaviour is somewhat par for the course.

Or is this just a bit of hand-waving about history as a means to avoid engaging with the actual critique? Because unless you can back up the claim that this kind of conduct is typical presidential behavior, then you're not drawing on historical insight - you’re just trying to blur the lines so anything can be excused.

Wow, the plot thickens.

If I said (based on known facts) that War on Terror were Netanyahus wars and based on the 'Clean Break' policy paper, as well as the fact neoconservatives are Pro-Israel and Jewish, as well as the fact that this is an unfinished plan:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/A_Clean_Break:_A_New_Strategy_for_Securing_the_Realm

General Wesley Clark: The US will attack 7 countries in 5 years
http://youtu.be/nUCwCgthp_E

Last on list: Iran.

Well it seems the war against Russia which was provoked by the west has some similarities...

Reality Check number 2.
* This one's the absolute jackpot.

^WATCH: Why THEY hate Putin, why THEY want YOU to hate Putin? He kicked THEM out of RUS. No more plundering.
http://youtu.be/v_nEBT-uk8c

The Fall of Russia’s Oligarchs Under Putin I SLICE HISTORY | FULL DOCUMENTARY
http://youtu.be/8SpRbQDLcQc

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Cherney
'Cherney grew up in Tashkent, Uzbek SSR, in an Ashkenazi Jewish family.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vladimir_Gusinsky
'Gusinsky was born into a Jewish family in Moscow on 6 October 1952.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boris_Berezovsky_(businessman)
'Boris Abramovich Berezovsky was born in 1946, in Moscow, to Abram Markovich Berezovsky (1911–1979),[28] an Ashkenazi Jewish civil engineer in construction works.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky
'Khodorkovsky's parents, Boris and Marina Khodorkovsky, were engineers at a factory making measuring instruments in Moscow. Khodorkovsky's father was Jewish, and his mother was Orthodox Christian.'

'In 2001, Khodorkovsky founded Open Russia, a reform-minded organization intending to "build and strengthen civil society" in the country. In October 2003, he was arrested by Russian authorities and charged with fraud. The government of President Vladimir Putin then froze shares of Yukos shortly thereafter on tax charges.'

[Cont.]
A conversation with founder of the Open Russia movement Mikhail Khodorkovsky
http://www.atlanticcouncil.org/event/a-conversation-with-mikhail-khodorkovsky/

Peace in Europe ‘will not exist’ as long as Putin is in power, says Mikhail Khodorkovsky
'The exiled Russian businessman appeared at an Atlantic Council Front Page event, where he said the West can no longer bury its head in the sand when it comes to Putin’s goals.'

Mikhail Khodorkovsky: After Navalny’s death, the West must get tougher with Putin
"I call on Russians to demonstrate their resistance by writing the name 'Alexei Navalny' on their ballot papers on March 17, in tribute to the regime’s latest and most prominent victim."

Let's not forget Zelensky is Jewish, and his election win occurred thanks to Ihor Kolomoisky, also Jewish.

Well, since 'Anti-Semitism' is wielded as a weapon these days and all our governments have been captured, it might officially be time for me to quieten any further criticism, lest I might expect a knock on the door, or worse.

But there it is, all that I've laid out, trying to walk this fine line... well seems I'm not wrong.

You all want to know where I really started getting more curious?
- Back here in 2012

Sheikh Imran Hosein - Beyond September 11
http://youtu.be/DeQ_wfUBjws
http://youtu.be/4mx3EUU5ZuQ

But I knew somthing wasn't right back here.
'The White Van' ABC News 20/20 Preview on Urban Moving Systems and 9/11 Hi-Fivers (Dancing Israelis)
http://youtu.be/fOiCMMMeXE8

And I learned about USAID back during the War in Syria.

.

Dear Armchair Critic,

.

You wrote :

« Starmer, Macron, Merz and Duda - They all going to want to continue the war »
.

That’s not the way I see it, Armchair Critic. If I saw a couple of bullies beating up one of my friends, I would jump into the fray – not try to negotiate.

That would not be because I would want to continue the fight. It would be because I would want to defend my friend. I would only stop fighting when they stopped beating up my friend or they knocked me out.

Believe it or not, I am a very calm and composed person. The only time I got into a fight was when I was a kid in primary school. Another kid tried to bully me and started a brawl. I won the fight and nobody in the school dared threaten me again. I later took up boxing as a sport.

