This is the exchange which triggered the astonishing and graceless performance in the Oval Office this afternoon by Donald Trump and JD Vance:

Vance: For four years, the United States of America, we had a president who stood up at press conferences and talked tough about Vladimir Putin, and then Putin invaded Ukraine and destroyed a significant chunk of the country. The path to peace and the path to prosperity is, maybe, engaging in diplomacy. We tried the pathway of Joe Biden, of thumping our chest and pretending that the president of the United States’ words mattered more than the president of the United States’ actions. What makes America a good country is America engaging in diplomacy. That’s what President Trump is doing.

Zelenskyy: Can I ask you?

Vance: Sure, yeah.

Zelenskyy: OK. So he occupied it, our parts, big parts of Ukraine, parts of east and Crimea. So he occupied it in 2014. So during a lot of years — I’m not speaking about just Biden, but those times was Obama, then President Obama, then President Trump, then President Biden, now President Trump. And God bless, now, President Trump will stop him. But during 2014, nobody stopped him. He just occupied and took. He killed people. You know what the ...

Trump: 2015?

Zelenskyy: 2014.

Trump: Oh, 2014? I was not here.

Vance: That’s exactly right.

Zelenskyy: Yes, but during 2014 ‘til 2022, the situation is the same, that people have been dying on the contact line. Nobody stopped him. You know that we had conversations with him, a lot of conversations, my bilateral conversation. And we signed with him, me, like, you, president, in 2019, I signed with him the deal. I signed with him, Macron and Merkel. We signed ceasefire. Ceasefire. All of them told me that he will never go. But after that he broke the ceasefire. He killed our people, and he didn’t exchange prisoners. We signed the exchange of prisoners. But he didn’t do it. What kind of diplomacy, JD, you are speaking about? What do you mean?

Vance: I’m talking about the kind of diplomacy that’s going to end the destruction of your country. Mr. President, with respect, I think it’s disrespectful for you to come into the Oval Office to try to litigate this in front of the American media. Right now, you guys are going around and forcing conscripts to the front lines because you have manpower problems. You should be thanking the president for trying to bring an end to this conflict.

Zelenskyy: Have you ever been to Ukraine that you say what problems we have?

Vance: I have been to ...

Zelenskyy: Come once.

Vance: I’ve actually watched and seen the stories, and I know that what happens is you bring people, you bring them on a propaganda tour, Mr. President. Do you disagree that you’ve had problems, bringing people into your military?

Zelenskyy: We have problems ...

Vance: And do you think that is respectful to come to the Oval Office of the United States of America and attack the administration that is trying to prevent the destruction of your country?

From this point Trump and Vance became increasingly loud and offensive.  It was astonishing that the world’s press should witness such low and stupid behaviour from the two most powerful politicians in America.  The plain truth, of course, is that with or without a signature on a minerals agreement they have absolutely no intention of lifting a finger to dissuade Vladimir Putin from re-starting his attacks.  They are pretending that a ceasefire agreement without security is just as solid as one with security, and they know that’s simply not true.  When Zelensky exposed the deceit with his history lesson they responded with chaff about his supposed lack of gratitude for past support, and about his not wanting peace.  It was a deflection technique - and it might also have contained an element of revenge after Zelensky roasted a White House emissary sent to Kiev last week with a third completely worthless draft agreement.

The passive-aggressive demand that Zelensky apologise to Vance constituted a new and weirdly wrong-headed take on victim-blaming.  All the noise and arrogance - and mafia-like threats - had come from the American pair.  In Moscow the reborn nuclear thug Dmitry Medvedev found time to celebrate by calling Zelensky “the insolent pig”.  The Trump White House and the Kremlin deserve each other.

A brief education for anyone who seeks to smear or belittle the Ukrainian struggle ...

https://www.linkedin.com/posts/hannes-fassold-0385977a_one-of-many-heroes-of-ukraine-who-defend-activity-7300024755586260992-s3ZG?utm_source=li_share&utm_content=feedcontent&utm_medium=g_dt_web&trk=social-share

A courageous cleric who never shied away from speaking - and practising - his truth, for which he was twice excommunicated, died last Tuesday.  Catholic traditionalism has lost Bishop Richard Williamson, thirteen years after its leading voice, Society of St Pius X, became lost to him.  He fought on regardless, often straying into the bad-lands of right-wing politics, often though he must have known in advance what the consequences would be.  His last Eleison Comments column, dated 14th December, was on the subject of Russia and the “rotten” west.  But there will be no more columns.  A communique to the recipients of his list states:

He had suffered a cerebral haemorrhage during the evening of Friday 24th January when he was taken to hospital. He spent his final days in a peaceful though declining state, surrounded by clergy and faithful continuously praying at his bedside for the intercession of the Blessed Mother to whom he had been so devoted throughout his life and whom he credited for leading him to the Holy Catholic faith in his twenties.

