Putin vows to back Iran following US strikes on nuclear facilities

Daily Mail ^ | 6/23/2025 | JAMES REYNOLDS and MARK NICOL and HARRIET LINE and NATALIE LISBONA IN JERUSALEM and MATT STRUDWICK

[marcusmaximus]

Vladimir Putin today vowed to back Iran and condemned 'groundless' aggression against its ally after the U.S. joined Israel in striking nuclear facilities on Sunday.

'This is an absolutely unprovoked aggression against Iran,' Putin told Iranian Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi, who travelled to Moscow seeking support in mediation.

Putin called recent strikes 'unjustified' and added that Russia was 'making efforts to provide assistance to the Iranian people.'

Araghchi on Monday thanked Putin for condemning U.S. strikes on Iran, telling him Russia stood on 'the right side of history'.

[ichabod1]

uh, i think that’s been deboonked. just a myth.

[frog in a pot]

There's a lot of disinformation in those sentences.

Bingo, and quite right. I didn't have the time to lay out a comprehensive response to Phoenix8 as you did.

I will add that it was obvious to the Truman WH that Russia was on the march for its first warm-water seaport. It was an enormous long-term benefit to both Japan and the U.S. to end the war asap and get our forces ashore to block Russia from reaching that goal.

[Phoenix8]

Disinformation or disagreement?

Firstly the Soviets wanted Manchuria so they of course didn’t forward the peace feelers. It’s had little to do with the Potsdam meeting or Casablanca etc Stalin was a ruthless tyrant truly intent on world domination, even more so than Hitler.

Secondly there were actually MORE peace feelers put out than the ones I listed:

1. Lisbon, Portugal
A certain Inoue, The counselor of the Japanese Legation in a Portugal requested a contact with US representatives and said the Japanese wanted peace but would not accept unconditional surrender. May 7, 1945

On may 19, he requested again as he feared paper and wooden houses fire bombed in Japan would leave the population destitute.

The OSS contacted the US ambassador who told his higher ups. It was decided Inoue must only bring terms regarding unconditional surrender and only as an official representative of Japan.

2. The Vatican, Rome Italy

In Jan 1945 The Japnese Emperor was told officials of the highest order would seek leave terms through The Vatican as intermediary. The Emperor expressed no “disapproval” of the efforts.

Eventually a memorandum was sent by the OSS to the president of the USA that the Japnese Holy See would work with the Pope to mediate possible peace terms.

It’s not obvious what happens to that proposal, other than being rejected due to the unconditional surrender mantra.

3. Bern Switzerland.
In may 1945 the OSS gave information to the US ambassador that the Japanese foreign minister Shunichi Kase wanted to pursue peace directly with the Western Allies on the conditions Japan not become communist and the Emperor remain untouched. Wild Bill Donovan wrote a handwritten note on the form saying “should we pursue this?”.

Again like the overtures in Rome it’s unclear what became of the Japanese effort. Likely rejected again as before due to Roosevelt.

This is not my opinion, this is sourced as “secret and classified” by the OSS and not released until 1993 by the CIA.

https://www.cia.gov/resources/csi/static/Memoranda-President-Japanese-Feelers.pdf

____________

In my opinion you (all) give too much rigidity in your arguments. With too much value on formal agreements and public announcements of Diplomatic efforts. For a thousand years it’s been know the REAL action occur behind the scene with Machiavellian moves and whispers behind closed doors. Things are then reported to the public afterwards and in a light that the victor desires.

Ohh and agreements and pacts can be broken. There is no reason why a conditional peace couldn’t have been arranged. The Soviets ended their non-aggression pact with Japan a full year in advance through a legal loophole on the pact. Germany launched Barbarossa in 1941 and violated their Non- aggression pact.

Pacts are just promises and words on paper. Actions are the only thing that really matter.

The unconditional surrender idea was a boneheaded move by an ailing democratic/socialistic President and was an unnecessary huge mistake .

[Phoenix8]

Oh and on Germany I even said it “was less certain”. If I remember correctly.

That would have had to involve some sort of German uprising, which indeed did happen. Recall the bombing of Hitler in the Wolf’s Lair bunker.

Still a conditional surrender demand would have likely strengthened the uprising not weakened it.

[BroJoeK]

Phoenix8: "The unconditional surrender idea was a boneheaded move by an ailing democratic/socialistic President and was an unnecessary huge mistake."