In my view, the best way to deal with bullies like Putin and Trump is to remain calm, stand together and stay firm. Only stop fighting when they are defeated or throw in the towel.

In my experience, some bullies are masochists. They get their pleasure out of the pain and humiliation you inflict on them. They only stop when they are defeated or run out of resources. That’s a problem, but it’s not by negotiating that you can fix it.

Clipping the leaves off the tree won't solve the problem. You have to completely uproot it. It's a tough, painful task, but if you shy away from it, you are only perpetuating it, and it will only get worse.

Putin seems to me to be more complex than Trump. He is crafty and elusive. Trump is less sophisticated, more primary, a sort of bulldog. He even looks like one !

Trump knows how to bully those who need him. He does not know how to negotiate with those who don’t. Putin is fathomless, ruthless, inhuman and simply can’t be trusted.

Oh, brave New World !

.

.

Lest we forget !

.

Trump is reputed to be infatuated with Putin. Steve Witkoff, Trump’s special envoy to Moscow, having met with Putin twice, declared in an interview with right-wing podcast host Tucker Carlson :

« I have come to regard Putin as not a “bad guy,” and that the Russian president was a “great" leader seeking to end Moscow’s deadly three-year conflict with Kyiv »

Here is a list of prominent Putin critics and opponents (politicians, journalists and oligarchs) who have died by assassination or mysterious circumstances :

• Alexei Navalny, Age: 47, Date of Death: February 16, 2024, Cause of Death: died in prison

• Mikhail Lesin, Age: 57, Date of Death: November 5, 2015, Cause of Death: injuries to the Head, in Washington hotel room

• Boris Nemtsov, Age: 55, Date of Death: February 27, 2015, Cause of Death: shot dead on a bridge near the Kremlin

• Boris Berezovsky, Age: 67, Date of Death: March 23, 2013, Cause of Death: suicide (suspicious)

• Sergei Magnitsky, Age: 37, Date of Death: November 16, 2009, Cause of Death: severe beatings and medical neglect in prison

• Stanislav Markelov, Age: 34, Date of Death: January 19, 2009, Cause of Death: assassinated in Moscow by a gunman who also killed journalist Anastasia Baburova

• Anastasia Baburova, Age: 25, Date of Death: January 19, 2009, Cause of Death: assassinated in Moscow by a gunman who also killed Stanislav Markelov

• Natalia Estemirova, Age: 50, Date of Death: July 15, 2009, Cause of Death: abducted in Grozny, Chechnya, and found dead later that day.

• Anna Politkovskaya, Age: 48, Date of Death: October 7, 2006, Cause of Death: shot dead in her apartment building in Moscow

• Yuri Shchekochikhin, Age: 53, Date of Death: July 3, 2003, Cause of Death: suspected poisoning, but circumstances remain unclear.

• Numerous other Russian critics and opponents of Putin have died in various countries around the world, mostly by “falling” out of windows of multi-storied buildings or by poisoning.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

According to the latest Statista poll conducted in February 2025, Putin’s popularity rating in Russia was 87% approval, 11% disapproval, and 2% no answer.

Putin has accused Zelensky of being democratically “illegitimate” as his presidential term has expired and the Ukrainian Constitution does not allow elections to be held while martial law is in effect because of the war.

He obviously considers that his governance as President of the Russian Federation is perfectly legitimate and qualifies as bona fide democracy.

A Survation Panel poll conducted 25-27 February 2025 in Ukraine (noting that “those living in occupied territories were not excluded”, while Ukrainians living abroad were) found that 52% had a favourable opinion of Zelensky and 31% had an unfavourable one.

In the same poll, 17% rated Donald Trump favourably and 58% unfavourably.

Interestingly, in the US, a RealClearPolitics Poll Average calculated on the 23rd March 2025 found that 47.9% Approve of Trump and 48.8% Disapprove.

.

John Daysh wrote: "You’ve already invoked FDR, and we addressed the inadequacy of that situation. If you’re sitting on other examples of presidents who openly vilified judges,"

Well actually, no, you never addressed the FDR example. Nor the Biden example. So now you want more examples to not address?

