[Goose]

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia-ukraine...?st=Xv3cup

A little bit of a breakdown of how the plan came to be.  Whether it was an “American” or “Russian” plan, it certainly had a lot of Russian influence.

I think this administration wants to get a peace deal done, but doesn’t care much about the details. While I am not particularly sympathetic to the administration, and given prior Russian actions I don’t really trust a “peace deal” with Russia, there is something to be said to getting the fighting stopped, and then worrying about how you get the fighting not to start again.  That seems to be what the administration did with the Gaza war.  The difference between the Gaza war and the war in Ukraine is that the US had leverage over Israel and was willing to use it, and had Middle Eastern allies who had leverage over Hamas.  I don’t think anyone really has leverage over Russia, and barring a major setback, Russia only seems to be willing to engage in a cease fire on its own terms.

BC

I absolutely agree with your statement that nobody has leverage over Russia and that Russia will accept a cease-fire only if the get their maximalist terms. In Gaza, the administration had significant leverage over Israel. Israel was the stronger party and that leverage was necessary to get a cease-fire done. However, the administration's leverage was/is not absolute. There are things Israel will not agree to, period. Ukraine is the weaker party in their conflict. The US has leverage over Ukraine, but that leverage is also not absolute. The US can force concessions by Ukraine, but IMO they can't force concessions that will satisfy Russia's maximalist requirements. Even if they do, Russia will just add new requirements.
 
The real question IMO is "What will the administration do when this latest cease-fire attempt fails?". I have no idea. Will they just wash their hands of the whole effort and stop any aid to Ukraine, or will they "get mad" and increase the sanctions and aid? Another possibility is that they do nothing and leave everything as it currently is. We shall see.

[Goose]

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia-ukraine...?st=Xv3cup

A little bit of a breakdown of how the plan came to be.  Whether it was an “American” or “Russian” plan, it certainly had a lot of Russian influence.

I think this administration wants to get a peace deal done, but doesn’t care much about the details. While I am not particularly sympathetic to the administration, and given prior Russian actions I don’t really trust a “peace deal” with Russia, there is something to be said to getting the fighting stopped, and then worrying about how you get the fighting not to start again.  That seems to be what the administration did with the Gaza war.  The difference between the Gaza war and the war in Ukraine is that the US had leverage over Israel and was willing to use it, and had Middle Eastern allies who had leverage over Hamas.  I don’t think anyone really has leverage over Russia, and barring a major setback, Russia only seems to be willing to engage in a cease fire on its own terms.

BC

I absolutely agree with your statement that nobody has leverage over Russia and that Russia will accept a cease-fire only if the get their maximalist terms. In Gaza, the administration had significant leverage over Israel. Israel was the stronger party and that leverage was necessary to get a cease-fire done. However, the administration's leverage was/is not absolute. There are things Israel will not agree to, period. Ukraine is the weaker party in their conflict. The US has leverage over Ukraine, but that leverage is also not absolute. The US can force concessions by Ukraine, but IMO they can't force concessions that will satisfy Russia's maximalist requirements. Even if they do, Russia will just add new requirements.
 
The real question IMO is "What will the administration do when this latest cease-fire attempt fails?". I have no idea. Will they just wash their hands of the whole effort and stop any aid to Ukraine, or will they "get mad" and increase the sanctions and aid? Another possibility is that they do nothing and leave everything as it currently is. We shall see.

[BostonCard]

Agree with the above.  On top of the fact that we had some leverage over Israel, the gulf states, and particularly Qatar (and to a degree, Egypt), had some leverage over Hamas, so each side was able to push far enough that the gap between the sides was bridgeable.  Maybe there is a way to do this with Russia and Ukraine, but my view of the Venn diagram of acceptable solutions at this time is that it is an empty set.

Apparently, China’s leader Xi called Trump to talk about Taiwan, and Trump managed to steer the conversation to Ukraine.  I doubt that even China has enough leverage over Russia to push a cease fire, but Russia is mighty economically dependent on China these days as one of the few major trading partners left.

Of course, you wonder what would happen with Taiwan if China were to be enticed to intervene to help end the Russia/Ukraine war.

BC

[BostonCard]

Agree with the above.  On top of the fact that we had some leverage over Israel, the gulf states, and particularly Qatar (and to a degree, Egypt), had some leverage over Hamas, so each side was able to push far enough that the gap between the sides was bridgeable.  Maybe there is a way to do this with Russia and Ukraine, but my view of the Venn diagram of acceptable solutions at this time is that it is an empty set.

Apparently, China’s leader Xi called Trump to talk about Taiwan, and Trump managed to steer the conversation to Ukraine.  I doubt that even China has enough leverage over Russia to push a cease fire, but Russia is mighty economically dependent on China these days as one of the few major trading partners left.

Of course, you wonder what would happen with Taiwan if China were to be enticed to intervene to help end the Russia/Ukraine war.

BC

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ukra...30573.html

While IMO it is probable that SOME of the reporting in this article is extrapolation the gist of it is accurate. IMO the president would like to go along with Vance et. al, but so far has not. Both international and domestic political considerations oppose abandoning Ukraine, although they don't show a way to "victory" either. Unfortunately the argument that Ukraine is presently "losing" is all too accurate. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/russ...01714.html
 
The concept that Ukraine could "win" an infantry war where 90% of the casualties were inflicted by drones always was a fantasy.  It was temporarily possible to achieve a stalemate, but without an offense that can allow its "leg" infantry to advance, Ukraine was always in a precarious position. It needed to achieve its war aims "some other way". Russia could afford the casualties while they inflicted attrition on Ukraine. Russia has now found a way its infantry can advance faster by using bad weather. Ukraine just doesn't have the manpower to meet that "straight up". Of course, Russian "victory" will still take time and blood.
 
The immediate question is will the administration throw Ukraine under the bus. If they do, Ukraine will IMO not resist much longer. The troops will decide victory is impossible, getting killed in a lost cause is stupid, and the desertion option will be widely chosen. Ukraine already has a problem with desertion. Once units start falling apart, the process often accelerates rapidly as the odds of survival go down due to lack of troops and increasing disorganization.

