SocraticGadfly: Putin (Vladimir)
Showing posts with label Putin (Vladimir). Show all posts
Showing posts with label Putin (Vladimir). Show all posts

May 01, 2025

Happy May Day to Vlad the Impaler?

"Too many people are dying!!!”

Finer words have ...

NEVER been said ...

By either Trump, or any other Rethugican, or any other Democrap ... 

About Gaza.

That said, Mr. "One-day deal" President Donald Trump did say them, after meeting with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, last Saturday at the funeral of the latest holder of office of antichrist. (He is actually much more like "the man of lawlessness," but it's fun to keep extending this.

AND?

He's at least talking about additional sanctions on Russia.

It may be all talk. Or, like most his tariffs on countries not named China, could be enacted then reversed.

Two things.

First, this shows that Trump is not Putin's puppet. (BlueAnon remain self-created puppets of tribalism, though.)

Second, this is why I, while acknowledging the reality of Eastern Europe since James Baker's "not one inch eastward," about which both the late Gorbachev and living Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ have lied, while acknowledging the drunken sailor money for drunken Boris Yeltsin, and acknowledging Maidan and afterward in Ukraine, I disagree with the likes of Norman Finkelstein in considering Putin's invasion "justified." As I've noted, it's a word I avoid using in such situations in general. 

I will go beyond this, and say that Putin's current maximalist demands are UNjustified. And, I break with non-skeptical leftists who can't call out Putin at some point, or call out China's Xi as needed.

And, as a reminder? I've offered my own peace plan, which Zelensky wouldn't like, but which is far short of Putin's maximalism. 

This all said, Trump and Zelensky offered Vlad an early May Day gift yesterday. (Per CNN, I agree that it's more symbol than substance, but the optics have everybody talking.)

On the other hand, similar to what the US did in Iraq and Afghanistan, Russia has massively increased sign-up bonuses and other benefits for new recruits.

March 25, 2025

Putin is no Churchill, and no Stalin, either

A few weeks ago, I wrote in depth about Der Spiegel's piece about Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a new Churchill and how he had not only gotten hoist on this petard, but was keeping himself hanging.

So, what about his counterpart, Russian President Vladimir Putin?

I've semi-regularly called him Vlad the Impaler, after Vlad Tepes, aka Count Dracul. But, that's a figure from many centuries ago,  that works primarily as a pun of sorts.

What Putin is NOT is Uncle Joe Stalin. First, contra the tankies, he's not a Communist. Second, while Stalin, at least theoretically, opposed Russian nationalism continuing from Tsarist times — a stance that, as Lenin's Commissar of Nationalities, helped get us into the situation we're in — Putin is indeed a Russian nationalist.

So, if not Stalin, and not Vlad Tepes, as he predates post-Thirty Years War modern nationalism, who is he?

Could he be, per Montefiore's book on Stalin as the Red Tsar, some sort of Black Tsar? A quasi-fascist tsar? I mean, post-Yeltsin, he shook down the oligarchs just enough .... to line his pockets, keep them in line, yet keep them loyal by protecting them.

But, not a fully fascist one. Yes, Prigozhin owned a few things, but government ownership of the means of production without a dictatorship of the proletariat? Putin's not a fascist; of course, compared to Mussolini, Hitler wasn't totally a fascist,either.

As for trusting Putin? Or, per Norm Finkelstein, saying his invasion is "justified"? Uhh, no.

Let's start with John McCain vs. George W. Bush. Without supporting McCain's idea then, or others today, of expanding NATO to included Ukraine (or Georgia), he was right when he responded to Bush by saying that, contra Shrub, when he looked in Putin's eyes he saw three letters — "KGB."

In one of the KGB's more odious moments, in the early 1980s, it was the apparent originator of the claim that the US had engineered the AIDS virus for population control of African-Americans, Black Africans, or both. And, in South Africa under President Thabo Mbeki, this led to horrendous AIDS deaths. In the US, it built on Black mistrust of the medical world because of things like the Tuskegee experiments. You know, the KGB in which Putin served 1975-90.

February 12, 2025

Trump and Putin — one talk is not day one

And, that precaution in the header is not just for the MAGAts but also the Simplicius types, who thought they had Trump pegged.

In reality, going behind the Reuters story?

We know that Trump's incoming administration was behind the late-Biden team's final energy sanctions on Russia. We know that Trump has not lifted them. We know that, while Trump and Elmo have paused, scrambled and fucked up foreign aid in general, Trump has not stopped sending bombs to Ukraine.

For the Simplicius types, those are all facts on the ground.

Trump and his team's general statements, from Jan. 1 on, before he officially was sworn in, come off as various ploys on trying to buffalo Putin. John Mearsheimer has talked about that on at least one dialogue with Andrew Napolitano. (Both also mentioned his cluelessness in claiming 1 million Russians have been killed.)

The new reality appears to be (I have to say "appears to be" because I'm not a Russia or Putin expert and nobody is a Trump expert) is that Trump seems to be accepting that the buffaloing has failed — or, at a minimum, that's failed without an accompanying "good cop" second track.

So, Trump's team and Putin's are talking. As noted above, buffaloing may resume in the future. If so, it will fail again.

Or, maybe they're not talking. Kremlin spox Dmitri Peskov refuses to confirm or deny any conversations. Putin will let Trump twist slowly in the wind a bit.

By the start of Ukrainian-Russian spring, when the possibility of events on the battlefield will start up again, Trump (or people working around him) will accept that buffaloing won't work, period. At that point, having wasted months already, they'll finally get around to talking more seriously to Zelensky. How those talks proceed then will depend on the start of this week's battlefield action. Also by that point, surely, some sort of appropriation will be needed for new Ukrainian arms, and of course will face trouble in the House.

So, approximately two months from now, skids may start being greased. But, even then, looking at it from now, we won't know where things will land.

Now, that said? Today, Mr. Skank, Deaf Secretary Pete Hegseth, said that NATO expansion to Ukraine was off the table and it needed to accept it wouldn't get pre-2014 borders. That still doesn't mean a lot as long as Trump is still sending bombs (and more) to Zelensky.

Also, an alleged upcoming meeting between Trump and Putin in Saudi Arabia guarantees no actual action. Donald Trump as peacemaker strikes me as nothing like Teddy Roosevelt. Besides, as of right now, the only guaranteed meeting appears to be representatives of both sides in Munich. And, all of this ignores what the response of Zelensky — or of European NATO members — will be to a proposed peace treaty by diktat.

Since then? It appears that for Trump, a Zelensky shakedown is first, an actual peace deal is second. Shock me. And, Zelensky has said no, at least in its current form.