BTW, Trump doesn't demand loyalty from judges but he does remind public servants that they owe loyalty to the president.

mhaze,

Ah, the dangers of Ctrl+F-ing your way through an online debate… I did indeed address the FDR example. See this paragraph:

“Saying “well, other presidents have done similar things” doesn’t negate the critique…” (http://forum.onlineopinion.com.au/thread.asp?discussion=10574#369403)

No recent president - not even FDR - engaged in a sustained personal campaign to delegitimise the judiciary, demand loyalty from officials, and treat any legal constraint as a partisan attack. FDR tried to expand the Court through Congress - aggressive but legal at least. He didn’t undermine the judiciary as an institution or frame legal rulings as persecution.

That’s where your comparison collapses.

As for Biden, you’ve tossed out a vague reference to the student loan ruling, but you haven’t made a case that his approach to the judiciary involved the kind of consistent, personal delegitimization we’ve seen from Trump. A contested policy or legal loss isn’t the same as a wholesale rejection of the system.

And as for loyalty, thanks for confirming that Trump does demand it from public servants. But that’s not how democratic institutions are supposed to work. Civil servants and legal officials owe loyalty to the Constitution, the law, and their office - not to the person temporarily holding power. Reducing public service to personal loyalty isn’t a defence of Trump - it’s one of the very concerns being raised.

So once again: if you’ve got examples of other presidents who’ve mirrored Trump’s pattern of behaviour toward legal institutions - by all means, name them. Otherwise, these vague appeals to history are just smoke.

Swamp draining in progress...

http://x.com/nicksortor/status/1904607138900828184
President Trump just ordered ALL FBI FILES in the “Crossfire Hurricane” (aka Russia hoax) be DECLASSIFIED
Adam Schiff is INCREDIBLY terrified right now.
Obama spied on Trump’s campaign, and now it’s ALL about to be exposed!

http://x.com/nicksortor/status/1904975353254158725
Majorie Taylor Greene just DEMOLISHED a foreign fake news reporter
“We don’t give a CRAP about your opinion or your reporting.
Why don’t you go back to your own country where you have a MAJOR migrant problem?”

http://x.com/nicksortor/status/1889540504687194375
I asked Elizabeth Warren HOW she achieved a $12M net worth on a $200K salary, prompting a reply from Elon inquiring as well
TODAY: @ElonMusk announces in the Oval Office DOGE will be investigating public officials with high net worths and low pay
Our government FINALLY listens to US!

.

Dear John Daysh,

.

I recall Trump saying at some point, probably during his election campaign, that he would respect the rule of law.

But he also posted the details of his "Agenda 47" on his website on 13 April 2023 :

« There is no more dire threat to the American Way of Life than the corruption and weaponization of our Justice System—and it’s happening all around us. If we cannot restore the fair and impartial rule of law, we will not be a free country.

As President, it will be my personal mission to restore the scales of justice in America. We will have fairness and equality under the law.

To that end, I will appoint U.S. Attorneys who will be the polar opposite of the District Attorneys that are being appointed throughout the United States. Very unfair to our population. Very unfair to our country.

They will be the 100 most ferocious legal warriors against crime and Communist corruption this country has ever seen.

As we completely overhaul the federal Department of Justice and FBI, we will also launch sweeping civil rights investigations into Marxist local District Attorneys. And that’s what we have—they are Marxist in many cases …I will also order the Department of Justice to establish a task force on protecting the right to self-defence, which is under siege nationwide …

We have to confront this radicalized law in schools. …

We have to reform the far-left Bar Associations and stop the purge of Conservative lawyers from major law firms. I will do whatever it takes to save our legal system—among the greatest achievements of Western Civilization—from the Marxist barbarians who seek to destroy it. And we will do that, we will save it. »
.

I guess the rule of law Trump said he would respect was not the existing rule, but the one he would put in place when he became president.

His frenzy of issuing executive orders is probably just a prelude to the full implementation of his Agenda 47.
.

http://www.donaldjtrump.com/agenda47/agenda47-firing-the-radical-marxist-prosecutors-destroying-america

.

"“Saying “well, other presidents have done similar things” doesn’t negate the critique…”"

Oh so that's you ADDRESSING the FDR issue? Oh well, if you think so. But seems rather pathetic to me.

"No recent president "

Oh now you've back-tracked to just talking about RECENT presidents. Well that's at least a veiled admission that you were wrong to say only Trump had done it.

But in the end it looks like your entire whine isn't that Trump is in dispute with the judicial branch, just that he says it in a robust way that your delicate sensibilities find challenging. Where's that fainting couch.