EDIT: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/no-o...52647.html
What the troops think. Not good.
 
Hopefully the administration will not abandon Ukraine. I still have no idea what the president intends to do. I am concerned he has no idea either and might act impulsively. From the Ukrainian point of view, these repeated forays into Russian dictated cease-fire terms are terrifying. Things are difficult enough without the fear that at any time the US might simply decide to quit. No matter how many times the administration steps back from the brink, Ukraine can't be sure the next one will end that way. It is difficult to maintain morale under such circumstances. That by itself may make defeat a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/ukra...30573.html

While IMO it is probable that SOME of the reporting in this article is extrapolation the gist of it is accurate. IMO the president would like to go along with Vance et. al, but so far has not. Both international and domestic political considerations oppose abandoning Ukraine, although they don't show a way to "victory" either. Unfortunately the argument that Ukraine is presently "losing" is all too accurate. https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/russ...01714.html
 
The concept that Ukraine could "win" an infantry war where 90% of the casualties were inflicted by drones always was a fantasy.  It was temporarily possible to achieve a stalemate, but without an offense that can allow its "leg" infantry to advance, Ukraine was always in a precarious position. It needed to achieve its war aims "some other way". Russia could afford the casualties while they inflicted attrition on Ukraine. Russia has now found a way its infantry can advance faster by using bad weather. Ukraine just doesn't have the manpower to meet that "straight up". Of course, Russian "victory" will still take time and blood.
 
The immediate question is will the administration throw Ukraine under the bus. If they do, Ukraine will IMO not resist much longer. The troops will decide victory is impossible, getting killed in a lost cause is stupid, and the desertion option will be widely chosen. Ukraine already has a problem with desertion. Once units start falling apart, the process often accelerates rapidly as the odds of survival go down due to lack of troops and increasing disorganization.

EDIT: https://www.yahoo.com/news/articles/no-o...52647.html
What the troops think. Not good.
 
Hopefully the administration will not abandon Ukraine. I still have no idea what the president intends to do. I am concerned he has no idea either and might act impulsively. From the Ukrainian point of view, these repeated forays into Russian dictated cease-fire terms are terrifying. Things are difficult enough without the fear that at any time the US might simply decide to quit. No matter how many times the administration steps back from the brink, Ukraine can't be sure the next one will end that way. It is difficult to maintain morale under such circumstances. That by itself may make defeat a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[BostonCard]

Yeah, it doesn’t help perceptions when our mediator is coaching the Russian side on how to get what it wants from the President.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/whit..._permalink

Bad enough that several Republican lawmakers are calling for Witkoff to be fired.

BC

[BostonCard]

Yeah, it doesn’t help perceptions when our mediator is coaching the Russian side on how to get what it wants from the President.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/whit..._permalink

Bad enough that several Republican lawmakers are calling for Witkoff to be fired.

BC

[dabigv13]

In earlier times Witkoff would be considered a traitor to his country, working for a foreign enemy trying to pass a Russian plan off as an American one. Maybe he would get the chair.

Of course now our President is just as compromised with the Russians as Witkoff so I think there is a presumption, rightly, that Trump doesn't care Witkoff was getting his direction from the Russians.

Interesting that this episode reveals a real rift between Rubio, who is more hawkish towards Russia and who basically said this plan is Russian and seems to be trying to stymie Witkoff, and more Russia friendly elements in the administration.



More on this strange episode-

This is the transcript of the leaked call if you don't have a Bloomberg sub

https://x.com/Tendar/status/1993586755233063235

And more on the origin of the 28 part plan
https://theins.ru/en/politics/287159

Since it was first published on Nov. 20, the much-discussed 28-point plan for ending the war in Ukraine has borne all the signs of a Kremlin information operation. In fact, many of its most controversial conditions were contained in a document that sources discussed with The Insider several months ago. Now, as Donald Trump's Thanksgiving Day deadline for a decision from Volodymyr Zelensky approaches, fresh leaks show how the details of the plan were discussed — in conversations between Russian and American representatives, and amongst high-ranking Russian officials themselves. Kyiv, for its part, has shown a willingness to accept most of the points contained in the original document while calling for negotiations around several of the “peace plan's” transparently unacceptable clauses.

[dabigv13]

In earlier times Witkoff would be considered a traitor to his country, working for a foreign enemy trying to pass a Russian plan off as an American one. Maybe he would get the chair.

Of course now our President is just as compromised with the Russians as Witkoff so I think there is a presumption, rightly, that Trump doesn't care Witkoff was getting his direction from the Russians.

Interesting that this episode reveals a real rift between Rubio, who is more hawkish towards Russia and who basically said this plan is Russian and seems to be trying to stymie Witkoff, and more Russia friendly elements in the administration.



More on this strange episode-

This is the transcript of the leaked call if you don't have a Bloomberg sub

https://x.com/Tendar/status/1993586755233063235

And more on the origin of the 28 part plan
https://theins.ru/en/politics/287159

Since it was first published on Nov. 20, the much-discussed 28-point plan for ending the war in Ukraine has borne all the signs of a Kremlin information operation. In fact, many of its most controversial conditions were contained in a document that sources discussed with The Insider several months ago. Now, as Donald Trump's Thanksgiving Day deadline for a decision from Volodymyr Zelensky approaches, fresh leaks show how the details of the plan were discussed — in conversations between Russian and American representatives, and amongst high-ranking Russian officials themselves. Kyiv, for its part, has shown a willingness to accept most of the points contained in the original document while calling for negotiations around several of the “peace plan's” transparently unacceptable clauses.

[Goose]

Yeah, it doesn’t help perceptions when our mediator is coaching the Russian side on how to get what it wants from the President.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/whit..._permalink

Bad enough that several Republican lawmakers are calling for Witkoff to be fired.

BC

This administration has been very concerned about the "loyalty" to the president of those appointed to serve him. However, the nature of the job is to advise the president, or at least provide feedback. Under those conditions the personal agenda of the appointee will of necessity be involved. With the best will in the world the appointees will steer the president in the direction they want him to go. That is why appointees require actual qualifications. They are all "biased" to some degree but it is very necessary their opinions be well informed. It isn't even enough to be "very smart". We have had several SecDefs that were very smart but gave bad advice because they edited the information with a very biased filter.
 