I generally agree with the likes of John Mearsheimer and other paleoconservative types as well as fellow leftists that we need to get out of Ukraine; if an actual peace treaty is part of that, all the better. But, given that Transactional Don is at the helm, the possibility of this administration actually doing that continues to shrink. So, my header isn't a BlueAnon roasting of Trump; it's a leftist one.

December 20, 2023

A deeper dive on Dobbs, Putin, Zionist Nazis of the IDF and Gaza

Behind the scenes of the Supreme Court's ruling on Dobbs and the Roe reversal. One big issue is that the leaked draft, per the story, probably hardened all of the apparently locked-in conservatives, notably Kavanaugh, from joining Roberts on a controlling centrist opinion that would have granted Mississippi's original basic request of rolling Roe back to 15 weeks. I figured this at the time, but this is why I assume it was some conservative who leaked it, and precisely for that reason. As for the investigation of clerks by court marshals? Assuming it was a conservative clerk or two involved, winners write the rules, including whitewashing. The story doesn't discuss how detailed a report of the investigation Roberts gave to fellow justices.

As for whose clerk?

Arguably, a Roberts clerk could have said "what the fuck, I'll leak it" in order to box his boss in. Highly unlikely. Pissing the Umpire off could have backfired on future career prospects. A Kavanaugh clerk trying to force his boss's unsteady hand is much more likely. Whether that's more likely than a Thomas, Alito or Gorsuch clerk being the leaker, but for the reasons above, I don't know.

==

The Times Magazine reports on the shattering of trust between many more leftist Israelis and Palestinians after Oct. 7. Unfortunately, sadly, disgustingly, whatever, the story hits a chughole early on when it appears to accept all hasbara-type claims about the Tribe of Nova music festival at face value. And, while discussing rape, it only discusses allegations of rape by Hamas, not rape by members of the IDF, nor does it discuss if the Palestinian portion even raised this issue, lest it shatter what fragile alliance remained.

That said, as shown here in the States (where tensions are admittedly lesser) such fractures don't have to happen, per this Medium.

Reminder, via here and here, that Zionist Nazis in the IDF will kill Palestinian Christians just like Palestinian Muslims, and will attack churches just like mosques. But, the #ReligiousRight in the GOP and the candidates it herds, as well as "good Catholics" Joe Biden and RFK Jr., and good New Ager Marianne Williamson, whose "love faucet" doesn't flow to Gaza, won't tell you this. And, Israel's already out with the most blatant hasbara yet, on this. Jerusalem's deputy mayor says there are no Christians and no churches in Gaza. Worse yet, with an Arabic name, Fleur Nassan-Nahoum is presumably a Palestinian Christian willing to play Stephin Fetchit to Zionists just to attack Muslims.

Also, as seen in a Beeb interview and elsewhere, too many media professionals globally still work on the presumption that "Palestinian" without modifer = "Palestinian Muslim."

==

Great story, with the New York Times actually detailing a fair amount of the truth on how Russian President Vladimir Putin punked the Western sanctions world in general and Jeffrey Sonnenfeld in particular. Punked them he has, and contra Sonnenfeld's sneers (which ooze through the Internet's electrons), many of the new Russian owners, for the short term at least, are apparently running their new companies OK or even better than OK.

That said, the Times kneecaps itself by repeating the likely canard, which I first saw on Financial Times a week or two earlier, that the Russian economy would overheat some time next year. These are the same folks who claimed a year ago, just before Putin started doing these Russian-style Special Acquisition Vehicles of Muscovite capitalism (I see what I did there), that the Russian economy would be brought to its knees by American-led sanctions. James K. Galbraith ripped that claim to shreds with actual empirical evidence eight months ago; he or somebody similar may do the same with this.

==

Democrats hate on Tommy Tuberville for hurting the military. (In reality, continued and presumably rising problems with obesity in particular and fitness in general among the section of today's high school graduates that don't perceive better job opportunities elsewhere hurts the military far more.) If only someone would tell him, as I did on Twitter with that link, that abortion is legal in Israel.

Speaking of the health spectrum of today? Americans are shrinking as well as getting heavier. Blame Millennials and/or the corporate food they eat and/or are offered, or that they're not offered via cuts in food stamps and other aid directly to the poor, as both problems started about 1980.  On height? By countries of the world, Merikkkan men are barely top 50, and women aren't even that. 

As for Tuberville? This isn't a direct quote, but per an old MASH episode, you know what happens if he hurts the military enough? "Peace."

==

Cornel West thinks President Biden may pull an LBJ 1968. I doubt it. If nothing else, his "Irish Alzheimer's" will keep him from doing that. (And, contra others, I think Biden has more of it than many other people think.)

Chinese President Xi Jinping is reportedly offing more opponents. Mark Ames doesn't want to believe it, but Mark, somethings these things are real and you, like Counterpunch at times, need to drop a reflexiveness in your anti-American foreign policy establishement stance.

 


July 08, 2023

More on the Prigozhin reality vs MSN / Nat-sec Nutsack tales

First is the catalogue of issues laid out by Jack Rasmus. They include:

  1. Prig's own contract with Russia's Ministry of Defense not being renewed, so he was about to be out megamillions;
  2. His alleged meeting in Africa a few months ago with US and UK intelligence sources;
  3. The MoD's discovery of this just before Prig's mutiny; and
  4. The timing of this related to the launch of Ukraine's "vaunted" counteroffensive.

Assuming No. 2 is true, and 3 and 4 thus following, it's no wonder that Putin talked about "traitors." And, does Prig really think he'll stay alive long? As of Monday, there were rumors he was no longer visible. But, see below for the newest rumors.

Although Rasmus doesn't spell it out, it seems clear that much of Prig's blather about the military, at least as it worsened in the last few months, could itself be seen in the service of No. 2.

As for the future? Rasmus, like yours truly and many others who are honest, know we are now at "frozen war" status. Ukraine can't break through, but Russia doesn't have the power for a major extension of its lines, either. But, with the air and artillery edge, it can shell and bomb cities.

And, I wonder how much this all ties in with the Track Two, or Track 1.5 to be precise, backdoor diplomacy revealed earlier this week, which I discussed yesterday.

From there, we go to Rob Urie, and the background of a century of Western animus toward Russia. He says that Prig's challenging of Putin's raison d'etre for the war sounds like it came from the CIA Factbook. He also says that any US foreknowledge of the mutiny or whatever makes it look like a Maidan moment. More on that foreknowledge, also hinted at by Rasmus, is from the WaPost, linked by Urie. Was there more than foreknowledge? As in, encouragement? Incitement? Even assistance, to the degree that could be offered on short notice? 