"And as for loyalty, thanks for confirming that Trump does demand it from public servants."

As does every President. Its how the system works although that seems to have passed you by. The public service exists as part of the Executive Branch of which the President is the elected leader. They owe loyalty to the head of that branch who was elected by the full body of the US citizenry to be that head.

"Civil servants and legal officials owe loyalty to the Constitution"

You completely misunderstand the US system and democracy in general for that matter. Its not up to the public service to interpret the constitution and determine what they can and can't do. That's the function of the judiciary. The job of the public service is to execute the orders of the Executive branch head and his delegates. If its unconstitutional then the judiciary is tasked with stopping it.

But that doesn't mean that the judiciary is beyond critique and pretty much every president since Washington has done so. If only you knew.

mhaze,

Yes, that was me addressing the FDR example, by engaging the logic behind using historical precedent to excuse Trump’s conduct. You’re welcome to disagree with the argument, but pretending it wasn’t addressed just makes you look like you Ctrl+F’d your way past it again.

And no, saying “recent presidents” isn’t backtracking - it’s being realistic. What a president did 100 years ago isn’t the yardstick we use to judge whether something’s acceptable today. Context matters, and democratic expectations evolve. If you have to go back to 19th and early 20th-century examples to defend Trump’s behavior now, that says more about the weakness of your argument than mine.

As for loyalty: yes, public servants execute the lawful orders of the Executive. But they swear an oath to the Constitution, not the president as a person. That’s a crucial distinction. Expecting loyalty to the office is normal. Expecting personal loyalty, and treating disloyalty as betrayal of the man, is a step toward authoritarianism.

And yes - the judiciary can and should be critiqued. But there’s a difference between policy disagreement and treating judges as enemies of the state whenever they rule against you. That’s the pattern we’re talking about. If you “only knew,” you'd see the difference.

Back you go.

Thanks, Banjo.

That quote is chilling - not just because of what it says, but because of how easily it slips into authoritarian logic under the banner of “justice.”

What strikes me is how Trump positions existing legal institutions (prosecutors, judges, bar associations, the lot) not just as flawed, but as enemies of the people - “Marxist,” “radicalized,” “barbarians.” And the solution? Replace them with “ferocious legal warriors” loyal to him. That’s not reform. That’s a purge.

It matches exactly what we’ve been talking about: Trump doesn’t treat legal institutions as independent bodies. He treats them as either useful or hostile - depending on whether they align with him. And “restoring” the rule of law, in this framing, means stripping it of its independence and replacing it with personal loyalty and ideological conformity.

Respect for the rule of law doesn’t mean reshaping it to fit your enemies list. It means being constrained by it - even when it doesn’t go your way. Agenda 47 is proof that Trump has no intention of doing that.

"And no, saying “recent presidents” isn’t backtracking - it’s being realistic. What a president did 100 years ago isn’t the yardstick we use to judge whether something’s acceptable today. "

Again, there's that display of lack of understanding of how the US system works. The contest between the Executive and the judiciary is as old as the US itself. Since the system hasn't changed, the conflict hasn't changed. The only thing that's changed is that Trump doesn't use what those of delicate sensibilities would call polite language. Where's that fainting couch?

You keep saying that Trump demands personal loyalty from the public service (and we all know that in your mind you just saying it makes it true) but you haven't provided any evidence of that. But who needs evidence when in overblown TDS mode?

mhaze,

You’re doing it again - framing a centuries-old tension between the branches of government as if nothing’s changed, and pretending Trump’s approach is identical because “the system” hasn’t changed. That’s like saying shouting in someone’s face is no different than a disagreement, because both involve speaking. It ignores the how, which is exactly what we’ve been talking about all along.

As for Trump demanding personal loyalty - there’s ample evidence. He asked Comey for it directly (“I need loyalty, I expect loyalty”), publicly humiliated Jeff Sessions for recusing himself, and fired officials he deemed insufficiently loyal - not unlawful, but certainly not a president merely seeking lawful compliance from the executive branch. This isn’t some wild theory - it’s a well-documented pattern.

If you're going to keep claiming that nothing here is unusual, at least acknowledge the difference between constitutional tension and using the machinery of state to enforce personal allegiance.