The president may think these people are "loyal", and in a way they are. However, they are trying to lead him in specific directions. I fear the president often doesn't recognize that and accepts whatever the last person he spoke with said as "the truth". It is starting to appear that the administration, and even the president to some extent, realizes that Hegseth isn't competent. He clearly doesn't leave the impression he is either "very smart" or well-informed among his peers. Instead, the administration is leaning more towards Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll for advice. Driscoll is undoubtedly much better qualified to be SecDef than Hegseth is. His role in the Ukraine negotiations is becoming clear. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/meet-dan...ks-9702742.
 
I am concerned that Driscoll has the chops to actually influence the president. So far, Rubio has been able to continually "right the ship", partly because he is at least minimally competent. Driscoll is too, or at least can act the part somewhat convincingly. IMO that could be quite dangerous to Ukraine.

[Goose]

Yeah, it doesn’t help perceptions when our mediator is coaching the Russian side on how to get what it wants from the President.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/whit..._permalink

Bad enough that several Republican lawmakers are calling for Witkoff to be fired.

BC

This administration has been very concerned about the "loyalty" to the president of those appointed to serve him. However, the nature of the job is to advise the president, or at least provide feedback. Under those conditions the personal agenda of the appointee will of necessity be involved. With the best will in the world the appointees will steer the president in the direction they want him to go. That is why appointees require actual qualifications. They are all "biased" to some degree but it is very necessary their opinions be well informed. It isn't even enough to be "very smart". We have had several SecDefs that were very smart but gave bad advice because they edited the information with a very biased filter.
 
The president may think these people are "loyal", and in a way they are. However, they are trying to lead him in specific directions. I fear the president often doesn't recognize that and accepts whatever the last person he spoke with said as "the truth". It is starting to appear that the administration, and even the president to some extent, realizes that Hegseth isn't competent. He clearly doesn't leave the impression he is either "very smart" or well-informed among his peers. Instead, the administration is leaning more towards Secretary of the Army Daniel Driscoll for advice. Driscoll is undoubtedly much better qualified to be SecDef than Hegseth is. His role in the Ukraine negotiations is becoming clear. https://www.ndtv.com/world-news/meet-dan...ks-9702742.
 
I am concerned that Driscoll has the chops to actually influence the president. So far, Rubio has been able to continually "right the ship", partly because he is at least minimally competent. Driscoll is too, or at least can act the part somewhat convincingly. IMO that could be quite dangerous to Ukraine.

[M T]

Yeah, it doesn’t help perceptions when our mediator is coaching the Russian side on how to get what it wants from the President.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/whit..._permalink

Bad enough that several Republican lawmakers are calling for Witkoff to be fired.

BC

Here is Bloomberg’s transcript of the call.

[M T]

Yeah, it doesn’t help perceptions when our mediator is coaching the Russian side on how to get what it wants from the President.

https://www.wsj.com/politics/policy/whit..._permalink

Bad enough that several Republican lawmakers are calling for Witkoff to be fired.

BC

Here is Bloomberg’s transcript of the call.

[Goose]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...p-analysis

IMO the question of who leaked the Witkoff calls is pretty "important". It is true that someone at NSA undoubtedly could have done so. However, it happened relatively quickly after the event. That may have been because Ushakov is a priority target, but normally such material would be routed to only a very few people, most of which are pretty high on the food chain. The "rank and file" wouldn't normally see such stuff until much later in the cycle. Therefore the danger of discovery would be much higher than "normal", even assuming there was somebody in the chain who wanted to do so. The State Department may have been briefed, although it would be quite unusual for them to receive the "raw" transcript.
 
As the article states, it could be somebody in the Russian security services. I wouldn't put that beyond possibility. It could be non-political but instead commercial. Information for money. Ukraine is quite capable of accomplishing that. So are other nations, as well as the United States. However, my money is on GCHQ. They are directly responsible to the Prime Minister and will do what Sir Keir Starmer tells them to. It isn't at all against the law or anything. They also have the technical expertise to obtain that information. In point of fact they share facilities with NSA and in many cases see the same intercepts. Starmer has always been pro-Ukraine, and if he had a tool that could torpedo Witkoff's alleged "peace" plan, he would use it. His people (the very, very few that would "know") will keep their mouths shut as well.

[Goose]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...p-analysis

IMO the question of who leaked the Witkoff calls is pretty "important". It is true that someone at NSA undoubtedly could have done so. However, it happened relatively quickly after the event. That may have been because Ushakov is a priority target, but normally such material would be routed to only a very few people, most of which are pretty high on the food chain. The "rank and file" wouldn't normally see such stuff until much later in the cycle. Therefore the danger of discovery would be much higher than "normal", even assuming there was somebody in the chain who wanted to do so. The State Department may have been briefed, although it would be quite unusual for them to receive the "raw" transcript.
 
As the article states, it could be somebody in the Russian security services. I wouldn't put that beyond possibility. It could be non-political but instead commercial. Information for money. Ukraine is quite capable of accomplishing that. So are other nations, as well as the United States. However, my money is on GCHQ. They are directly responsible to the Prime Minister and will do what Sir Keir Starmer tells them to. It isn't at all against the law or anything. They also have the technical expertise to obtain that information. In point of fact they share facilities with NSA and in many cases see the same intercepts. Starmer has always been pro-Ukraine, and if he had a tool that could torpedo Witkoff's alleged "peace" plan, he would use it. His people (the very, very few that would "know") will keep their mouths shut as well.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/russi...00653.html
We have seen forecasts of problems for the Russian economy for at least two years. However, both world economic events and increased US sanctions do appear to be taking their toll. I still don't think Putin is going to settle for anything less than the totality of Ukraine, but he may have to at least appear willing to do so to get sanctions lifted. IMO it is absolutely critical that, at a minimum,  NO sanction relief whatsoever be granted until the full cease-fire agreement is negotiated and signed by all concerned. Putin will squeeze Ukraine for all its worth during this negotiating process. Rewarding him before he has actually delivered anything is very unwise.