Urie concludes by looking at Warmonger Joe's post-Prig comments, and says the bottom line is the West remains committed to fighting Russia to the last Ukrainian. That sentiment I'm sure is supported by Besotted Philosopher Jonathan M.S. Pearce and the other NOT secular humanist atheists at Only Sky.

Next, remaining with Counterpunch, is Jeffrey St. Clair's Roaming Charges of a week ago. He notes that the war can't truly be won by either Russia or Ukraine, but that it might not be possible for either side to fully lose. That starts with Putin surely facing ongoing guerilla war in whatever Ukrainian lands he still holds.

From inside Russia, Boris Kagarlitsky lays out four basic terms for peace. But, can they be met? St. Clair notes that both Brazil's Lula and South Africa's Ramphosa have been rebuffed, and that China's Xi benefits more from an ongoing frozen war. And, Putin would reject No. 3, the abandonment not only of the Donbas but also Crimea. So would I. If you have Putin pull back to pre-invasion lines but staying in the Donbas, and certainly the Crimea, I would accept that, if tied with the other three? Would Putin? Maybe. Would Zelensky? No, and therein lies naivete from a modified Kagarlinsky.

To riff on Max Planck's bon mot about the only way for a radical new scientific theory to get acceptance being the deaths of enough old scientists? Possibly the only way peace happens in the Russia-Ukraine war is the demise of both Putin and Zelensky.

And, just before this was going to post, but after I'd written most of it, we get a new plot twist, or new to me as of a day ago!

Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko, who negotiated the exile deal for Prigozhin, says he is is in Russia as far as he knows and definitely NOT in Belarus. Putin's spox, Dmitri Peskov blathered away on this possibility with a "we don't track people" comment, which is bullshit, given the raid on Prig's mansion.

Did the West spirit him out? Or, is he on the CIA dime, now as an agent provocateur inside Russia?

July 03, 2023

Prigozhin: Will this commissar also vanish? The more credulous precincts of the left never will

This is a reworking plus an expansion to a series of updates on my post a week ago analyzing Western mainstream media and Nat-sec Nutsacks' PR spinning after their would-be triumphalism over Yevgeny Prigozhin was dashed when his mutiny failed. It is also a crystallization of my thoughts about some leftist writers takes on the Russia-Ukraine war, and albeit not cited, even more of such takes scattered about Twitter.

A fair part of it is looking at, per Jeff St. Clair's bon mot of years ago over Julian Assange, "the more credulous precincts of the left." My one addition is that, per motivated reasoning, they're usually willingly credulous.

With that, we start with this old book:

 
The Commissar Vanishes:  The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's RussiaThe Commissar Vanishes: The Falsification of Photographs and Art in Stalin's Russia by David King
My rating: 5 of 5 stars

Excellent book.

After Stalin muscled his way to the to of the Soviet hierarchy, he of course then started muscling Trotsky and his allies aside. Later, he threw away people he had once used, of course.

As part of this, Soviet PR flunkies began "disappearing" people from official photographs. People like commissars of people's affairs, etc.

Hence, the title of the book.

On the flip side, a subtitle could be "Stalin appears."

For various reasons, he was not at a lot of early Revolutionary events in 1917-18. So, same flunkies started cutting him in.

King has "before" and "after" documentary evidence in both cases.

In some cases, this pre-Photoshop photoshopping was easy. In some semi-hard cases, it was done crudely. In others, it was done quite skillfully. As a newspaper editor and nature photographer, while decrying the playing with history, I have to salute the skill.

View all my reviews

And, we now look at those updates, starting with those willingly more credulous precincts.

John Helmer expects Prigozhin's fate will be similar to former Yukos boss Mikhail Khodorkovsky. Unlike Alexander Litvinenko, he did not take a Polonium 210 bullet in the ass, but was stripped of most of his assets before being pushed into exile. If Prig in Belarus is in house arrest, Helmer insinuates that the only way he gets out of that is by accepting similar punishment willingly.

The other biggie is that Helmer insinuates Shoigu and Gerasimov may stick. He also notes that, contra western triumphalism, Shoigu reportedly was IN Rostov, and knew of Prigozhin's plans in advance, at least the broad outline. So, while not fully a "rope enough to hang himself" scenario, it's something to that effect. It sounds conspiratorial, though; why wouldn't Prig be arrested before causing as much trouble as he did? Or, get the Litvinenko treatment?

Since Helmer's claims are based on state and semi-state media, this comes off as possibly being a case of Putin writing himself into the scene, even if he didn't actually know so much in advance, as in, in the wonderful book "The Commissar Vanishes," Stalin's photo retouchers often wrote him into the scene in pictures from 1917-18. Moon of Alabama goes down the same path, claiming that "orders were obviously given for everyone to stand down." Cuing Jeff St. Clair and his "more credulous precincts of the left" bon mot.

That said, since Helmer has a background of conspiratorial thinking, as noted by me here, let's turn it on its head.  Both Khodorkovsky and Prigozhin are half-Jewish. And, Chris Cook of Gorilla Radio, going by his Twitter, with as of the time of typing this, his 10th tweet being a retweet of a claim that Universal Basic Income is going to be enacted by a fake banking crash, engineered by banksters, using "Central Banking Digital Coupons"? Well, since Helmer, per my link just above, talked about the Rothschilds' past conspiring against Russia, this is obviously all a Jewish or half-Jewish plot, isn't it? Oy.

I'm not yet done with Cook, though. Half a dozen tweets below that is a retweet of RFK Jr at his antivaxxer worst, claiming the CIA conducted vaccine-based medical torture. Yes, MKUltra's Subproject 68 existed, but this is reading a LOT into it, and contra Orisanmi Burton at Truthout, and especially contra the artwork, I doubt even the CIA would have administered LSD, the main drug of Subproject 68, with a vaccine needle.

In another retweet, Cook has someone else calling Putin "soft" vs Recep Tayyip Erdogan when he put down the mid-level officers' mutiny in Turkey a few years ago, which inspired the title for this.

I'm also not fully done with Moon of Alabama. I've had previous problems with MoA, too, as with Helmer. See here for my take on his take on Sy Hersh and Nord Stream.

And, final sidebar on MoA's link about Prig? He also talks about the Kramatorsk attack. Just because one mercenary there may have had a sign related to the US 3rd Ranger Battalion this does not mean that any current US military is there. Lots of ex-US soldiers become soldiers of fortune.

Also contra these nutters is the fact that Putin used troops loyal to Chechen boss Ramzan Kadyrov to cut off Wagner, and not conventional military. Had Putin and his General Staff flunkies known about Prig's move in advance, they'd have been better prepared. That said, that piece itself is interesting, on how "tentative" Kadyrov's engagement was and how he, no less and possibly more than Prigozhin, looks out for himself first, Vladimir Putin second.

