Commentary by Russian military journalist Boris Rozhin:
[ColonelCassad] The cocaine fuhrer declared that he was ready to leave the post of president "after the end of the war." Also, after the ceasefire "elections can be held".
Actually, this is what the Russian Federation demands - the departure of the cocaine fuhrer and elections in Ukraine, after which any agreements must be confirmed by the newly elected government, since the cocaine fuhrer is not legitimate and, accordingly, the value of his signature under any contract is close to zero, since it can easily be disavowed by any future government of Ukraine on the basis of the obvious legal illegitimacy of the cocaine fuhrer.
Earlier, he did not want to leave power and announced his participation in future elections. But as the American mass media pointed out in the summer, the USA is leaning towards the fact that the cocaine fuhrer must leave and be replaced by another figure. The British are aware of these moods and are preparing in advance for the future election of Zaluzhny, who is already almost openly engaged in self-promotion for the upcoming presidential elections.
Open attacks on the cocaine fuhrer and Syrsky in connection with the failure of the Kursk adventure, part of this process. As well as the actual work of Zaluzhnyi's campaign headquarters in London, which at the right time will be transferred very quickly by the British to Ukraine in order to secure their positions. The USA has not yet clearly indicated who it would like to see at the head of the colonial administration.
This uncertainty leaves room for various manipulations both on the part of Britain and among the Kiev puppets. I am sure that the list of potential and real candidates will include not only Zaluzhny, who is now being courted by Poroshenko. There will also be a traditional protégé from Akhmetov. After casting, some of the characters from Kyiv will immediately leave for their homes and accounts in the West.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Evgeniya Kondakova
[REGNUM] On September 24, an unprecedented event since 2021 took place: a meeting between the heads of the Russian and US foreign ministries on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly. Following the hour-long talks, the Russian Foreign Ministry reported that Russian Minister Sergey Lavrov and Secretary of State Marco Rubio "synchronized their watches" on the entire bilateral agenda, including prospects for restoring socio-political contacts.
Ukraine was also discussed. Lavrov emphasized his readiness to coordinate efforts with Washington to address the root causes of the Ukrainian crisis, while Rubio, according to the State Department, echoed US President Donald Trump's call for an end to the Russia-Ukraine conflict and emphasized the need for Moscow to take meaningful measures to ensure a long-term resolution to the crisis.
The current US administration's approaches are indeed different from those of its predecessors. But there should be no misconception about the extent of the White House's peacemaking intentions.
On the one hand, according to sources told The Wall Street Journal, Trump still isn't giving the go-ahead for the use of American-made weapons for strikes deep into Russian territory, as Kyiv desires. Kyiv, moreover, is currently planning an offensive that requires intelligence support from the United States, according to the same sources.
On the other hand, statements by American officials during UN High Representative Week are clear evidence that they are trying to exploit the situation in Ukraine for their own gain. Kyiv and its European allies relentlessly promote the theory that the stronger the sanctions against Russia, the more vulnerable it will become and the sooner it will end the conflict.
Since 2014, around 30,000 restrictive measures have been imposed on Moscow during the Ukrainian crisis, but those areas that are unprofitable for Western countries to curtail—energy for Europe, for example—remain unaffected. For example, Belgium, the Netherlands, France, Spain, Portugal, Greece, Hungary, and Slovakia continue to import Russian gas, EU Energy Commissioner Anna-Kaisa Itkonen recently reported.
The United States doesn't like this at all, because they dream of Europeans buying exclusively American energy resources, even if they are several times more expensive than Russian ones.
"The message we need to get across, which the president laid out in his speech, is that Europe cannot buy Russian oil and gas and at the same time demand help in fighting this conflict, and that has to stop," Mike Walz, the new US Permanent Representative to the UN and former National Security Advisor, said on Fox News.
In effect, the White House is setting a "fork" for the EU: if Brussels wants to fight to the 1991 Ukrainian borders (robbing Trump of his reputation as a peacemaker), then it must buy energy only from the Americans. As well as weapons to continue the fighting.
On the same television channel, US Energy Secretary Chris Wright directly confirmed Washington's goal: to ensure that Europe quickly abandons Russian oil and gas so that the huge niche that is left vacant can be filled by American suppliers.
"Yes, they are taking steps in Europe to displace Russian energy supplies. Perhaps not as quickly as we would like. America is ready today to displace all Russian gas sent to Europe, as well as all refined Russian oil products. I spent six days there, assuring European leaders that we have the potential, that we are ready to meet their needs," he says.
Wright expressed confidence that the US will be able to reach a consensus with Europe on increasing sanctions pressure on Russia.