[Goose]

https://www.yahoo.com/finance/news/russi...00653.html
We have seen forecasts of problems for the Russian economy for at least two years. However, both world economic events and increased US sanctions do appear to be taking their toll. I still don't think Putin is going to settle for anything less than the totality of Ukraine, but he may have to at least appear willing to do so to get sanctions lifted. IMO it is absolutely critical that, at a minimum,  NO sanction relief whatsoever be granted until the full cease-fire agreement is negotiated and signed by all concerned. Putin will squeeze Ukraine for all its worth during this negotiating process. Rewarding him before he has actually delivered anything is very unwise.

[M T]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...p-analysis

IMO the question of who leaked the Witkoff calls is pretty "important". ...

IMO the question of why the administration continues to use non-military communications is close to criminal negligence.

In March, while Witkoff was in Russia, he took part in the infamous Houthi raid group chat over Signal.  (He claims he only had his government issued phone with him at the time.)  I still can't comprehend the use of that app without validation that the members of the chat have access to and need-to-know for such info.

It appears he was using WhatsApp for some of these conversations.  I haven't seen anyone yet say that WhatsApp is approved for sensitive government communications.  I wonder if he was using the same app(s) and device (and apparently a private plane) when his & Dmetriev's 28-point plan was leaked very recently.

I'm sure everyone realizes that if it were an allied nation-state that leaked these plans, all hell will break loose if that were found out, to the detriment of those & other allied nation-states.  I would find it hard to believe that any nation-state organization would risk that.  It could be someone as stupid as the guy that was indicted in spring of 2023 where he bragged about having top-secret material and showed it off just to prove he had it -- I meant  JT as opposed to DJT.  

We know that the National Security Council reviews confidential calls, as mentioned in this recent news article.  I would expect a Witkoff call with a Russian about this war would fall under that umbrella (*IF* WhatsApp is set up for that review to happen).

[M T]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...p-analysis

IMO the question of who leaked the Witkoff calls is pretty "important". ...

IMO the question of why the administration continues to use non-military communications is close to criminal negligence.

In March, while Witkoff was in Russia, he took part in the infamous Houthi raid group chat over Signal.  (He claims he only had his government issued phone with him at the time.)  I still can't comprehend the use of that app without validation that the members of the chat have access to and need-to-know for such info.

It appears he was using WhatsApp for some of these conversations.  I haven't seen anyone yet say that WhatsApp is approved for sensitive government communications.  I wonder if he was using the same app(s) and device (and apparently a private plane) when his & Dmetriev's 28-point plan was leaked very recently.

I'm sure everyone realizes that if it were an allied nation-state that leaked these plans, all hell will break loose if that were found out, to the detriment of those & other allied nation-states.  I would find it hard to believe that any nation-state organization would risk that.  It could be someone as stupid as the guy that was indicted in spring of 2023 where he bragged about having top-secret material and showed it off just to prove he had it -- I meant  JT as opposed to DJT.  

We know that the National Security Council reviews confidential calls, as mentioned in this recent news article.  I would expect a Witkoff call with a Russian about this war would fall under that umbrella (*IF* WhatsApp is set up for that review to happen).

[Goose]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...p-analysis

IMO the question of who leaked the Witkoff calls is pretty "important". ...

IMO the question of why the administration continues to use non-military communications is close to criminal negligence.

In March, while Witkoff was in Russia, he took part in the infamous Houthi raid group chat over Signal.  (He claims he only had his government issued phone with him at the time.)  I still can't comprehend the use of that app without validation that the members of the chat have access to and need-to-know for such info.

It appears he was using WhatsApp for some of these conversations.  I haven't seen anyone yet say that WhatsApp is approved for sensitive government communications.  I wonder if he was using the same app(s) and device (and apparently a private plane) when his & Dmetriev's 28-point plan was leaked very recently.

Using any "app" and device that is not issued by the US government and transmitted entirely through government networks is not approved for classified information, period. Doing so is actually against the law, although only low-ranking people are ever punished for it. Realistically, anything radiated through the air is to some degree vulnerable. Military-grade encryption (and even more important military grade network characteristics and operating procedures) reduces the probability of a data breach to an "acceptable" level. If it goes over the public internet and/or the public telephone network the odds are very high it can be compromised, especially if high interest targets can be identified by signal externals. Sorting through the vast quantity of traffic on public networks is one of the main obstacles to finding "important" information.

I'm sure everyone realizes that if it were an allied nation-state that leaked these plans, all hell will break loose if that were found out, to the detriment of those & other allied nation-states.

Not necessarily. Often the aggrieved party is so embarrassed by the revelations they want the story to go away ASAP. Public airing of how it happened does the opposite of that. It is even more embarrassing that an ally was able to "break" the aggrieved party's communications security. While I am sure some smoking angry back-channel messages would be sent, IMO it is highly probable that would be the end of it.

I would find it hard to believe that any nation-state organization would risk that.

In general that is true. However there is precedent. One can go back as far as the Zimmerman Telegram. The UK was reading the (very simplistically coded) US traffic in real time at that point in history. There are other examples. GCHQ is one of the few allied organizations that can and has reliably kept the vast majority of its own secrets. There is also a direct path to the Prime Minister that is not subject to review or even documented. That is why I identified them as a distinct possibility. The rest of the UK government of course leaks, but they would never know or be involved in any way. 

It could be someone as stupid as the guy that was indicted in spring of 2023 where he bragged about having top-secret material and showed it off just to prove he had it -- I meant  JT as opposed to DJT.

Sure, it is possible but as both your examples show the desired notoriety requires attribution. Everybody, or at least the target audience, has to know who leaked it. The current leaks are very much non-attributed.  

We know that the National Security Council reviews confidential calls, as mentioned in this recent news article.  I would expect a Witkoff call with a Russian about this war would fall under that umbrella (*IF* WhatsApp is set up for that review to happen).