Casablanca Conference, January 1943:
Girard (France), FDR (USA), De Gaulle (France), Churchill (UK)

Pres. Roosevelt was 60 years old at the Casablanca Conference in January 1943 when he and Churchill first announced their policy of "Unconditional Surrender" for all Axis powers.
In that, FDR followed the examples of:

1. George Washington at the 1783 Battle of Yorktown

2. Ulysses Grant at the 1865 Appomattox Court House.

What FDR wanted most to avoid was Woodrow Wilson's mamby-pamby First World War "Peace Without Victory" and "14 Points" that only set the predicates for the Second World War.

As for Churchill, of course, he well understood the problems resulting from demands for "Unconditional Surrender", but he also understood the high value of clarity and simplicity of purpose which "Unconditional Surrender" provided.
And Churchill knew that "Unconditional" for Americans does not mean the same thing it would for Axis or Communist powers.
For Americans, "Unconditional" came with a lot of conditions in terms of human rights and democratic government.

The key point for both FDR and Churchill is that "Unconditional Surrender" kept any of the Allied powers from negotiating separate peace terms with any of the Axis powers, and that was no small matter.

It's also worth noting that no other Allied leader, such as Joseph Stalin or Charles De Gaulle, expressed opposition to FDR's "Unconditional Surrender" policy.

Phoenix8: "In my opinion you (all) give too much rigidity in your arguments.
With too much value on formal agreements and public announcements of Diplomatic efforts.
For a thousand years it’s been know the REAL action occur behind the scene with Machiavellian moves and whispers behind closed doors.
Things are then reported to the public afterwards and in a light that the victor desires.
Ohh and agreements and pacts can be broken.
There is no reason why a conditional peace couldn’t have been arranged.
The Soviets ended their non-aggression pact with Japan a full year in advance through a legal loophole on the pact.
Germany launched Barbarossa in 1941 and violated their Non- aggression pact.
Pacts are just promises and words on paper.
Actions are the only thing that really matter."

Sorry, but none of that argument makes any sense to me, so what, exactly, are you trying to tell us?

[frog in a pot]

Disinformation or disagreement?, or conclusions based on selected or not well-understood facts?

Wild Bill Donovan wrote a handwritten note...“should we pursue this?” ...
This is not my opinion, this is sourced as “secret and classified” by the OSS [Wild Bill] and not released until 1993 by the CIA.

You offer a question, but no opinion. Wild Bill had an absolute duty to confer with his principle, but it is worth noting he asked, "Should we pursue this?", he did not say, "We should pursue this" or even, "this has merit".

Likely rejected again as before due to Roosevelt.
Roosevelt was dead, it was most likely rejected by a much healthier, alert and well-informed Truman.

[Phoenix8]

I had a much longer reply and lost it with my clumsy fingers trying to close a window and hitting “X”.

will have to read a greatly shortened abridged version:
FDR age? Big deal. 1940s average life expectancy was 63. H was old and sick and dumb

grant? He also had a 2 to 1 advantage in men and food, 9 to 1 ad on weapons. Victory Had little to do with his unconditional surrender demands.

Churchill!!! What?? That’s nonsense:
“ At the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, Winston Churchill was initially surprised and hesitant about Franklin D. Roosevelt’s announcement of the “unconditional surrender” demand for the Axis powers. Churchill had not been consulted beforehand and was concerned about the implications, particularly how it might prolong the war by hardening German and Japanese resistance. However, he quickly aligned with Roosevelt’s stance in public, recognizing its political and strategic value in unifying the Allies and reassuring the Soviet Union of a firm commitment to total victory. Privately, Churchill expressed reservations but supported the policy to maintain Allied unity.”

De Gaul and Stalin—I mentioned Stalin last time. Not repeating myself. De Gaul was a man without a country, of course he went along.

Also like last one I admitted the ONLY valid Excuse for the FDR blunder was the possibility of separate peace. That was shown to be a misjudged fear after the war. besides after army group center was destroyed in 1944 the Western Allies would have won on their own so there was not even that one single valid reason not to negotiate with terms.

Finally that my argument made no sense is a YOU thing not a ME thing.
I was showing how unconditional surrender could and should have been discarded that pacts are things routinely discarded..again I find myself repeating things with you.

[Phoenix8]

“ Roosevelt was dead, it was most likely rejected by a much healthier, alert and well-informed Truman.”

Seriously? 😂

Roosevelt died in April ‘45 Wild Bill wrote tha =t note in May ‘45. Truman probably hadn’t even moved his things into the WH yet, he was going off FDRs plans.