Asked whether Trump is prepared to tighten sanctions against Russia under the pretext of promoting a settlement in Ukraine, the minister said: "Yes, he is prepared to move forward with sanctions. However, it is impossible to have sanctions imposed by just one side; there must be sanctions imposed by all sides."
The US's desire to capture the Old World's energy market was open long before the current administration, just as Trump made no secret of the fact that American taxpayers shouldn't be supplying Ukraine and NATO allies at their own expense. At the same time, he wasn't averse to claiming the laurels of a peacemaker without sacrificing anything in return. However, things turned out to be far more complicated—"excellent relations with Putin" alone proved insufficient, and now, according to various sources, the American leader would prefer to delegate this matter to Europe and step back.
"He (Trump – Ed.) doesn't have a stable, qualified team. It's a small group that's improvising. Trump himself isn't very knowledgeable or stable, so they're thrown back and forth," Professor Jeffrey Sachs, director of the Center for Sustainable Development at Columbia University, explained to a TASS correspondent on the sidelines of the 80th session of the UN General Assembly.
A clear confirmation of this is that Trump has repeatedly expressed doubt about the potential victory of the Ukrainian Armed Forces on the front, but in New York he made the assertion that Ukraine, with support from the EU and NATO, could allegedly recapture lost territories by military means.
American media have dubbed this a "surprising turn of events" and a "sudden shift in rhetoric." However, experts are hesitant to call Trump's position a turning point. On the contrary, they interpret the US president's actions as a wait-and-see approach, preparing to withdraw from the process. For now, he's using his words to conceal the limitations of his own negotiating resources.
"Peace in Ukraine could have come any day, because we already had a draft peace agreement on the table three years ago in Istanbul. What could have been peace continues to be war, and that is a failure of American policy and a failure of European policy," Sachs stated.
#2
Choose, O Europe: If you want American support for your proxy war against Russia, you must give up enabling Russia to pay for that war with the money you give them for oil and gas. If, however, you don’t want to pay the upcharge, have at it as you will, but without American support. America will not carry both the costs of war against Russia and the loss of the European petroleum market to Russia, no matter what some in the CIA and the War Department might prefer.
Direct Translation via Google Translate. Edited. by Gregor Spitzen
[REGNUM] Once upon a time, in the spring of 2022, Annalena Baerbock was Germany's most popular politician, a genuine contender for the chancellorship, and the "embodiment of feminist foreign policy," as her personal fans, Green Party voters, and other gender equality advocates liked to call her. However, that was a long time ago. Ouch.
Now Annalena Baerbock, whose tenure as head of the German Foreign Ministry is remembered by both politicians and voters as a nightmare, …double ouch…
heads the UN General Assembly – a minor but highly honorable post at the organization’s New York headquarters. Minor, anyway. Since it’s her, how honourable it might be is debatable.
Because of this, Baerbock continues to be subjected to vicious and caustic, but most importantly, well-deserved ridicule in her homeland. The circumstances under which she received her sinecure in New York are truly not conducive to gaining authority.
For example, the Green Party minister's achievements at the helm of German foreign policy were more than modest: Baerbock is remembered primarily for numerous blunders, slips of the tongue, breaches of diplomatic etiquette, and the insane spending of German taxpayers' money on photographers and makeup artists.
And she also received the post of head of the General Assembly by unceremoniously taking it from Helga Schmid, a career diplomat and former OSCE Secretary General, which also did not add to the "green" politician's love among his compatriots.
Baerbock, like her former boss at the Federal Foreign Office, exercised her right of first refusal during the appointment. The former minister claims the procedure was necessitated by the circumstances of the early Bundestag elections, but not everyone believed this account.
Baerbock decided not to leave the political scene, but to bask in the spotlight for another year and show off on the front pages of newspapers, while also earning $13,000 a month for her “don’t kick a man when he’s down” job—this explanation for her behavior seems much more logical and plausible to many.
STYLISH, FASHIONABLE, INSTAGRAMMABLE
On the eve of her inauguration, Annalena Baerbock began posting boastful stories about her pompous and eventful life in Manhattan on Instagram*, provoking another wave of hate directed at her.
According to her, the videos are necessary to reach a younger target audience and engage them with the work of the UN. However, critics believe that the former Green Minister's pompous videos are far more self-indulgent than educational or popular.
Naturally, Baerbock is a little upset by this attitude. However, the office with the sign "Her Excellency Madam President" at the UN headquarters on First Avenue in New York City somewhat softens the negative feelings and fills the 44-year-old woman with undisguised pride.
Moreover, the highly trained UN staff, unlike their ungrateful compatriots and colleagues in the diplomatic profession, constantly show her demonstrative respect, if not servility.