WhatsApp isn't involved. The National Security Council reviews (normally) summaries of "important" decrypted message traffic of various kinds from many sources. The various agencies identify what might be "interesting" and then an NSC minion reviews the data. Some of it may be interesting enough to go further. The NSC can ask for the "raw" decrypt if they deem it necessary. There may be push-back if the originating agency fears the raw data is potentially easily misinterpreted, easily attributable to its source, or if it reveals methods. The fact that these leaks were so proximate in time to the actual event argues against some low-ranking notoriety seeker being involved. The materials hadn't existed long enough for them to pass through lots of hands. Only people who either produced them or had a real "need to know" would have seen them. This very finite set would be the ones investigated for leaking. Again, not impossible but IMO improbable. Later on, others might have had access to them in the course of their work. Leaks then are much more probable.

[Goose]

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2025...p-analysis

IMO the question of who leaked the Witkoff calls is pretty "important". ...

IMO the question of why the administration continues to use non-military communications is close to criminal negligence.

In March, while Witkoff was in Russia, he took part in the infamous Houthi raid group chat over Signal.  (He claims he only had his government issued phone with him at the time.)  I still can't comprehend the use of that app without validation that the members of the chat have access to and need-to-know for such info.

It appears he was using WhatsApp for some of these conversations.  I haven't seen anyone yet say that WhatsApp is approved for sensitive government communications.  I wonder if he was using the same app(s) and device (and apparently a private plane) when his & Dmetriev's 28-point plan was leaked very recently.

Using any "app" and device that is not issued by the US government and transmitted entirely through government networks is not approved for classified information, period. Doing so is actually against the law, although only low-ranking people are ever punished for it. Realistically, anything radiated through the air is to some degree vulnerable. Military-grade encryption (and even more important military grade network characteristics and operating procedures) reduces the probability of a data breach to an "acceptable" level. If it goes over the public internet and/or the public telephone network the odds are very high it can be compromised, especially if high interest targets can be identified by signal externals. Sorting through the vast quantity of traffic on public networks is one of the main obstacles to finding "important" information.

I'm sure everyone realizes that if it were an allied nation-state that leaked these plans, all hell will break loose if that were found out, to the detriment of those & other allied nation-states.

Not necessarily. Often the aggrieved party is so embarrassed by the revelations they want the story to go away ASAP. Public airing of how it happened does the opposite of that. It is even more embarrassing that an ally was able to "break" the aggrieved party's communications security. While I am sure some smoking angry back-channel messages would be sent, IMO it is highly probable that would be the end of it.

I would find it hard to believe that any nation-state organization would risk that.

In general that is true. However there is precedent. One can go back as far as the Zimmerman Telegram. The UK was reading the (very simplistically coded) US traffic in real time at that point in history. There are other examples. GCHQ is one of the few allied organizations that can and has reliably kept the vast majority of its own secrets. There is also a direct path to the Prime Minister that is not subject to review or even documented. That is why I identified them as a distinct possibility. The rest of the UK government of course leaks, but they would never know or be involved in any way. 

It could be someone as stupid as the guy that was indicted in spring of 2023 where he bragged about having top-secret material and showed it off just to prove he had it -- I meant  JT as opposed to DJT.

Sure, it is possible but as both your examples show the desired notoriety requires attribution. Everybody, or at least the target audience, has to know who leaked it. The current leaks are very much non-attributed.  

We know that the National Security Council reviews confidential calls, as mentioned in this recent news article.  I would expect a Witkoff call with a Russian about this war would fall under that umbrella (*IF* WhatsApp is set up for that review to happen).

WhatsApp isn't involved. The National Security Council reviews (normally) summaries of "important" decrypted message traffic of various kinds from many sources. The various agencies identify what might be "interesting" and then an NSC minion reviews the data. Some of it may be interesting enough to go further. The NSC can ask for the "raw" decrypt if they deem it necessary. There may be push-back if the originating agency fears the raw data is potentially easily misinterpreted, easily attributable to its source, or if it reveals methods. The fact that these leaks were so proximate in time to the actual event argues against some low-ranking notoriety seeker being involved. The materials hadn't existed long enough for them to pass through lots of hands. Only people who either produced them or had a real "need to know" would have seen them. This very finite set would be the ones investigated for leaking. Again, not impossible but IMO improbable. Later on, others might have had access to them in the course of their work. Leaks then are much more probable.

[M T]

I hadn't realized what a theft-like provision was contained in the 28-points of the Dmitriev-Witkoff proposal, without any input from the EU.

The first draft of Trump’s 28-point peace plan called for an investment scheme for Ukraine’s reconstruction controlled by the U.S. but financed by $100 billion in frozen Russian assets matched by another $100 billion from the European Union — with 50% of profits sent back to Washington.

(AP)

[M T]

I hadn't realized what a theft-like provision was contained in the 28-points of the Dmitriev-Witkoff proposal, without any input from the EU.

The first draft of Trump’s 28-point peace plan called for an investment scheme for Ukraine’s reconstruction controlled by the U.S. but financed by $100 billion in frozen Russian assets matched by another $100 billion from the European Union — with 50% of profits sent back to Washington.

(AP)

[BostonCard]

Corruption probes in Ukraine are getting uncomfortably close to Zelenskyy.

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/ukraine/an...rcna246298

Going to be tough to negotiate when important negotiators are clouded in controversy. On the other hand, long term, having a strong rule of law will benefit Ukraine vis a vis the corruption cesspool that is Russia.

BC

[BostonCard]

Corruption probes in Ukraine are getting uncomfortably close to Zelenskyy.

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/ukraine/an...rcna246298

Going to be tough to negotiate when important negotiators are clouded in controversy. On the other hand, long term, having a strong rule of law will benefit Ukraine vis a vis the corruption cesspool that is Russia.

BC

[dabigv13]

The vibe from the Ukrainians I follow on social media seems to be universal agreement this was a long time coming and a good development. I think if he wasn't removed it would be an issue for Zelensky. Z has a pretty long leash and hasn't been implicated in any corruption himself.

[dabigv13]

The vibe from the Ukrainians I follow on social media seems to be universal agreement this was a long time coming and a good development. I think if he wasn't removed it would be an issue for Zelensky. Z has a pretty long leash and hasn't been implicated in any corruption himself.

[Goose]

Corruption probes in Ukraine are getting uncomfortably close to Zelenskyy.

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/ukraine/an...rcna246298

Going to be tough to negotiate when important negotiators are clouded in controversy. On the other hand, long term, having a strong rule of law will benefit Ukraine vis a vis the corruption cesspool that is Russia.

