Lord Lansdowne's letter in 1917 has been proven right by history - what horrors will the next hundred years hold?

Former British Foreign Secretary Lord Lansdowne's letter to the Daily Telegraph (the Times refused to publish it) on 29 November 1917, calling for a negotiated peace with Germany, was execrated, he became a pariah, but now we weep at the missed opportunity to end a pointless bloody war, save the Habsburg and German empires, and prevent the Nazis coming to power, the Second World War, the Cold War and many horrors of modernity (add to taste). 

So it may be again.

Lord Lansdowne's letter has been proven right by history, if any document ever were. I quote from it.

'We are not going to lose this war, but its prolongation will spell ruin for the civilised world, and an infinite addition to the load of human suffering which already weighs upon it...We do not desire the annihilation of Germany as a great power ... We do not seek to impose upon her people any form of government other than that of their own choice... We have no desire to deny Germany her place among the great commercial communities of the world.'

He wrote immediately after the Bolsheviks had seized power and should have written two or three years earlier.

The parallel with people like Donald Trump who want an enduring ceasefire in Ukraine, rather than a continuing cold or hot war between democracies and autocracies, is obvious, I hope.

Before I read the New York Times piece that said General Surovikin was involved in the planning of Prigozhin's revolt, I had already come to the conclusion that the mutiny was a coup attempt that failed. 

The NYT says Prigozhin's plans were discovered, it started at half cock and the forces in Moscow from whom Prigozhin expected help chose not to offer it.

Mark Galeotti thinks otherwise, says it is now clear that it was just a protest or something, to make Putin change his mind about the Wagner Group being put under the control of Sergei Shoigu, the Defence Minister, which makes no sense. 

Owen Matthews has the same view though.

John Helmer, veteran Moscow correspondent, has an explanation that sounds like it comes from Sergei Shoigu.

A senior Kremlin source quoted in a great article in the Guardian:

"Many in the [defence] ministry believe Prigozhin has kompromat on everyone. This would make it unlikely that he would be liquidated, since the kompromat staying secret would be tied to him remaining alive."

What will happen next? 

Who knows?

‘In Russia, nothing is more dangerous than the appearance of weakness’ said the great Peter Stolypin, quoted by Simon Sebag Montefiore. 

He wrote a good article published yesterday in the Times on how Russian autocrats lose power if they mishandle wars (Tsars Peter III, Paul and Nicholas II). Khrushchev's fall was precipitated by the Cuba Missiles Crisis.

'In 1904, Nicholas II was advised by his interior minister Plehve to launch “a short victorious war”. Nicholas’s ensuing Japanese war was a catastrophe that led to the 1905 revolution. But Putin was made by his “short victorious wars” — until 2014. He pulled off a near bloodless victory to seize Crimea and Sebastopol. And he hoped to destroy Ukraine obliquely by a dirty war in Donbas. Ironically it was a cardinal error: I believe if he had seized all of Ukraine then, he would have got away with it. Instead Ukraine armed itself. As his spy agencies and courtiers promised instant victory, Putin invaded Ukraine.'

I agree that from his point of view Putin should have taken over the whole of Ukraine in 2014, but that was not how it seemed at the time or while Mr. Obama played things very cool and refused to supply Ukraine with 'lethal weapons'. 

Mr Obama and Mr Trump had much in common - they were both unhappy with the idea of an active American empire involved everywhere.