My thesaurus lists the following synonyms for “self-contradictory”:

“absurd,” “false,” “groundless,” “implausible,” “inconsistent,” “incorrect,” “irrational,” “irrelevant,” “preposterous,” “senseless,” “unreasonable,” “unscientific,” “untenable.”

And those are just the strongest matches. I actually prefer — in describing today’s comments from the Kremlin — some of the “weaker” matches:

“cockeyed,” “incongruous,” “nutty,” “off the wall,” “screwy,” and “wacky” . . . among others.

What led me on this rather silly semantic search was a statement made to reporters today by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov in advance of the planned meeting between U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio and Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov on the sidelines of the UN General Assembly in New York:

“For now, there are no prerequisites for moving onto a peaceful negotiating track, although we, as the Russian side, remain open to peace talks.” [Dmitry Antonov, Reuters, September 23, 2026.]

I beg your pardon?

On Tuesday, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had reiterated his readiness to meet with Russian President Vladimir Putin at a trilateral meeting to include U.S. President Donald Trump. But Peskov — while acknowledging that Putin remains ready to meet one-on-one with Trump “if both leaders deemed such a meeting necessary” — said that Putin’s stance on an in-person meeting with Zelensky has not changed: Zelensky would have to come to Moscow. [Id.]

Yeah . . . right. Zelensky is not stupid. He has continued to insist that any meeting with Putin should take place on neutral territory. In his place, that is what any sane person would do.

But, venue aside, it’s a moot point for the time being, considering Peskov’s additional statement:

“Generally speaking, in any other circumstances, it would be inappropriate to hold a summit meeting before the groundwork has been laid at expert level, as this would be a waste of time.” [Id.]

Well, that was much more definitive, thank you. But I wonder what he means by “expert” level. Certainly not this:

So you tell me: Who is really preventing this war from ending? Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump would have us believe it is Volodymyr Zelensky — Trump having gone so far as to plead with Zelensky to cease his attacks on strategic Russian facilities.

But what about the four and a half years of attacks on Ukraine’s civilian population and infrastructure? Where is his plea to Putin — who consistently ignores the fact that it was he who started the war on February 24, 2022 — to put away the missiles and drones?

It has been pointed out that, if Russia were to cease its attacks on Ukraine, the war would end immediately. But if Ukraine ended its counterattacks, it would be left totally vulnerable to the loss of its sovereignty, its history, and its very existence to the rapacious Putin regime.

On second thought, Peskov’s seemingly contradictory statement isn’t cockeyed or wacky after all; it is, in fact, a perfect example of Kremlin double-speak, honed to perfection over centuries of autocratic rule and intended to confuse, deflect, and provide deniability.

How this war will ultimately end, I wouldn’t dream of trying to predict. But at the rate it’s going — and with the Russian Parliamentary elections having just handed Putin’s party a resounding victory — it’s looking, at the very least, like another grim winter ahead for Ukraine.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
9/23/26