BC

Unfortunately Ukraine does not have a strong rule of law. Corruption has been a way of life there for a long time, just as it was/is in Russia. I agree that there are more Ukrainians that are able to publicly speak their minds about corruption and the public norm is that there should be no corruption. Russians OTOH whisper about it, lament how it affects them personally, but have no way to create a public anti-corruption movement. Many of them are frankly looking for a way to take advantage via corruption of their own :-). Both Russia and Ukraine at the present require some level of corruption in order to function. The corruption in Russia is much more widespread and extends to more high-level people, but Ukraine has its own big problem.

---

The vibe from the Ukrainians I follow on social media seems to be universal agreement this was a long time coming and a good development. I think if he wasn't removed it would be an issue for Zelensky. Z has a pretty long leash and hasn't been implicated in any corruption himself.

IMO Zelenskyy probably was trapped in an unfortunate Ukrainian reality. He had to have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in some cases in order to acquire/maintain political power. There was just too much history of kickbacks and quid-pro-quo in Ukrainian government and industry to crusade against even in "normal" times. Some important functions undoubtedly depended on it. Rooting it out in the middle of a war would have been even harder, and Zelenskyy (being a shrewd politician) probably determined he couldn't get elected if he broke everyone's rice bowl. I do believe he did not personally benefit, but I wouldn't be at all surprised that he did know about a lot of it.

[Goose]

Corruption probes in Ukraine are getting uncomfortably close to Zelenskyy.

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/ukraine/an...rcna246298

Going to be tough to negotiate when important negotiators are clouded in controversy. On the other hand, long term, having a strong rule of law will benefit Ukraine vis a vis the corruption cesspool that is Russia.

BC

Unfortunately Ukraine does not have a strong rule of law. Corruption has been a way of life there for a long time, just as it was/is in Russia. I agree that there are more Ukrainians that are able to publicly speak their minds about corruption and the public norm is that there should be no corruption. Russians OTOH whisper about it, lament how it affects them personally, but have no way to create a public anti-corruption movement. Many of them are frankly looking for a way to take advantage via corruption of their own :-). Both Russia and Ukraine at the present require some level of corruption in order to function. The corruption in Russia is much more widespread and extends to more high-level people, but Ukraine has its own big problem.

---

The vibe from the Ukrainians I follow on social media seems to be universal agreement this was a long time coming and a good development. I think if he wasn't removed it would be an issue for Zelensky. Z has a pretty long leash and hasn't been implicated in any corruption himself.

IMO Zelenskyy probably was trapped in an unfortunate Ukrainian reality. He had to have a "don't ask, don't tell" policy in some cases in order to acquire/maintain political power. There was just too much history of kickbacks and quid-pro-quo in Ukrainian government and industry to crusade against even in "normal" times. Some important functions undoubtedly depended on it. Rooting it out in the middle of a war would have been even harder, and Zelenskyy (being a shrewd politician) probably determined he couldn't get elected if he broke everyone's rice bowl. I do believe he did not personally benefit, but I wouldn't be at all surprised that he did know about a lot of it.

[dabigv13]

Well none of this is very good. Big article from WSJ, with more on Witkoff and admin efforts to restart US business involvement with Russia. I posted a gift link below.

Make Money Not War: Trump’s Real Plan for Peace in Ukraine
The Kremlin pitched the White House on peace through business. To Europe’s dismay, the president and his envoy are on board.

...

Three powerful businessmen—two Americans and a Russian—hunched over a laptop in Miami Beach last month, ostensibly to draw up a plan to end Russia’s long and deadly war with Ukraine.

But the full scope of their project went much further, according to people familiar with the talks. They were privately charting a path to bring Russia’s $2 trillion economy in from the cold—with American businesses first in line to beat European competitors to the dividends. 

At his waterfront estate, billionaire developer-turned-special envoy Steve Witkoff was hosting Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign-wealth fund and Vladimir Putin’s handpicked negotiator, who had largely shaped the document they were revising on the screen. Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, had arrived from his nearby home on an island known as the “Billionaire Bunker.” 

Dmitriev was pushing a plan for U.S. companies to tap the roughly $300 billion of Russian central bank assets, frozen in Europe, for U.S.-Russian investment projects and a U.S.-led reconstruction of Ukraine. U.S. and Russian companies could join to exploit the vast mineral wealth in the Arctic. There were no limits to what two longtime adversaries could achieve, Dmitriev had argued for months: Their rival space industries, which raced one another during the Cold War, could even pursue a joint mission to Mars with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

For the Kremlin, the Miami talks were the culmination of a strategy, hatched before Trump’s inauguration, to bypass the traditional U.S. national security apparatus and convince the administration to view Russia not as a military threat but as a land of bountiful opportunity, according to Western security officials. By dangling multibillion-dollar rare-earth and energy deals, Moscow could reshape the economic map of Europe—while driving a wedge between America and its traditional allies.

Dmitriev, a Goldman Sachs alumnus, had found receptive partners in Witkoff—Trump’s longtime golfing partner—and Kushner, whose investment fund, Affinity Partners, drew billion-dollar investments from the Arab monarchies whose conflict with Israel he had helped mediate. 

....

for unjustly imprisoned Americans. The CIA didn’t return requests for comment. The State Department referred questions to the White House.

Career officials in the office overseeing sanctions at the Treasury Department have at times learned details of Witkoff’s meetings with Moscow from their British counterparts. 

In the days after Alaska, a European intelligence agency distributed a hard-copy report in a manila envelope to some of the continent’s most senior national security officials, who were shocked by the contents: Inside were details of the commercial and economic plans the Trump administration had been pursuing with Russia, including jointly mining rare earths in the Arctic.

....

merican and Russian business leaders were quietly anticipating that Witkoff and Dmitriev would deliver, positioning their companies to profit from peace. 