Hi Banjo Paterson,
Sorry for the slow response, I've been busy trying to do some quick house renovations for he second house on my property to rent out on Booking.com for the last 11 weeks we have here before they knock it all down. Seems a little counterproductive renovating a hose that only has such a short time left, hence the reason I've been busy.
Painting and tidying up, buying a few things...

In regards to "If I saw a couple of bullies beating up one of my friends, I would jump into the fray – not try to negotiate.";
- I think it's important to note who stared the conflict.
One could be ignorant and say Putin started it by invading in 2022, or one could look at the bigger picture and say the West, in all it's polices started taking steps back in 2008 (Budapest NATO conference announcing plans for Ukraine and Georgia to join) or even earlier if you accept their pledge for NATO to not move further eastwards in return for German reunification, as well as the overthrow of the democratically elected leader of Ukraine in 2014 and the killing of the Russian-speaking Ukrainan population in the Donbass thereafter...
Putin may have invaded, but it wasn't without provacation, and like a battered wife, who always stays with her husband, finally said to the West enough is enough and was forced to act for their own self-interests.

"Putin seems to me to be more complex than Trump. He is crafty and elusive. Trump is less sophisticated, more primary, a sort of bulldog. He even looks like one !"
Putin is extremely intelligent in his own right, whereas Trump is more brash but only as intelligent as those advising him.

[Cont.]
Earlier today you spoke about Trumps 'justice'.
I thought someone might have clued on to what I shared, (as it's the ultimate perversion of justice' but no-one did, not even mhaze.

'Crossfire Hurricane' was the incumbent Democrats with the help of 5-eyes, illegally spying on an electoral candidate, FISA warrants issued on the basis of bogus 'Russiagate' claims - in order to ensure the won a US presidential election; and they did similar in 2020 by with an Democrat-loyal FBI withholding information from the Hunter-Biden laptop, and had social media companies in their pocket.

So when you speak of justice, Trump might be doing some questionable things right now (some of which I agree with, others I do not), but the other mob did worse, and Trump is acting to dismantle parts of that rigged system which wasn't really in the citizens best interests.

You can't even really speak of democracy with a straight face if you don't acknowledge what the other side (Democrats) were doing, in my opinion.

I look forward to the released FBI 'Crossfire Hurricane' information and reporting.
I wonder if people on the other side will be willing to admit that wrongdoing, or whether they will ignore it and look the other way.

JD,

Trump asked Comey for loyalty to the president AND inquired whether he was still loyal to the previous president. Comey proved he was not loyal to the then-current president but was completely beholden to his previous master and the woman he'd expected to become his new master.

I get that you have little understanding of the history of these things and think that everything today never happened before, but you're just wrong.

Just saying that its somehow wrong to reiterate that history shows that these disputes are the standard doesn't make a great deal of sense.

AC wrote: "I look forward to the released FBI 'Crossfire Hurricane' information and reporting.
I wonder if people on the other side will be willing to admit that wrongdoing, or whether they will ignore it and look the other way."

Trump has now signed an EO to release all records concerning Crossfire Hurricane. It'll be interesting to see what comes out of that and just how much illegality the FBI and the Democrats got into. But as with most of these type of things, the really incriminating stuff will have already been run through the FBI's industrial strength shredder.

But Crossfire Hurricane shows why Trump needs to be especially vigilant in ensuring that that those working for the president are in fact working FOR the president and not for his political opponents. Crossfire showed that the FBI was prepared to break any number of laws to get their man (well actually a woman) over the line and then, having failed there, were willing to go to any lengthss to discredit the person the constitution required them to show loyalty to.

Additionally, it showed that the courts (particularly the FISA court) had little regard for the truth or their ethical standards in pursuit of giving the deep state the tools to stage a coup against the president. Even worse, once the details ( or at least some of them) were revealed and extent to which the FBI and FISA courts had manipulated the system to 'get Trump' was glimpsed, the courts then set about protecting those who had attempted the soft coup. Clinesmith, who'd open lied to courts and altered documents to achieve the FBI's aims, was given a slap on the wrists while Comey, McCabe and Strzok were allowed to walk away scot-free. Corruption in the extreme which the Trump 2.0 is now trying to expose and eradicate.

As an aside, it'll be interesting to see if more about Alexander Downer's role in all of this is revealed.

"Trump asked Comey for loyalty to the president AND inquired whether he was still loyal to the previous president. Comey proved he was not loyal to the then-current president but was completely beholden to his previous master and the woman he'd expected to become his new master."