And, per this piece by UnHerd, I don't know how many of the "more credulous" accept at face value all of Prigozhin's claims that Putin was misled into the war, or at least some of its details, by Shoigu et al.

Finally, Helmer has a new piece, much of it actually looking at Prigozhin's right-hand-man at Wagner and its actual founder, Dmitry Utkin. Putin himself knew about Prig's graft and grift detailed in the piece, of course. And, contra his claims that the "special military operation" had de-Nazification of Ukraine as a major goal, he surely knows about Utkin's SS tattoos that are known to the public, and probably about others not revealed. Interesting that Helmer doesn't comment on that. Also "interesting" is that for a guy who has been reporting from Russia as long as he has, Helmer doesn't refer people to a blog tag for more about Utkin, but rather, his Wikipedia page.

Or, per an Unherd piece, especially for Helmer and others like Eva Karene Bartlett inside Russia, we could talk about Putin's useful idiots. That said, take Justin Ling himself with a grain of salt, or call him a "US-NATO useful idiot." Remember, no twosiderism!

===

For better information on Prigozhin?

An unlocked Radio War Nerd interview with Anatol Lieven has him calling more bullshit on the idea that Putin's Russia is about to collapse. Lieven also notes that Prigozhin seemed frustrated that all his previous videos were just not getting Putin's attention. At the same time, as also discussed in his second-latest piece at Quincy, at the end of May, Lieven notes that a proto-succession crisis may be starting to creep over the horizon. From there, on the podcast, Lieven says, siting the Kursk disaster, that Putin doesn't like to appear to be doing things under pressure. So, if that's the case, how long until Shoigu and Gerasimov get sacked? On the war itself, in April, he said the battlefield was already "frozen," due to a mixture of mines and artillery. He adds that the rich in Kiev act as unaffected by the war as the rich in Moscow. Finally, in his latest piece, contra #BlueAnon in the US, and neocons as well, and their equivalents in other NATO countries, he shows that this war shows the power of draftee infantry — and the need for it — and that NATO countries ignore this at their peril. Lieven concludes with the pressure on Zelensky's political future to not give up one inch. RWN host Mark Ames joked sardonically about a Jewish president and a stab in the back. (I know he was joking; that said, per the above?)

Joe Costello also briefly riffs on the mutiny, noting an exchange he had with Ames. He, like me, picks up on the parallels with America and Blackwater, while noting, indirectly, that we never had Blackwater patrolling the border with Mexico or making an excursion against "narco-terrorists" there. Indeed, this was playing with fire to use Wagner semi-domestically, but, that's part of how Putin was able to launch this as a "special military operation." Thoughts like these by both Costello and Ames also at least indirectly undercut Helmer, Gorilla Radio, MofA and others claiming that Putin had this all in hand, all along. This is why I'm a skeptical leftist.

But, not a skeptical leftist who's born a high degree of animus since the start of the war. And, so?

At Counterpunch Radio, Eric Draitser finally weighs in on the mutiny, but not until June 29, kind of an eternity in this world. Judging by the list of topics, he doesn't sound like he has any new insight, for the wait, and that his old insight probably isn't as good as Radio War Nerd. I mean, a week on, his rhetorical question second bullet point, and the expansion of that in his first 30 seconds, without mentioning the word "mutiny"? Indeed, that word is never used in the entire podcast. Halfway in, about "why it ended so soon," Draitser halfway peddles backdoor bank-shotted Nat-sec Nutsack rumors. He is better with rhetorical-question analysis about what could mean for Wagner in specific and Russia in general in Africa.

Worse? Sy Hersh weighs in with something that has even less new analysis of Russia than Draitser, but with plenty of ax-grinding against Warmonger Joe.

Assuming Helmer et al are at least half full of shit, none of the non-MSM analysis answers me "why" question, and that is, really a two parter: Why didn't Putin see this in advance and thus, why didn't he nip it in the bud earlier?

June 24, 2023

Quick thoughts on Prigozhin, Putin and Russia-Ukraine war

First, as of the time I write this, it appears that Yevgeny Prigozhin, leader of the Wagner Group mercenary army, is indeed focused on Moscow and President Vladimir Putin. Second, it appears he has not yet been seized.

Special update: Due to all the PR spinning by BlueAnon and Nat-sec Nutsacks about how much Putin has been "damaged" by the coup that wasn't, rather than continuing to post new updates here, I've instead done a new post about the spinning.

Is Russia taking serious precautions to stop a coup or coup light, while also working to arrest him before that can happen? Absolutely. Contra Nat-Sec Nutsacks™ leading light Kevin Rothrock, whom I mocked last night both seriously:

and sarcastically:

I don't think Putin is "seriously" panicked, but he is "reasonably" so, and more so with this developing more since last night.

==

Update, midday of this day, US time: Per Max Seddon and others, Belarus President Alexander Lukashenko has negotiated a "stand-down" by Prigozhin. Details still to come. Surely Prigozhin himself, as well as his troops, get an amnesty. To the degree any of his earlier bitching about the Russian Defense Ministry was legit, maybe a sacking or two?

Update to the update, 7 pm Eastern: Prigozhin goes into exile in Belarus; troops off hook, can still sign new contracts with Russia. No word on whether Prigozhin got Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu or Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov sacked or not. Kremlin spox Dmitri Peskov said that Prigozhin couldn't have discussed that with Lukashenko. (And, that's a lie, of course, and if he did discuss it, Lukashenko certainly could have, and likely would have, raised it with Putin.)

Here's why it's a lie:

Media reports citing Lukashenko's press service said the president engaged in extensive negotiations with Prigozhin throughout the "entire day" after establishing a mutual understanding with Putin. 
Before his negotiations with Wagner's chief, he held talks with Putin and they agreed on joint actions and “additionally clarifying the situation through his own channels.”

Simple enough and now back to the original update.

And, as I just said on Twitter, the #BlueAnon/#BlueMAGA hot takes of a coup in Russia written before noon Eastern time today look like they've fallen as flat as an overbaked souffle. 

Second update to the update, 7 pm: John Helmer weighs in and says Prigozhin never had officer support. He also notes, per the paragraph above, that Ukraine had no breakthroughs at this time. He also confirms the "Here's why" link information.

==

Is this as serious as the 1991 coup attempt against Mikhail Gorbachev and really against Boris Yeltsin? I think not. While there are surely state institutional level low murmurs of discontent against the war, Prigozhin has nothing like the old guard of state apparatchiks supporting him, mainly because, with Putin in power (including four years behind the scenes with Dmitri Medvedev) for more than 20 years straight now, there IS no "old guard" of state apparatchiks.