In secret talks, Exxon Mobil Senior Vice President Neil Chapman met Rosneft boss Igor Sechin, Putin’s former private secretary, in the Qatari capital Doha, to discuss Exxon’s return to the massive Sakhalin project, an investment stranded after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Exxon, billionaire investor Todd Boehly and others have explored buying assets owned by Lukoil, Russia’s second-largest oil producer. The U.S. sanctioned Lukoil in October to increase pressure on Moscow, prompting the company to put its overseas assets up for sale. Elliott Investment Management eyed buying a stake in a pipeline that carries Russian natural gas into Europe. 

...

The next day, Witkoff dialed into a videoconference with officials and heads of state from top European allies, and explained the outlines of what he understood to be Putin’s offer. If Ukraine would surrender the remaining roughly 20% of Donetsk province that Russia had failed to conquer, Moscow would forfeit its claim to Zaporizhzhia and Kherson provinces. The European officials were confused. Did Putin mean he would withdraw his troops from Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, as Witkoff was suggesting? Or, more likely, was Putin merely promising to not conquer the thousands of square miles of those two provinces that, after years of bloody fighting, remained in Ukrainian hands? Either way, Ukraine was skeptical about the value of a promise from Putin.

On Aug. 9, Witkoff retreated to the Spanish island of Ibiza. European leaders were still seeking clarity from him, the White House, and the State Department, on what exactly Putin had offered.

Witkoff wanted to strike while the iron was hot and hold a summit without delay. Dmitriev was optimistic Witkoff had taken Russia’s sensitivities on board: “We believe Steve Witkoff and the Trump team are doing a great job to understand the Russian position to end the conflict,” he told the Journal, a few days before. 

The Aug. 15 summit fell apart almost as soon as it began. Witkoff, Rubio, and Trump arrived on Air Force One, meeting Putin, his longtime adviser Yuri Ushakov, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Putin launched into a 1,000-year history lecture on the unity of the Russian and Ukrainian people. The two sides canceled a lunch and an afternoon session where they were meant to check through their other issues, like the exchange of prisoners. Witkoff left uncertain where things stood, but hopeful talks would accelerate soon. “Everyone was working hard, but it was positive,” he said.

In October, President Zelensky flew to Washington, hoping to secure long-range, U.S.-made Tomahawk cruise missiles. His military wanted to cripple Russian refineries, pushing Moscow to negotiate on better terms.

By the time Zelensky arrived, Trump had spoken to Putin a day earlier and decided not to offer the Tomahawks. Instead, Witkoff encouraged Ukrainian officials to try another tack: What good was a handful of missiles going to accomplish? Instead, he encouraged Ukraine to ask Trump for a 10-year tariff exemption. It would supercharge their economy, he said. 

“I’m in the deal settlement business. That’s why I’m here,” he told the Journal. “We keep on knocking at the door and coming up with ideas.”

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/russia-..._permalink

[dabigv13]

Well none of this is very good. Big article from WSJ, with more on Witkoff and admin efforts to restart US business involvement with Russia. I posted a gift link below.

Make Money Not War: Trump’s Real Plan for Peace in Ukraine
The Kremlin pitched the White House on peace through business. To Europe’s dismay, the president and his envoy are on board.

...

Three powerful businessmen—two Americans and a Russian—hunched over a laptop in Miami Beach last month, ostensibly to draw up a plan to end Russia’s long and deadly war with Ukraine.

But the full scope of their project went much further, according to people familiar with the talks. They were privately charting a path to bring Russia’s $2 trillion economy in from the cold—with American businesses first in line to beat European competitors to the dividends. 

At his waterfront estate, billionaire developer-turned-special envoy Steve Witkoff was hosting Kirill Dmitriev, head of Russia’s sovereign-wealth fund and Vladimir Putin’s handpicked negotiator, who had largely shaped the document they were revising on the screen. Jared Kushner, the president’s son-in-law, had arrived from his nearby home on an island known as the “Billionaire Bunker.” 

Dmitriev was pushing a plan for U.S. companies to tap the roughly $300 billion of Russian central bank assets, frozen in Europe, for U.S.-Russian investment projects and a U.S.-led reconstruction of Ukraine. U.S. and Russian companies could join to exploit the vast mineral wealth in the Arctic. There were no limits to what two longtime adversaries could achieve, Dmitriev had argued for months: Their rival space industries, which raced one another during the Cold War, could even pursue a joint mission to Mars with Elon Musk’s SpaceX.

For the Kremlin, the Miami talks were the culmination of a strategy, hatched before Trump’s inauguration, to bypass the traditional U.S. national security apparatus and convince the administration to view Russia not as a military threat but as a land of bountiful opportunity, according to Western security officials. By dangling multibillion-dollar rare-earth and energy deals, Moscow could reshape the economic map of Europe—while driving a wedge between America and its traditional allies.

Dmitriev, a Goldman Sachs alumnus, had found receptive partners in Witkoff—Trump’s longtime golfing partner—and Kushner, whose investment fund, Affinity Partners, drew billion-dollar investments from the Arab monarchies whose conflict with Israel he had helped mediate. 

....

for unjustly imprisoned Americans. The CIA didn’t return requests for comment. The State Department referred questions to the White House.

Career officials in the office overseeing sanctions at the Treasury Department have at times learned details of Witkoff’s meetings with Moscow from their British counterparts. 

In the days after Alaska, a European intelligence agency distributed a hard-copy report in a manila envelope to some of the continent’s most senior national security officials, who were shocked by the contents: Inside were details of the commercial and economic plans the Trump administration had been pursuing with Russia, including jointly mining rare earths in the Arctic.

....

merican and Russian business leaders were quietly anticipating that Witkoff and Dmitriev would deliver, positioning their companies to profit from peace. 

In secret talks, Exxon Mobil Senior Vice President Neil Chapman met Rosneft boss Igor Sechin, Putin’s former private secretary, in the Qatari capital Doha, to discuss Exxon’s return to the massive Sakhalin project, an investment stranded after Russia’s 2022 invasion of Ukraine.

Exxon, billionaire investor Todd Boehly and others have explored buying assets owned by Lukoil, Russia’s second-largest oil producer. The U.S. sanctioned Lukoil in October to increase pressure on Moscow, prompting the company to put its overseas assets up for sale. Elliott Investment Management eyed buying a stake in a pipeline that carries Russian natural gas into Europe. 

...