Another old and wise hand who understands the global contest in which the war in Ukraine is a key element.  As he says, “The question is: will the world in the 21st century be based upon force and tyranny, or not?

Andrei Illarionov, who worked as a senior policy adviser to Vladimir Putin at the start of his term, supplies his insights into the Russian dictator and the global strategy he is advancing.
Interviewer Dr Jason Jay Smart of Kyiv Post.

The American diplomat and academic Mitchell Reiss airs his views of Donald Trump’s forthcoming conversational intervention in Ukraine, indicating that Trump has a degree of realism that will disappoint the bravado-filled pro-Putin right.  Interview by Times Radio.

Kemi Badenoch, a person of Nigerian descent raised in Nigeria and the United States, has been elected to succeed Rishi Sunak, a person of Indian descent, as leader of the Conservative Party, a globalist political party in Britain.  She was elected by the Conservative Association membership, which numbers 130,750 lucky, lucky people.  They preferred her to Robert Jenrick, a lawyer previously dubbed Robert Generic but for the purposes of the leadership election a go-get-em anti-immigration candidate.  The Nigerian person received 53,806 votes to 41,388 for Border Guard Man. Turnout was only 72.8 per cent.

The joyful news was received by the commentariat at the Daily Mail with, it must be said, a degree of scepticism.  At 6.00pm this evening the thread to the main article was topped by the following contribution:

Apparently, Telegraph readers are also sceptical.  The “Most Liked” tab on Nigel Farage’s reaction to the news produced this less than enthusiastic endorsement for our new heroine of the right:

As befits the Torygraph, a slew of slavish Badenoch articles appeared on-line.  The thread to the leader piece was, however, less than encouraging for loyalist journos:

The Daily Express helpfully ran a poll for online readers, asking “Do you think Kemi Badenoch is the right person to lead the Tory Party?”

“Yes - 39%
No - 54%
Don’t know - 7%

And so on.  Badenoch parliamentary career began at the 2017 General Election.  Just two years later she was being tipped as a possible contender for the 2019 Conservative Party leadership election.  She did not run that time round, supporting Michael Gove instead.  She secured a cabinet post by 2021, and the following year entered the leadership contest following the resignation of Boris Johnson.  She made it to the fourth round of voting.  Now she has gone all the way.  Inevitably, she is a WEF attendee.

ATP Geopolitics explains:

So far, four large-scale ammunition storage sites have been hit in under two weeks. The first attack was on the morning of September 7.  The depot is in Soldatsky, Voronezh region, only about seventy-five miles from the Ukrainian border.  It is where North Korean-made KN-23 missiles were held.

Next, on the night of September 18 the SBU security service, GUR defence intelligence, and Special Operations Forces hit Military Unit 11777, the headquarters of the Main Missile and Artillery Directorate of the Russian Defence Ministry in Toropets, Tver region.  As many as 100 drones may have been used.  The depot is vast, and said to have held missiles for Iskander operational-tactical missile systems, Tochka-U tactical missile systems, as well as KAB aerial guided bombs, and artillery rounds.

On the night of September 21, the Defence Forces of Ukraine struck the Russian arsenal of Tikhoretsk, in the Krasnodar region.  This facility is one of the three largest ammunition storage hubs in Russia and one of the key ones in the logistics system of the Russian forces fighting in Ukraine.  According to reports the arsenal had received at least 2,000 tons of ammunition, including from North Korea. The Podliot radar station, which detected air targets in the direction of the arsenal, was also attacked.

The same night the 23rd Arsenal of the Main Artillery Department of the Ministry of Defence, again in the Tver region.  This was another warehouse where the Iskander and Tochka-U ballistic missiles were located. It is about 15 km from Toropets.

All four were major hits.  There are claims from the front in Donetsk that Russian Army logistics have already been affected, and the rate of artillery fire is reducing.  Can the pressure be sustained by the Ukrainians (for example, if the Russians now have to move to a multiplicity of smaller but less secure storage sites)?  What would be the potential effect on the Russians ability to continue their current offensive war?