Yep, I'm pretty sure Comey was part of the Clinton camp, probably going back to his days at HSBC, or earlier, and may very well been involved in the money laundering that went on there.

Google 'HSBC money laundering'
"In 2012, HSBC faced a major scandal and agreed to pay a record $1.9 billion fine to settle money laundering charges, admitting its accounts were used to launder money for criminal networks, including Mexican drug cartels, and that it violated US sanctions."

Comey was appointed FBI director in 2013.
Many of these people aren't appointed to their positions because of their honesty and integrity, qite the opposite in fact -they're appointed because they are a part of the crime syndicate. All one needs to do is do a little digging into the goings on at the Clinton foundation to realise there was a lot of things 'on the nose'.

"But as with most of these type of things, the really incriminating stuff will have already been run through the FBI's industrial strength shredder."

Yeah, likely not much we don't already know, and a limited hangout but whatever comes out at least will be official. I'm remembering crowdstrike, DNC leaks, Seth Rich, Russiagate, Steele dossier etc.
- A trip down memory lane of sorts...

mhaze,

Trump didn’t just ask about past loyalties - Comey testified that Trump said directly, “I need loyalty. I expect loyalty.” That wasn’t a request for lawful compliance or professional integrity - it was a personal demand, and one that fits a broader pattern of behaviour. Trump has repeatedly expected - and punished the absence of - personal loyalty from day one of his first chaotic presidency.

So, even if you waved that example away entirely, the concern doesn’t disappear. Although, I'm sure you feel that if you can wave it away, then everything else Banjo and I have said will appear to have been build on sand.

He forced out AG Jeff Sessions for refusing to “protect” him from investigation. He fired Defense Secretary Mark Esper for not using the military against protesters. He removed Chris Krebs for saying the 2020 election was secure. He dismissed Alexander Vindman for testifying under oath. These weren’t about policy or performance - they were purges of perceived disloyalty.

Even now, in his second term, this continues. Trump’s allies are pushing Project 2025, a plan to purge the federal bureaucracy and replace career public servants with ideological loyalists. He’s reviving Schedule F, allowing mass firings of civil servants not based on job performance but political alignment.

And Trump’s demand for loyalty hasn’t been subtle. He told a rally audience in 2019: “You’re not supposed to say that... but I want loyalty.” He asked senior staff “Who’s in charge of hiring? Because I want people who are loyal.” He told the Wall Street Journal that he prefers to hire people based on whether they’ve been “good to Trump.”

This isn’t standard presidential behaviour. Loyalty to the office, yes. But loyalty to the man, enforced through firings and loyalty tests? That’s something else entirely. Repeatedly asserting that “this kind of conflict has always existed” doesn’t make the current version normal. It’s not the existence of conflict that matters - it’s how that conflict is handled. That’s what you keep sidestepping.

" then everything else Banjo and I have said will appear to have been build on sand."

No.

Basically what you've been saying is that he thinks he's above the law because he speaks to judges in a way that you find distasteful.

And he reminds those who work for the president that they need to loyal to the president.

So no, your views don't APPEAR to have built on sand.

Come on, mhaze.

You're summarising my argument in a way that even you have to know is dishonest. It seems someone is in full-blown 'damage control' mode.

I didn’t say Trump thinks he’s above the law because he speaks harshly. I’ve pointed to a pattern of behaviour: demanding personal loyalty, firing or humiliating those who refuse, trying to reshape federal agencies to serve him personally, and undermining the legitimacy of legal institutions that don’t fall in line. That’s not just “distasteful.” It’s a sustained attempt to bend democratic structures around the will of one man.

You haven’t addressed Project 2025. You haven’t addressed Schedule F. You haven’t addressed the firings of Krebs, Esper, Sessions, Vindman, or the loyalty language Trump used repeatedly - on record. You’ve just ignored all of it and boiled the argument down to “he talks a bit rough.”

I understand why you’re doing that - it’s easier to mock a caricature than engage with the substance. But it doesn’t make the pattern go away. And your silence on the details says more than any of your dismissals.

Trumps willing to make a deal with Russia over Ukraine because of their support and partnership of Iran. All roads lead to greater Israel, and Trump needs Russia out of the picture per Iran because Netanyahus 7 wars to remake the M/E is incomplete.