The next day, Witkoff dialed into a videoconference with officials and heads of state from top European allies, and explained the outlines of what he understood to be Putin’s offer. If Ukraine would surrender the remaining roughly 20% of Donetsk province that Russia had failed to conquer, Moscow would forfeit its claim to Zaporizhzhia and Kherson provinces. The European officials were confused. Did Putin mean he would withdraw his troops from Zaporizhzhia and Kherson, as Witkoff was suggesting? Or, more likely, was Putin merely promising to not conquer the thousands of square miles of those two provinces that, after years of bloody fighting, remained in Ukrainian hands? Either way, Ukraine was skeptical about the value of a promise from Putin.

On Aug. 9, Witkoff retreated to the Spanish island of Ibiza. European leaders were still seeking clarity from him, the White House, and the State Department, on what exactly Putin had offered.

Witkoff wanted to strike while the iron was hot and hold a summit without delay. Dmitriev was optimistic Witkoff had taken Russia’s sensitivities on board: “We believe Steve Witkoff and the Trump team are doing a great job to understand the Russian position to end the conflict,” he told the Journal, a few days before. 

The Aug. 15 summit fell apart almost as soon as it began. Witkoff, Rubio, and Trump arrived on Air Force One, meeting Putin, his longtime adviser Yuri Ushakov, and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov. Putin launched into a 1,000-year history lecture on the unity of the Russian and Ukrainian people. The two sides canceled a lunch and an afternoon session where they were meant to check through their other issues, like the exchange of prisoners. Witkoff left uncertain where things stood, but hopeful talks would accelerate soon. “Everyone was working hard, but it was positive,” he said.

In October, President Zelensky flew to Washington, hoping to secure long-range, U.S.-made Tomahawk cruise missiles. His military wanted to cripple Russian refineries, pushing Moscow to negotiate on better terms.

By the time Zelensky arrived, Trump had spoken to Putin a day earlier and decided not to offer the Tomahawks. Instead, Witkoff encouraged Ukrainian officials to try another tack: What good was a handful of missiles going to accomplish? Instead, he encouraged Ukraine to ask Trump for a 10-year tariff exemption. It would supercharge their economy, he said. 

“I’m in the deal settlement business. That’s why I’m here,” he told the Journal. “We keep on knocking at the door and coming up with ideas.”

https://www.wsj.com/world/russia/russia-..._permalink

[BostonCard]

What I don’t get is why anyone would think that Russia would in any way have an environment conducive to doing business (ie, rule of law, predictable environment, enforceable contracts, etc.).  Just ask Bill Browder.

Of course, for some people, the corruption, lack of rule of law, and ability to exploit natural resources and extract rents are a feature, not a bug. 

BC

[BostonCard]

What I don’t get is why anyone would think that Russia would in any way have an environment conducive to doing business (ie, rule of law, predictable environment, enforceable contracts, etc.).  Just ask Bill Browder.

Of course, for some people, the corruption, lack of rule of law, and ability to exploit natural resources and extract rents are a feature, not a bug. 

BC

[Mick]

What I don’t get is why anyone would think that Russia would in any way have an environment conducive to doing business (ie, rule of law, predictable environment, enforceable contracts, etc.).  Just ask Bill Browder.

Of course, for some people, the corruption, lack of rule of law, and ability to exploit natural resources and extract rents are a feature, not a bug. 

BC

The oldest partner in my most recent firm spent two years in Russia attempting to create a worthwhile legal practice. Corruption everywhere you went. The worst was a young KGB officer named Putin. Allegedly.

[Mick]

What I don’t get is why anyone would think that Russia would in any way have an environment conducive to doing business (ie, rule of law, predictable environment, enforceable contracts, etc.).  Just ask Bill Browder.

Of course, for some people, the corruption, lack of rule of law, and ability to exploit natural resources and extract rents are a feature, not a bug. 

BC

The oldest partner in my most recent firm spent two years in Russia attempting to create a worthwhile legal practice. Corruption everywhere you went. The worst was a young KGB officer named Putin. Allegedly.

[dabigv13]

https://www.twz.com/air/u-s-deploys-shah...ng-to-iran

The US has reverse engineered Iranian Shahed drones and is now building and fielding them. An interesting development. Cheap and numerous drones of this type is a good development for the US imho.

[dabigv13]

https://www.twz.com/air/u-s-deploys-shah...ng-to-iran

The US has reverse engineered Iranian Shahed drones and is now building and fielding them. An interesting development. Cheap and numerous drones of this type is a good development for the US imho.

[BostonCard]

Since this is a recurring topic, I was sure someone here would note it

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/ukraine/uk...rcna246520

Ukraine has started to hit Russia’s shadow fleet in international waters.  I don’t know enough admiralty law to know if this is legal, but of course, since the ships are unflagged, who is going to be in a position to complain?  I know western countries are worried about precedent (though I’ll note that targeting commercial vessels during wartime has a history as long as ocean shipping and wars).  The vessels will also be an environmental catastrophe (though these were, thankfully, empty).  But if the Houthis can attack commercial vessels in the Red Sea, and the US can sink alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, Ukraine I’m sure is thinking that targeting the shadow fleet is one way to put pressure on Russia and Putin to negotiate in good faith.

FWIW, oil prices are up a bit (~$1 - $2) since the attack, which is perhaps less than I had expected.

BC

[BostonCard]

Since this is a recurring topic, I was sure someone here would note it

https://www.nbcnews.com/world/ukraine/uk...rcna246520

Ukraine has started to hit Russia’s shadow fleet in international waters.  I don’t know enough admiralty law to know if this is legal, but of course, since the ships are unflagged, who is going to be in a position to complain?  I know western countries are worried about precedent (though I’ll note that targeting commercial vessels during wartime has a history as long as ocean shipping and wars).  The vessels will also be an environmental catastrophe (though these were, thankfully, empty).  But if the Houthis can attack commercial vessels in the Red Sea, and the US can sink alleged drug boats in the Caribbean, Ukraine I’m sure is thinking that targeting the shadow fleet is one way to put pressure on Russia and Putin to negotiate in good faith.

FWIW, oil prices are up a bit (~$1 - $2) since the attack, which is perhaps less than I had expected.

BC