Have been thinking about comments from people saying the "peace plan" also includes things that Russia won't like, and citing the use of Russia's frozen assets for reconstruction of Ukraine. But nothing in the plan says the money couldn't be spent in Russian-occupied Ukraine.

Friday: "Sign this by Thanksgiving or it's all over for you." Saturday: "This is nothing to do with us, some other boys wrote it." Sunday: "By 'some other boys wrote it', of course I meant some other boys wrote the denial that we wrote it. Here's my lunch money."

Friday: "Sign this by Thanksgiving or it's all over for you." Saturday: "This is nothing to do with us, some other boys wrote it." www.huffpost.com/entry/senato...

What was true of the Trump administration's original, extortionate minerals plan is equally true of this peace plan. It will probably be true of the next White House plan, and the one after that.

I expect to be reposting this every three months or so until the end of the Trump administration.

And don't forget that under the terms of the 28 point plan, someone, presumably Ukraine, will be paying the US for this. It's a protection racket, which is how Trump understands all security relationships. And like all protection rackets, it's all racket and no protection.

A quick run through of the Trump administration's proposal for a Ukraine security guarantee, which is a security guarantee in the same way that the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia is a party committed to liberalism and democracy. 🧵 x.com/BarakRavid/s...

Some notable things in what's being called the "Trump peace plan" but which could not have been more clearly written in Moscow if it came with a 2 for 1 deal on tickets to the Bolshoi Ballet. 🧵

Considerable understatement from the Telegraph here: "an administration that has at times leaned toward Moscow’s view on the origins of the war in Ukraine" - Trump has repeatedly blamed Ukraine starting the war. www.telegraph.co.uk/us/news/2025...

If the Trump administration are trying to coerce the Ukrainian govt into agreeing to this, plus ceding territory, what should that tell us about them? Ukraine and the rest of Europe would never again be secure if this happened; the Trump administration aren't interested in that.

As always, this is what the Trump administration is focused on when it says its negotiating to end the war in Ukraine. And to be clear: they don't want to "restore" US-Russia ties, they seem to want a completely new kind of US relationship with Russia. 🧵

This, of course, is exactly the argument Trump used about Crimea in 2018. Not surprising that the man he picked for this job shares his Russia-favouring, profoundly stupid, view.

I expect to be reposting this at least once more before Christmas.

Classic response to this over on twitter. May have to change my bio to include it.

This does not sound as if the Trump administration is interested in a drones for Tomahawks deal.

"Hopefully they won't need it, hopefully we'll be able to get the war over without thinking about Tomahawks." Well, they do need them and everyone *is* thinking about Tomahawks, but that sounds very much like no Tomahawks for Ukraine.

See also: the willingness to believe that Trump got angry and almost walked out in Alaska because Putin allegedly did his history bore thing. It shouldn't need saying, but anyone who was in the room for that meeting has an interest in making Trump look ready to stand up to Putin.

All the people convinced that this time it was different should bear this in mind in 3-6 weeks when the White House starts up the "Trump's finally fed up with Putin and willing to do something" circus yet again.

Someone has just pointed out that I said Trump when I meant Putin. 🤦‍♀️The one person no-one in this administration will put pressure on is Trump.

As ever, the "this time he's really going to put serious pressure on Trump" line, coming out of the administration via the media and many commentators on here, is undermined when Trump speaks to Putin and then talks about it.

I'm shocked to discover that a senior member of a party run by Nigel Farage had a dodgy relationship with Russia.

"If [Trump] were serious about punishing Russia for failing to move towards peace, he would have done it long ago." Always good to talk to @kyivindependent.com

Exactly. The logic of this position is that resisting any Russian incursion into NATO territory would be an act of war. Shooting down a plane? War. Stopping a tank crossing into Estonia? War. Resisting Russian troops invading Finland? War. 🙄

One last thing on Trump's embarrassing UN speech: watching it - in particular, listening to him read it - makes it clear that Trump has absolutely no interest in foreign policy. The only time he seemed remotely engaged was when he was complaining or bragging. That matters.🧵

The only really surprising thing about Trump's comments yesterday is how many people are still treating anything he says about Russia and Ukraine as indicative of a possible shift in the administration's policy of doing absolutely nothing.