Prigozhin does have troops, yes. But, how many of Wagner will really follow him to Moscow, unless he promises the spoils of a Genghis Khan type sacking of the city? And, Chechnya leader Ramzan Kadarov has already come out against him.

The background to this is near the bottom of the story linked up top. The Kremlin wanted Wagner troops to sign contracts with the Russian Defense Ministry by July 1. This was clearly an attempt to put Prigozhin's troops on a tighter contract by having their final individual loyalty stated as being to the Russian state, not Prigozhin.

The question next is: Why didn't Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu or Chief of the General Staff Valery Gerasimov, or Putin himself of course, anticipate such an action? (I'm assuming that Prigozhin is lying about Russian uniformed military attacking Wagner troops on orders of Gerasimov, as his excuse for doing this.) And, why didn't one of these three have a polonium-210 pellet ready to be shot into Prigozhin's ass, a la Alexander Litvinenko?

The fact that nobody beneath Putin's level, especially and namely Shoigu and Gerasimov, was ready for this despite Prigozhin's repeated mockings of them over war-related issues even before this contracts issue, says that part of what Prigozhin has said about Russian strategic war conduct is certainly true. The fact that Putin himself wasn't more prepared may give fuel to the "he has cancer" claims or something. It is some sort of asleep at the switch issue, though.

As for likelihood of success? No more than the 1991 coup, IMO.

==

Per the update in italics, will either, or both, of Shoigu and Gerasimov get sacked as part of the deal Lukashenko negotiated? Possibly. Will Putin insert a minder into Wagner, beyond any minders he had there already? But of course, but how quiet, and how effective, can that person be? And per above, will that minder have a Po-210 pellet gun?

==

As for affecting the war? Of course it will will not, per the update above. Losing 25,000 troops from the front line, plus state troops to try to corral the Wagner units, for any length of time, will would weaken Russia's defense in depth, but it didn't happen. It will would, and maybe still will, only increase Putin's longer-term desperation. How much might it affect home-front morale? Well, Russian internet service providers, likely under state orders, are throttling access to Google News et al.

As for Prigozhin's claims leading up to this, about what was happening, and not happening, in Donetsk and Luhansk 2014-2022? More self-serving bullshit that, before he spouted these Westernized claims, had been refuted and proven untrue by Westerners, ex-Russians and ex-Ukrainians left, center and right.

And so, to finish, Prigozhin gets his own mocking:

==

In another piece, Helmer makes reference to the March 2022 Istanbul talks. Here's anon-paywalled description, albeit from a highly pro-Ukraine site. TLDR?

  • Russia withdraws to Donbas and Crimea, and official peace AFTER that
  • No NATO membership for Ukraine, but other security guarantees;
  • Ukraine, as part of offering this, insisted it should still get a NATO Article 5 guarantee;
  • No foreign troops on Ukrainian soil, period;
  • EU membership greenlighted;
  • Ukraine and Russia start negotiations on Crimea over a potential 15-year period;
  • Referendums in Ukraine and guarantor states.

My thoughts?

First one is a non-starter from Putin's POV. Crimea negotiations not highly likely to do anything.

October 21, 2022

Is Warmonger Joe a captive of the deep state on Ukraine?

Such is the thesis of this UnHerd piece, which makes me wonder yet more what I saw in the site when I signed up for updates. (An "updates" subscription, BTW, does NOT grant commenting privileges.)

And, it's another of wrong, or per the old physics mot juste, Not.Even.Wrong. pieces by Thomas Fazi. Fazi claims to be some sort of leftist, but has done nothing to show me that.

Anyway, his claim that Biden has been captured by the deep state, military-industrial complex, whatever, hinges on the recent explosion on the Kerch Strait bridge. Here's Fazi's nut graphs.

The fact that Biden hasn’t ruled out the possibility of meeting Putin at next month’s G20 meeting in Bali — an option he wasn’t willing to consider until recently — also indicates a potential change of strategy on the US administration’s behalf. 
But if this is the case, much will depend on Biden’s ability to stand up to the powerful forces of the US military-industrial complex pushing for the continuation and escalation of the war (as Kennedy had to do during the Cuban missile crisis). Some are even suggesting that the increasingly brazen attacks against Russia — the recent bombing of the bridge connecting mainland Russia to Crimea, likely at the hands of the Ukraine’s SBU security service, for example — might be attempts by America’s pro-war faction to escalate the conflict. 
After all, how realistic is it, as the former congressman Ron Paul asks, to assume that the Ukrainian government and intelligence services were able to conduct these operations behind America’s back? This leaves a couple of possibilities: either the Biden administration is fully on board with these actions, and supports the escalation; or there are elements actively working against the administration to derail any diplomatic solution — it certainly wouldn’t be the first time sections of the US intelligence had gone rogue. Of course, there is also the third possibility: the US has completely lost control of the Ukrainians, who are now engaging in terrorist activities behind the US’s back; it wouldn’t be the first time that had happened either, if we were to consider America’s role in the birth of al-Qaeda, for example.

Well, really?

First, going to the conspiratorial Ron Paul is a flag right there.

Second the bridge was not permanently disabled. The amount of damage that was inflicted signals a Ukraine-only operation, not involving US construction engineers, then sapper-type persons working off their knowledge. More here on the latest information about Russian claims of full repair timetable.

Third, Warmonger Joe himself said publicly, after the war started, that he hoped for Putin's being deposed as an end result. No deep state person had a gun at Biden's head, per White House staff scrambling to walk that back.

So, that leaves only the possibility that Zelenskyy is pushing away. But, that doesn't mean the US has lost control. Yeah, Biden has not fully indulged Zelenskyy's ask on specific weaponry, but Biden and Congress, including the Fraud Formerly Known as the Squad, have granted most of what he's wanted, and have so far refused to tighten the spigot.

Fourth, as for Biden talking to Putin in Bali? Five days ago — later than when Fazi wrote this — Putin said nyet.

September 22, 2022

Russia-Ukraine Week 21: Putin's on "planet of pink ponies"; still true, Putin tankies?

That, in the header, is the claim of Russian ultranationalist Igor Girkin. He's pessimistic about the war so far, thinks Putin's been lying to the Russian people about some problems, and wants more of a total war. And, per this piece, he's far from alone among Russian nationalists.

This all makes me laugh, because on Substack, Twitter and elsewhere, I've run into Russian apologist stable genyuses who claim that Generalissimo Putin is also a stable genyus as leader of the war effort. In reality, it's just another bit of twosiderism and tribalism. One can, like Pope Francis, talk about NATO barking at Russia while not endorsing Putin's invasion. One can oppose Warmonger Joe Biden's arms bazaar for Volodymir Zelenskky while also rejecting the idea that Putin knew what the fuck he was doing even before Ukraine got US-NATO resupply.