[BroJoeK]

Phoenix8: "I had a much longer reply and lost it with my clumsy fingers trying to close a window and hitting “X”.
will have to read a greatly shortened abridged version:"

I make similar mistakes often enough to be very sympathetic.
Curiously, more often than not, my replacement version turns out, not only shorter, but also clearer and more to the point.
So there's that...

Phoenix8: "FDR age?
Big deal.
1940s average life expectancy was 63.
H was old and sick and dumb"

Over the years, FDR has been accused of many things, with "devious" perhaps a polite summary of them.
But FDR was never accused of being "dumb", just the opposite, if anything, he's thought of unkindly as an evil genius.

As for "sick", FDR was no sicklier in 1943 than he was when he first ran for President in 1932.
Yes, by the time of the Yalta Conference in February 1945, FDR was on his last legs, so to speak, but that was far from true at Casablanca in January 1943.

Again, FDR's reasons for declaring "Unconditional Surrender" as the Allies' goal were:

1. To inspire Americans by references to George Washington (1781) and Ulysses Grant (1865)

2. To unite the Allies behind a single, simple goal.

3. To prevent the muddled mess of negotiations which ended the First World War and, arguably, led directly to WWII.

Phoenix8: "grant?
He also had a 2 to 1 advantage in men and food, 9 to 1 ad on weapons.
Victory Had little to do with his unconditional surrender demands."

"Unconditional Surrender" Grant forced the surrender of three different Confederate armies:

1. Fort Donelson (February 1862)
   Grant's army of 25,000 defeated 16,000 Confederates dug in behind fortifications.
   In military doctrine, such attacks are said to require 3 to 1 attacker's advantage.

2. Vicksburg (May–July 1863)
   Grant's army of 77,000 defeated Pemberton's 33,000 dug in on the cliffs of Vicksburg.
   However, there were at least another 60,000 Confederate troops nearby that could have come to Pemberton's aid, but refused.
   Those included Joe Johnston's Department of the West and Braxton Bragg's Army of Tennessee.
   Plus! there were another 50,000 Confederate troops west of the Mississippi (in Missouri, Arkansas & Louisiana) that could have been brought to the fight, but weren't.

3. Appomattox Campaign (April 1865)
   Lee's remnant army of 28,000 surrendered to Grant's 120,000.
   At Gettysburg in 1863, Lee's army of 90,000 (including slaves) attacked Mead's Union army of ~95,000 and lost.
   Since Gettysburg, Lee's army fought on defense and shrank, while the Union army fought on offense and grew stronger.

   At the same time as Lee's surrender, CSA Gen. Joe Johnston commanded another 90,000 Confederate troops from North Carolina to Florida, who then surrendered (April 26) to Sherman's army of 60,000.
   Point is: the overall numbers were not as lopsided as some snapshots might suggest.

Finally, "Unconditional Surrender" Grant actually offered several conditions to his defeated enemies, including food, parole and, in the end, the opportunity to keep their horses, side arms and other personal property.
Sherman & Johnson negotiated several additional conditions which, while immediately rejected in Washington, were de facto soon adopted, except for the matter of slavery.

Phoenix8: "Churchill!!! What?? That’s nonsense:
“ At the Casablanca Conference in January 1943, Winston Churchill was initially surprised and hesitant about Franklin D. Roosevelt’s announcement of the “unconditional surrender” demand for the Axis powers.
Churchill had not been consulted beforehand... "

The fact remains that neither Churchill, nor Stalin, nor De Gaulle, nor any other Allied leader opposed FDR's "Unconditional Surrender" WWII goal.
And for excellent reasons.

Phoenix8: "Also like last one I admitted the ONLY valid Excuse for the FDR blunder was the possibility of separate peace.
That was shown to be a misjudged fear after the war."

In fact, there were several separate peace feelers from the Soviets to the Germans and visa versa during the war.
Setting aside the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact of 1939, in the war's early years (after June 1941) Soviets wanted peace and the Germans rejected them, while in later years (after 1943) it was the reverse.
Indeed, Stalin himself grew increasingly concerned about Western Allies making separate deals with Germans, despite FDR's "Unconditional Surrender" terms.
So, it was not a minor issue.

Phoenix8: "Finally that my argument made no sense is a YOU thing not a ME thing.
I was showing how unconditional surrender could and should have been discarded that pacts are things routinely discarded..again I find myself repeating things with you."