Currently watching Trump's speech to the UN (was ill yesterday). Gore Vidal famously said of Eisenhower that he read his speeches with a "sense of discovery"; Trump read this one as if not only has he never seen it before, but he isn't even interested in it.

This is the most pathetic and undignified thing I've ever seen a US president do in the area of foreign policy. It makes George Bush Snr throwing up over the Japanese Prime Minister look like an act of brilliant diplomacy.

This escalation has been expected by many of us since at least the point when it became clear that Trump would be re-elected. I hope European NATO has a plan to respond, given the ample warning they've had to develop one, because this won't be a one-off. 🧵

Phase one involved taking no action against Russia for the first 8 months of the Trump presidency. Phase two will involve taking no action against Russia for the remaining 3 years and 4 months of the Trump presidency.

Caturday update on Sam: stitches almost gone, hair growing back fast, normal Sam behaviour resumed (trying to steal our dinner, spending the evening on the sofa with me, nicking almost all my side of the bed). Here he is with Freddie Purrcury, David Meowie, and his other favourite toys.

It's interesting to see how sensitive Trump is about the reaction to his humiliating hosting of Putin. He's tried several counter-narratives, but this is the most ludicrous.

Thoughts on the last week of frenetic diplomacy.

Someone just liked this post from December last year, so I re-read it and sadly it seems about right. I've got predictions wrong many times over the years; really wish this had been one of those times.

Putin came to Alaska because although he's a wanted war criminal who views the US as Russia's main adversary and has acted to undermine its interests for years, Donald Trump afforded him one of the highest possible diplomatic honours. India is still buying Russian oil.

Wednesday's excited reporting of Trump's "very severe consequences" threat feels like a long time ago.

*taps the sign*

However happy or unhappy Trump says he is with today's meeting, it's worth remembering that peace in Ukraine never appears to have been the main objective in US-Russia negotiations. Peace between Russia and the US seems to have always been the priority. They got that today.

My lovely mother-in-law died this morning, so apologies if you're trying to get hold of me to talk about the summit, I'm not going to be doing anything today or at the weekend.

A piece I've written for KCL's 'Our Divided Planet' forum on the Alaska summit and why it matters even though it's very unlikely to achieve its state goals: www.kcl.ac.uk/trump-putin-...

"The weakening of Washington’s foreign and security expertise [and] the administration’s pro-Russia orientation, puts the Kremlin in a stronger position than it has ever been before in relation to the White House." My @themoscowtimes.com piece on the summit. www.themoscowtimes.com/2025/08/14/t...

In non-summit news, Sam is doing very well - wound healing, hair returning, and he's back to trying to steal our breakfast. Cone off next week.

Trump claims there will be "very severe consequences" for Russia if they fail to stop the war. He doesn't want to say what they'll be but they will be severe. With wearying predictability, this wildly implausible claim is now the main headline on the BBC. 🧵

Not so much a summit as a deep depression.

30 years ago, Bill Clinton and Boris Yeltsin were invited to compete in a 1000 mile dog sled race in Alaska. Sadly, they declined, but I occasionally wonder what would have happened to US-Russia relations if they'd said yes. Maybe the idea could be revived on Friday.

I see that territorial adjustments that Trump promised are already happening. Best of luck to Lisa Murkowski on Russia's Federation Council

Who thinks that the man who doesn't know where he's going this week is likely to have even the most basic grasp of any of the issues he's supposed to be discussing when he gets there? Who in the admin *is* shaping policy on Ukraine and Russia for Trump?

Given the ridiculous media attention being paid to the Putin-Trump call, it needs repeating that the man who started the war and the man who admires the man who started the war cannot negotiate an end to the war between the two of them, without Ukraine.

Important to note that there are different types of US-Russia presidential meetings. This type is particularly significant and thus a very clear sign of the Trump administration's desire to align with the Kremlin. Long🧵

Since the end of the Cold War, summits have been used by US presidents as a mark of approval and withheld when they disapprove of Russian actions. Trump is, once again, signalling the value he places on Putin's friendship. It's a profound humiliation for the US.

10 days ago: newspapers report that Trump's 10 day deadline "hammers" Putin, increases the pressure on him to end the war, and threatens "crippling new sanctions". Trump today: “It’s up to [Putin] and we’ll see what he says.” A completely unsurprising climbdown.