==

Of course, Putin has now ordered a partial mobilization. And, outside of Putin tankies (which I have never been one of) he's screwed the pooch on his referendums. Just Luhansk and Donetsk might pass half muster. But, the other two sites? Adding Kherson and Zaporizhzhia? Laughable. And, given international parsing of what Xi Jinping said at Samarkand, it looks stupid for that reason. Also, given recent Russian fighting efforts, trying to bite off referendum lands you can't chew also looks stupid. 

So, Putin Tankies, like the "Volkish" idiot I blocked on Twitter, or others I've seen on Substack? Stupid is as stupid does.

==

Speaking of? Zelenskyy wants Warmonger Joe to give him some long-range missiles. So far, Biden has said nyet. Will that stay the same after the election? Next spring in Ukraine, after the thaw ends and the mud dries, assuming fighting is still lingering? Or, will Putin's partial mobilization change his mind? If so, will Zelenskyy then ask for tactical nukes or something?

==

Will General Winter, exported westward, lead to an eventual Russian victory, as this author claims? I think he's being overly optimistic; at the same time, as I noted last week, Biden's plan to import liquified natural gas eastward to Europe also sounds overly optimistic.

September 15, 2022

Russia-Ukraine news week 19: Biden's LNG bailout for EU could backfire, and what about the SPR?

Warmonger Joe, as the European Union fears freezing its gonads off this winter, has talked about a liquified natural gas "bailout" for it. The Financial Times notes that could backfire at home, as quote-tweeted by Mark Ames.

Yes, natural gas prices are a lot cheaper here than there, but they're a lot more expensive here than they were a few years ago.

Now, as I noted in reply to one respondent to Ames, if Biden wants to keep being Warmonger Joe, he'll just wait until after midterm election day to make this start happening.

There's also other "fun issues" noted in that piece. New England states import LNG at ports. They don't want pipelines from Pennsylvania's fracked shale gas, though.

Then, there's the environmental concerns about LNG ports in general. But, see two paragraphs above.

There's yet other issues. It costs money to liquify natural gas for international shipment. Russian gas is a lot cheaper. But, gas, and not just for this reason, is less fungible than oil.

So, some "dood" claiming this:

Got refudiated by me:

And, that's that. 

Actually, not quite that. Since that tweet?

A restart on the Iran nuclear deal looks to be officially on the rocks. That's from the German Foreign Ministry.

UPDATE: Based on the Xi-Putin meeting in Kazakhstan, the New York Slimes alleges, in subhead and in body copy, that Putin's in deep doo-doo with Xi. For "analysis" to back that up, it quotes both a State Department spox AND one of the Nat-Sec Nutsacks™. Who is NOT quoted? Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov. The Associated Press has a much more balanced take

UPDATE 2: Initial long-range weather forecasts by the National Weather Service say that, into January, most the Sun Belt tier is likely to be warmer than average and most the rest the country is likely to be average, giving Gassy Joe more working space.

==

Meanwhile, speaking of oil? Warmonger Joe's sales from the Strategic Petroleum Reserve have lowered crude prices, and gas prices with them. But, they haven't lowered oil prices as much as I think he expected, and meanwhile, the Russia-Ukraine War drags on.

So, does he replenish, as he said he would, at $80/bbl? BUT...

Doesn't that take oil back off the world market, therefore raising prices again?

Remember, Mohammad bin Salman already told him that no more Saudi oil was immediately forthcoming, and that in five years, KSA would hit Saudi Peak Oil at just 1 million barrels a day more than now.

So, does Warmonger Joe hope that people have less vacation time planned in winter (drought and heat out west mean less skiing, amirite?) and that he can sneak in some buybacks before March (also hoping that General Winter on the steppes means less fighting)?

==

Meanwhile, meanwhile, as Ukraine's counterattacks are at least moderately successful, more local-level Russian politicos are calling for Putin to step down.

June 30, 2022

The Putin-Macron phone call — the REST of the story

Cue up your Paul Harvey dulcet tones.

Many media sites, especially across the pond, reported earlier this week on a Feb. 20 call between French President Emmanuel Macron and Russian President Vladimir Putin, with Putin flippantly (allegely flippantly) telling Macron, "To be honest, I wanted to go play ice hockey" rather than have a summit with U.S. President Joe Biden to cut off the looming Russian invasion of Ukraine. Here's the Daily Mail's version.

The rest of the story? 

It starts with Putin complaining to Macron about Ukraine breaking the Minsk Agreements. As they have. And, this is important because France and Germany were the lead negotiators of these Minsk Agreements, and Putin is telling Macron, not just did Ukraine break them, but you know they did.

We need direct quotes at this point. Here's Putin:

'What can I say? You yourself see what is happening,' retorted Putin, accusing Ukraine of rupturing the Minsk accords that reduced the scale of a conflict that erupted in 2014. ... 
'In fact our dear colleague Mr Zelensky is doing nothing' to apply the Minsk accords, Putin alleged. 'He is lying to you,' he added, also accusing Macron of seeking to revise Minsk.

And, here's Macron.

'I don't know if your legal advisor has learned law! As for me I just look at the texts and I try to apply them,' snorted Macron. 
Putin then argued that the propositions of separatists in eastern Ukraine should be taken into account. 'But we don't care about the propositions from the separatists,' snapped Macron.

With that, it's obvious that Putin wouldn't really want to talk to Macron much more either. That's especially true since the "separatists" were promised autonomy within Ukraine under the Minsk Agreements that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, like his predecessors, was breaking.

And, after that, we have Macron letting the cat out of the bag:

'Do not give in to provocations of any kind in the hours and days to come,' he told Putin.

So, provocations, eh? And Zelenskyy not acting alone in this, perhaps, but rather, as I said in my piece about peace talks, NATO "barking" at Russia, per the one and only Pope Francis.

Rather than, like the Daily Mail, and whover its "they" is that thinks Macron came off as weak, rather, I think he got busted on trying to play "good cop" to Biden's "bad cop."

March 15, 2022

Texas Progressives: More primary post-mortems

This corner of the Texas Progressives Alliance has no idea where the people of Ukraine honestly stood on things like NATO expansion before the Russian war, so won't claim it knows where to stand with them, and leaves that at that while introducing this week's roundup.

Texas Monthly has the post-mortem on Harris County primary vote-counting and Isabel Longoria. Why County Judge Lina Hidalgo hired such a hack, and what this may say for her longer-term political future, who knows? 

Democrats won't win more races until they recruit better candidates. (As the piece notes, many potential such candidates refuse to do the dirty work on statewide races.)