WWII's "Unconditional Surrenders" created the world we have today, dominated by Western-type democracies.
Anything else would have left the world in the same condition as in 1919, at the end of the First World War, when Woodrow Wilson's "Peace Without Victory" and "14 Points" helped create conditions that made WWII inevitable.

That's the real bottom line.

[Phoenix8]

FDR—not only was he getting old for the time but he was a long sufferer of polio which weakened him— “Mens sana in corpore sane”..eh? Yes we agree he was an evil genius, I was being flippant with the word dumb. But I do believe he wasn't as sharp in 1943 as before. “ FDR had a history of polio, which left him paralyzed from the waist down since 1921, and he relied on leg braces, a wheelchair, or assistance to move. Beyond polio, he suffered from chronic conditions, including hypertension and heart issues, which were not fully understood or well-managed at the time due to the era's medical limitations.” I believe poor heart conditions can effect thought ability can they not? ————————————- Washington, Grant etc. Ok firstly it's so odd we are talking about Washington as an example to defend the principle of U.Sur in WW2. 1. He was a general in a civil war in the Romantic Era. You are comparing apples to oranges. 2. Washington was not actually an adherent to U. Sur: “ As a military leader, he prioritized victory and the survival of the Continental Army, but he was not dogmatic about demanding unconditional surrender in every case. His approach balanced firmness with flexibility” The U Sur demand of FDR in WW2 were anything but flexible, they were like a rusted span of iron wedged in 10 feet of solidified concrete. ———————— On the example of surrender of 3 southern armies I'm unimpressed. Those were SPECIFIC examples of tactical battles on the field that might have resulted in surrender anyway with conditions. You are not really suggesting massive quantitative advantages are inconsequential are you? In fact not having enough things was far more important than U Sur: “ At Appomattox, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia, roughly 26,000 men, was exhausted, starving, and surrounded, with minimal supplies and low morale. On April 9, 1865, Lee surrendered to Grant, effectively ending the Civil War in Virginia.” “ At Appomattox, Lee's Army of Northern Virginia had critically low weapons and ammunition, with many soldiers unarmed or carrying unserviceable rifles due to losses and supply shortages.” ______________________ The reasons why the Allies supported FDR rigid and unfortunate idea of (strict) UN Surr is we were literally supplying the others With the means to fight. If they didn't go along with FDR he might cut them off or reduced it: ————————————— On separate peace between Germany and the USSR—- Yet they didn't did they? The reason is that while both socialist they were at distinct natural odds with each other as one favored nationalism and the other a world order. (sounds familiar doesn't it?) In fact a German-Soviet pact was a PERFECT match and would have almost guaranteed victory..and still they didn't. In 1941 when German forces launched spearheads deep into the USSR they were shocked at the miles and miles of loaded wagons, trains and trucks carrying goods to Germany. Grain, coal, rubber, ores into the Reich. Hitler was biting the hand that was feeding him so to say. An actual “potato train” from the USSR to Germany, later 1940: Yet Hitler STILL risked it all and attacked. Why? because they HATED each other. “Hitler viewed communism as a mortal enemy of National Socialism” “ By 1942, both leaders were locked into a fight to the death, driven by ideology, mistrust, and the war's momentum. The highest likelihood might have been in late 1941, but even then, it was slim—perhaps a 5–10% chance at most, based on Stalin's desperation and Hitler's fleeting interest in pausing the Eastern Front.” And Goebbels, whom I see as the intellectual force behind Hitler, hated communism perhaps even more. Actually this is a good reason WHY conditional surrender terms from the Western Allies to Germany might have worked. They feared and hated communism and would have likely surrendered with terms (like keeping their army intact on the east on pre-1941 border) to have kept them out. No, in retrospect there was little chance of a separate peace. And the idea of the US or UK making a separate peace from each other isn't worthy of discussion. ————————————- Unconditional surrender in fact was a DISASTER in WW2: 1. It left Japan prostrate allowing the CCP to win in China. This allowed the USA to suffer the Korean and Vietnamese wars, genocides in China, genocides in Cambodia etc “ deaths attributed to communist regimes in Asia since World War II is 35–78 million, with a midpoint of ~55 million” 2. It left Germany in the same state allowing Communism to run wild in Eastern Europe. Ushering in the Cold War and nearly nuclear Armageddon etc. Sir we will never agree. 🙀 And let's not forget my original thesis; Unconditional Surrender demands did not cause ALL deaths and suffering, it allowed NEEDLESS deaths and suffering to continue past what was necessary. Well, well past.