Trump usually makes big threats to make a deal, and then threatens to back away from a deal if he can't have his way after the fact.
Many of the things mhaze says hold merit (on this topic), but in my honest opinion John and Banjo aren't entirely wrong about their criticisms either.

.

Dear Armchair Critic,

.

I wrote :

« If I saw a couple of bullies beating up one of my friends, I would jump into the fray – not try to negotiate »

And you replied :

« I think it's important to note who started the conflict »
.

Though I am not a pacifist, I have never started a fight or an armed attack in my life, and I can’t imagine that I ever would. The only time I might be considered as having technically done so could be when I happened to be the first to throw a punch in the ring during the boxing matches I participated in when I was young. The only armed attacks I ever made were against rabbits, birds, goannas and kangaroos, in the bush, with an old 303 rifle I bought in an army surplus store when I was a kid.

I can vouch for my friends on that score as well. They are not the sort of people who are likely to start a fight, either — even though some of them are ex-rugby union players.

But as I indicated in my previous post, I would not hesitate to defend myself or my friends if anybody were to attack me or them.

If I did see a couple of bullies beating up one of my friends, I doubt that they would take time off to explain to me who started the conflict. From my experience, bullies are not so polite and considerate as to respond favourably to a request of that nature. Even if they did, there would be no guarantee that their version of events corresponded to reality.

I’m afraid I would have to jump into the fray without knowing who started it and carry out an investigation as best I could later.

And any negotiation could only take place after the fighting had stopped.

In my view, that same schema is applicable to the Russia–Ukraine conflict.

.

Hi Banjo Patterson,
Yes I get what you're saying, If you walked around the corner and your mate and another bloke were fighting, and your mate was getting a bit of touch-up, you wouldn't hesitate to jump in and have a crack to defend your mate regardless of who started it.

I watched a video last night where they were discussing a speech Putin made yesterday. It was from a Russian Arctic forum where a new Russian nuclear powered submarine (named Perm) that is fitted with Zircon hypersonic cruise missiles was launched.

Putin signaled how he saw the war ending, with total military collapse of the Ukrainian Armed Forces. Here's one of the videos, there's more apparently where he states that Russia will 'Finish them off'

Putin Discusses Special Military Operation During Arkhangelsk Nuclear Submarine Visit | RU-EN
http://youtu.be/bmV8PwOlf20

Putin calls to remove Zelensky, 'finish off' Ukrainian troops
http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/putin-calls-to-remove-zelensky-finish-off-ukrainian-troops/news-story/a7f44ce7d1d211b3c910911fee6d48af

"Russian President Vladimir Putin called Friday for a "transitional administration" to be put in place in Ukraine and vowed his army would 'finish off' Ukrainian troops, in hardline remarks as US President Donald Trump pushes for a ceasefire."

Trump wants a ceasefire but Starmer, Macron and Zelensky want to fight on, and don't keep to the terms of Trumps ceasefires. I'm not sure if they are playing good cop / bad cop or what, but it seems the Russians don't have a lot of trust in the West, and don't see the Ukrainians and their backers as being ready to accept Russian terms as yet.

But there's nothing here that I haven't outlined previously.
Ceasefire talks aren't likely to succeed and the conflict will be decided on the battlefield, which will result in more loss of life and further loss of Ukrainian territory.

[Cont.]
Here's a few of the videos I watched:

Putin's terms; UN trusteeship, elections, military victory
http://youtu.be/6qbKnPKSqvY

Larry C. Johnson & Col. Larry Wilkerson: Iran Fires Back: Red Sea Chaos Shakes Trump’s Expectations
http://www.youtube.com/live/BeoU_4Nl7NA

RUS will finish-off Kiev's forces. RUS will never allow Moldova in NATO. Putin to place Ukr under UN
http://youtu.be/c1BRSAVXSEY

Ray McGovern & John Helmer on Is Trump Pushing for War with Iran? | US & Russia's Ukraine Moves
http://www.youtube.com/live/LBYXqQ5SszY

Here is the video pertaining to my comments from yesterday regarding Trump aims to try to separate Russia and Iran's military defense treaty.

Richard D. Wolff and Michael Hudson: Russia Has No Choice: Defend Iran or Lose Big?
http://www.youtube.com/live/Q3psU2nfuNo

China has stated they will also help defend Iran, so if there is conflict there (as has been Netanyahu's aims as per the Clean Break policy paper and the 7 wars in 5 years plan outlined by Wesley Clark) China may also jump into the fray to defend their friend.