And, related to that? Dem primary turnout was down, GOP numbers were up, the Observer notes. Personally, I doubt it's primarily due to SB1; rather, it's anti-Trump animus driving Dems in 2018 vs. anti-Biden animus and the GOP today. Add in a more sharply contested GOP gubernatorial primary and there you go.

As for that bill? The Trib reports 18,000 mail ballots rejected in the 16 largest counties. But, we don't know the GOP/Dem split on this, nor statewide numbers, nor the GOP/Dem split on them. Off the Kuff rounds up news reports about mail ballot rejections from the 2022 primaries.

The Observer dives in to the GOP AG runoff between Kenny Boy Paxton and Pee Bush.

The Texas Signal takes a deeper look at that Abbott-supporting oligarch's lawsuit against Beto O'Rourke.

Department of Family and Protective Services, already short-staffed and already under a federal court order about its family services, is the agency Strangeabbott picked to meddle into family privacy on issues of transgender and transsexual children and medical and related issues. (They're two different classes of people, folks.) Rightfully, a judge put this on hold.

Collin College is facing its third First Amendment lawsuit from an ex-professor.

Internationally, Anatol Lieven has a good take on the real elites connected to Putin: Not the oligarchs, but those who rose to power with him in the post-Yeltsin world. Interestingly, his long-time Foreign Minister, Sergei Lavrov, gets only a listing, and no discussion. Stand-in President Dmitri Medvedev doesn't even get a listing.


February 26, 2022

Ukraine: The Putin endgame and result?

For important background reading on how we got here, first read my story on broken promises on NATO expansion (plus the history of Ukraine as a nation-state, or not), and then the violation of Minsk Agreements by all parties involved.

People who actually think outside of boxes better than Max Blumenthal and Aaron Maté are appalled by Putin. This analysis is very good, noting that Putin had won most of what he sought without firing a shot, but then went off the rails. But comments there note that new fiscal sanctions will probably do little more than the ones already in place. Russia has much more oil than, say, Iran, has little debt, has a more robust general economy and had even, during the past few years, become a food exporter.

James Dorsey, whose thought I greatly respect, offers a stellar take, not calling Putin mad, unlike that UnHerd link, but maybe ... "truculent"? He also differentiates Putin's endgame from Xi Jinping's. I think this is a better take. Putin's not mad. This is calculated, as his "the only nationalism is Russian nationalism in the lands of the former USSR and Tsarist. Russia" have the same take on Kazakhstan as Ukraine. (Dorsey offered this opinion before Putin opted for a more "general" war.)

Dorsey, in line with the comments at UnHerd, notes Putin has amassed great amounts of reserve currency and cut dollar-denominated trade in half. Plus, oil is fungible.

As for sanctions and their effectiveness in general against authoritarian governments? Dorsey references Iran. Pre-invasion Iraq might be another example.

That said, I've said in the past I don't know what Dorsey's big political stance is. That is, how much does he align with the US bipartisan foreign policy establishment? Quoting Anne Applebaum may provide a clue. 

Meanwhile, pivoting from that to the bipartisan foreign policy establishment in general? The WSJ notes how misunderstanding and underestimating Putin has been a long bipartisan affair across multiple presidencies.

Simon Sebag Montefiore called Stalin the "Red Tsar." Maybe, using "Black" not in the sense of anarchism nearly as much as European-type libertarianism, we should call Putin the "Black Tsar."

He's a tsar who does go back pre-Stalin in another way: Caesaropapism appears to be part of his drive. This UnHerd piece notes his appeals to religious nationalism. It also notes Ukrainian Orthodoxy declared itself autocephalous in 2019, backed by Constantinople but rejected by Moscow.

At the same time, other allegedly independent thinkers can be worse than Blumenthal and Maté. At Counterpunch, Patrick Cockburn thinks this will turn out for Putin like invading Kuwait did for Saddam Hussein. I find that more unlikely than likely. Cockburn is right, that American military aid to Ukraine has perhaps gone down a deeper hole than in Afghanistan.

And, with Putin opting for a more general war, the outcome may not be so good. Daily Beast reports that basically "green" draftees are being put in the front line. What's to stop them from deserting, like in World War I of the actual tsars?  Unlike the Red Tsar, Putin doesn't (yet, at least) have the equivalent of commissars at the front, shooting not only deserters but anybody who doesn't give 110 percent. Related to that, the story notes that Russian troops have "regrouped." "Marching to Georgia," either from the Sherman-era original, or Putin's previous intervention in the Caucausians, this is not, perhaps. Related to that? We have to remember that, even though Putin has revitalized the Russian economy, it's still a nation that had entered population decline until 2010, though Putin may have temporarily fixed that, with increased immigration in the last decade. That ain't lasting, either. See here for details.

At the same time, those vaunted sanctions? A day or two after their imposition, they looked like a mix of toothless / aid to big banksters. (Update: Since then, they seem to have more teeth, but still not necessarily THAT much more teeth, even as Putin laughs all the way to the bank with oil prices climbing 50 percent in less than a month.)

February 21, 2022

Notes on Ukraine for Wilsonian interventionists and Putin-haters: history, Minsk Agreements, more

(Note: I eventually broke out some of the bottom half of this piece, and added specific new material, for a second blog post focused on the Minsk Agreements. Note 2: I have now written up a massive longform piece about all the intellectual and plain old dishonesty of twosiders — and even beyond twosiders — over this war.)

Ukrainian President Zelensky spoke in Munich at the start of the week. Of course he did. Symbolism pitch! That said, re Munich, has he discussed how his own government remains at least partially co-opted by neo-Nazis, including militias like the Azov Force allegedly part of the state guard, but in reality having co-opted it? Of course he hasn't. Let's not forget, per what happened at the Maidan in 2014, arguably a coup, that the Azov Battalion isn't alone as a neo-Nazi type group. The Nation has more.

The easy place to start would be James Baker's pledge (not actually Poppy Bush's) to Mikhail Gorbachev not to expand NATO eastward, a formal pledge tied to German reunification, since West Germany was a NATO member, and besides, Helmut Kohl was ambiguous about staying in NATO. That said, Poppy himself never rejected Baker's "not one inch eastward," and all NATO foreign minsters in 1990 signed off. George Washington University has a long read about the full backstory. The backstory has been reported elsewhere besides that Guardian piece linked first, like at mainstream political blogs such as Washington Monthly.