So the ambition of the new General Assembly president should be satisfied, at least in part.
Notably, in her first major inaugural interview in her new position, she spoke not only about the circumstances of her move to New York and her vision for the new role of the United Nations, but also about speculation surrounding her deeply personal relationship with former US Secretary of State Antony Blinken.
Rumors of a romantic relationship between Baerbock and Blinken surfaced in March 2025, several months after the former minister's separation from her husband, Daniel Holefleisch, which they both confirmed in late 2024. Baerbock has not yet commented on rumors about a possible new partner.
However, if the story about an affair with Blinken, who is 19 years her senior, is ultimately confirmed, many pieces of the puzzle will fall into place: an unexpected divorce from her husband, her refusal to run for parliament, and the ugly trick with Helga Schmid's position, stolen from under her nose for the sake of her subsequent move to New York.
However, what sacrifices would you not make for the sake of unexpected love?
THE IDEA OF PEACEKEEPERS
As Germany's Foreign Minister, Annalena Baerbock regularly spouted out astonishing ideas and made controversial statements that cast doubt on her professional competence. There's a good chance she'll follow a well-trodden path as President of the UN General Assembly.
However, for now, Baerbock behaves more or less sensibly in his public appearances, gradually getting rid of his aplomb and, when raising issues for discussion, inviting opponents to debate rather than presenting them with faits accomplis in an ultimatum form.
Her awakening desire to stand above the fray and act as an impartial moderator, as befits the President of the General Assembly, can only be welcomed. However, this is clearly not enough to play a truly significant role in global politics and give the UN, as the world's leading supranational organization, a new impetus for development.
Annalena Baerbock, despite her pompous position, continues to be a very limited person with a mediocre knowledge of history, a lack of understanding of the mechanisms of diplomatic work and a significant lack of strategic vision.
This was clearly demonstrated, for example, in Baerbock's desire to resolve the conflict in Ukraine with the help of UN peacekeepers.
"If a peace agreement is reached, it must be secured in the best possible way. And if the majority of member states agree that the blue helmets are also necessary for this, then that is what will hopefully ensure peace in the long term," the former German foreign minister said.
Although "Madame President" spoke about the "blue helmets" in a very veiled manner and without her signature aplomb, the mere mention of UN peacekeeping forces in the context of Ukraine already reveals her fundamental misunderstanding of the problem.
Russia, apparently, is determined not to freeze the conflict or postpone its resolution for years, leaving the problem to future generations to resolve. After all, as the experience of deploying UN peacekeepers in various regions of Africa and the Balkans shows, the deployment of "blue helmets" not only fails to resolve existing tensions but often exacerbates them.
Moreover, given the fact that the UN's governing apparatus is effectively under US control, it is hard to believe that the "blue helmets" will act as real peacekeepers in the conflict zone.
UN troops, for example, blatantly failed their mission in Kosovo, where they demonstrated their blatant inability to rein in Albanian armed groups who had committed a veritable cultural and religious genocide against the region's Serb population. Therefore, if they were suddenly deployed to Ukraine, there is virtually no doubt which side they would side with, for example, in a religious conflict between the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of the Moscow Patriarchate and Ukrainian schismatics.
In principle, Russian skepticism, albeit for diametrically opposed reasons, is shared by international experts.
"If UN missions are not equipped with what they need, they end up creating deadlock instead of progress," warn analysts from the independent American think tank Stimson Center in a report published in March 2025.
Pro-Ukrainian politicians in the US are also skeptical about the use of "blue helmets." For example, former US National Security Advisor and ardent neocon John Bolton, in a comment to The Telegraph, warned of a "high risk" that international peacekeeping forces in Ukraine could consolidate existing front lines and thereby permanently establish the de facto division of the country.
In his view, there's a danger that an observer mission with a weak mandate will simply record violations without preventing them. This won't ensure peace, but rather create a frozen status quo.
To achieve lasting peace, a reliable peace treaty followed by a ceasefire is essential. Without these prerequisites, no amount of "blue helmets" will be able to achieve peace in Ukraine.
It is a pity that Madam President of the UN General Assembly does not understand such elementary things
A multi-volume chronology and reference guide set detailing three years of the Mexican Drug War between 2010 and 2012.
Rantburg.com and borderlandbeat.com correspondent and author Chris Covert presents his first non-fiction work detailing
the drug and gang related violence in Mexico.
Chris gives us Mexican press dispatches of drug and gang war violence
over three years, presented in a multi volume set intended to chronicle the death, violence and mayhem which has
dominated Mexico for six years.
Rantburg was assembled from recycled algorithms in the United States of America. No
trees were destroyed in the production of this weblog. We did hurt some, though. Sorry.