Regarding Trump however I reiterate what I said a little while back.
He's just doing what he said he was going to do, 'Drain the swamp'.
- And I think it's important that elected leaders try to stick to their word, not just change tune and do whatever they want once in office, but as you all know I'm not at all keen on his M/E policies regarding Israel.

This will get interesting.

Apparently Tulsi Gabbard testified under oath that the Houthis shot down a US fighter jet.
http://www.youtube.com/live/LNs2FccuLKo?t=1084
I'm not sure if it was this incident involving an F-18 on December 22 last year, or an F-16 on February 16, or something more recent.

Looks like there's a bigger war coming

UAE Brokers U.S. Recognition of Somaliland for Israeli Military Base Against Houthi Threats
http://www.watanserb.com/en/2025/03/20/uae-brokers-u-s-recognition-of-somaliland-for-israeli-military-base-against-houthi-threats/

Mysterious airstrip in Bab el-Mandeb Strait off Yemen appears ready, satelitte images show
http://www.timesofisrael.com/liveblog_entry/mysterious-airstrip-in-bab-el-mandeb-strait-off-yemen-appears-ready-satelitte-images-show

Yemens a big place and all their missiles are moved constantly or underground. They will need a huge invasion force to dislodge them.
Trumps a fool for going in there (his own words too prior to becoming El Presidente) I don't understand why he would risk losing a carrier and a wa that would see the whole M/E go up in flames for the sake of Israel, guess they want that war with Iran for Bibi asap.

If it goes bad, there could be container ships sunk in the Suez, attacks on Saudi oil fields and Iranian attacks upon the US 5th fleet in Bahrain. And once Trump loses a capital ship, he's not going to be able to back away. Maybe they really have decided they can't wait any longer, because the longer they wait the less likely the chance of success, I say its pretty slim anyway.

Iran was the last on the Zionist war list, but there's also the Houthis.

Warmonger Trump, well soon see.

http://www.presidentti.fi/en/address-by-president-of-the-republic-of-finland-alexander-stubb-at-the-support-ukraine-summit/
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2025/3/30/trump-angry-with-putin-and-threatens-tariffs-on-russian-oil-over-ukraine
"Trump’s latest remarks followed a day of meetings and golf with Finnish President Alexander Stubb over the weekend."

Address by President of the Republic of Finland Alexander Stubb at the Support Ukraine plenary session in Kyiv, Ukraine, on 24 February 2025
http://www.presidentti.fi/en/address-by-president-of-the-republic-of-finland-alexander-stubb-at-the-support-ukraine-summit/

Issue 1: Trump is only as smar as those advising him.
Alexander Stubb's policy is victory in Ukraine, winning the war.
Talk of ceasefire has always been a ruse, and Russia's not going to fall for it.
Trump meets with this guy and then is 'angry' Putin won't kneel before him.

Issue 2: It's as if these people have no concept of what the entire war is about and think Russia's stupid. and that Putin's going to run around screaming saying "Oh my God, Trump gunna get me"

issue 3; Trump is just Biden 2.0.
It's still the same western policy of defending their US hegemony maintaining primacy and the unipolar world and endlass wars for Zionists just as it always was.

There will be bombing if Iran fails to make nuclear deal: Trump
http://www.tribuneindia.com/news/world/there-will-be-bombing-if-iran-fails-to-make-nuclear-deal-trump/

Zionist policy, genocide and starve people under a religious pretext, and none of us can say anything bad about it, meanwhile cause chaos everywhere that they can capitalise an gain power from, and make everyone else fight and die for their ends.

I'd like to see someone try to invade Iran.
I won't end well, I bet it won't be the Israelis themselves though.

Trumps a moron, he was the one who backed out of the JSPOA.
There already was a nuclear deal in place, it's all just bs while Israel slowly moves forward with it's imperialist project.

The demagogue Trump is now looking to make himself "President For Life". How can the Dictator get around the American Constitution, which only allows a President to serve two terms? Simple, The Orange Man will have a stooge like JD Vance run as the Presidential candidate, and himself as Vice President, once elected The stooge resigns and The Orange Man automatically becomes President for the third, fourth, fifth, time etc.

Then he could have his sycophants change the Constitution!

Give it a year or two, and Trumps not going to want to be president anymore.
Besides that I'm not certain Vance would go along with it.