Brookings, "shockingly," spins the hell out of this and cites Gorby in a legalistic fashion. It doesn't tell you that, even if taken at face value, things like stationing missiles in Poland has violated even the "no NATO military force moved eastward," let alone a broader "no NATO membership moved eastward." And, Gorby's successor, Putin, understood the broad meaning, per the Guardian. Besides, what Steven Pifer won't tell you at Brookings is that we the US as leader of NATO, with the Shrub Bush-crafted NATO missile defense agreements, violated even that narrow Gorby version. Beyond that, the fact that each new NATO member has armed forces that have participated in NATO exercises, etc., show just how much the likes of a Pifer are spinning. (The one and only good thing in this Beeb piece is showing the number of such troops in post-1997 NATO countries.)

Update: MUCH more on the NATO expansion issue, and the lies of the lies of Anne Applebaum, at Boston Review.

Update: Per Covert Action, Biden's Defense Secretary Lloyd Austin told Zelensky just last fall that the US still officially backed its joining NATO.

But, really, you need to go back to pre-1918.

Czarist Russia was a traditional empire, and, other than the late addition of the largely Turkic-language Central Asian lands being administered separately, it did not have separate ethnic or linguistically based administrative divisions. It DID have internal lower-level administrative divisions, but not ethnic or linguistic ones, unlike the USSR.

Indeed, a map of 1914 Czarist Russia at Wikipedia shows that except for Poland (a separate kingdom ruled by the czars before 1864 — it was really Russian internal territory after that, legal fictions aside) and Finland (a separate grand duchy), governates, the main administrative division below the imperial whole, did not follow ethnic or linguistic boundaries at all.


As for Ukraine? No such country existed at the time its current lands were acquired, in a series of wars and other actions, by Moscow. In general, the Crimea and chunks of eastern Ukraine, the "Wild Fields," were held by khanates that were fragmentary descendants of Genghis Khan's Mongol world, along with various free-roaming Cossack groups. Northwestern Ukraine was part of the Poland-Lithuania commonwealth. Bits of southern Ukraine belonged to the Ottomans. (And other parts of it, for at least part of this period, were the Khanate of the Crimea, which was often under some degree of Ottoman supervision.) And, as shown above, no such region called "Ukraine" existed afterward.

As far as ethnic and linguistic boundaries, or linguistic ones? Much of the northeastern portion of today's Ukraine was Russian-majority pre-1918. Russian emigration to "left-bank Ukraine" started in the 1800s. So, tankies and western imperialists alike can blame Commissar of Nationalities Uncle Joe Stalin for drawing bad borders. They can also blame Nikita Khrushchev for adding Crimea to Ukraine when he was premier. (That said, the Donbas area, with its two small separatist "republics" just recognized by Putin, has had a plurality, if not a majority, of Ukrainians by ethnicity, but a Russian majority by language. For example, Mariupol is split almost exactly even on ethnicity, though a large Russian majority by language. And, to riff on a Counterpunch piece, said recognition by Putin would seem to be an anti-confidence building measure.)

Don't believe me? See this map from Moon of Alabama about the expansion of Ukraine, including left-bank Ukraine.


Oh, read the post, too.

Here's a good map of language pluralities in Ukraine's regions, from Wikipedia's article about that:


In short, there hadn't been a Slav-led (or quasi) "Ukraine" as an independent country between the last days of the old Kievan Rus and the breakup of the USSR. And, even Kievan Rus only extended to a limited area of today's left-bank Ukraine, most of which at that time was non-Slavic, plus, until its breakup, even if they spoke Slavic first, they were still Vikings by descent. Where we're at, in one sense, is something halfway akin to Sarajevo 1914.

Re the neo-Nazis? Let's not forget that during the Russian Civil War, the then-area of Ukraine was a hotbed of Whites. World War II saw the Vlasov Army and other things, of course.

And, neo-Nazis aside, as this actually good story from the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette testifies, Ukraine, like Russia, has its share of corrupt oligarchs.

(Of course, a Hahhhvahd like Kimberly St. Julian-Varnon will blithely ignore the NATO meddling issue, and also pretend that ethnic or linguistic Russians in Ukraine don't exist, and not even look at larger framing issues, after claiming in a tweet that this was never about NATO. I quote-tweeted to say that I'd accept it never was SOLELY about NATO, but never about NATO period? Wrroonnnggg. 

And, try this analogy on:

You can thank me later.

You also won't be told that Ukraine was supposed to write a new constitution as part of the Minsk agreements, officially recognizing decentralization and Donbas rights. In reality, it's still running on its 1996 Constitution with early 2000s pre-Minsk amendments. Reuters notes "violations by both sides," which Julian-Varnon, Noah Smith etc won't tell you. Full text in English here.)

At the same time, contra Mark Ames, Yasha Levine, Max Blumenthal, Aaron Maté and the other allegedly outside the box stenos who actually come off in many ways Putin-stanners, Putin himself, before invading Crimea, did pledge not to violate Ukraine's territorial integrity. That one's in writing, too, albeit pre-Putin, of course. And, that pre-Putin? 1994 was also pre-NATO expansion, both in terms of expanded membership and definitely the narrower planned or actual troop presence. So, Putin, with that agreement theoretically being tied to larger Eastern European security issues, can argue the US and UK broke it first. Or, he can argue that the US has broken that Budapest Accord via economic bullying, also specifically verboten.

Steven Pifer either knows all this and is duplicitous, or he doesn't and he's an idiot above his pay grade.

Many people are quoting Biden's CIA head, William Burns, a former ambassador to Russia in the BushCo era, for what he told his boss, Condi Rice. I'm linking to a particular Substack:

Ukrainian entry into NATO is the brightest of all red lines for the Russian elite (not just Putin). In more than two and a half years of conversations with key Russian players, from knuckle-draggers in the dark recesses of the Kremlin to Putin’s sharpest liberal critics, I have yet to find anyone who views Ukraine in NATO as anything other than a direct challenge to Russian interests.
I link there for two reasons. One, Nonzero calls out the Munich bullshit, started in this case by Zelensky himself quite willfully speaking there. Two, he links to Peter Beinart, who has more insight, including noting that Burns wasn't alone in his thought. And, in a petard moment, Beinart notes that ... Steven Pifer called Bush's statement that Ukraine would eventually join NATO "a real mistake." Bonus: A commenter at Nonzero notes that even Teapot Tommy Friedman says the US and NATO "aren't innocent bystanders."

 

Now history doesn't actually rhyme, whether as farce or tragedy. It's also neither cyclical nor determinist. So, because Ukraine has barely existed in the past doesn't mean it shouldn't exist today. But, it does mean that the issue of what Ukraine is, is not so cut and dried as most Americans may think.

At the third time, because history is often overdetermined, though not deterministic, Russia does have a history of meddling in Ukraine. Remember the poisoning of Viktor Yushchenko? On the second hand, that happened after the first expansion of NATO, in 1999, and after its second expansion, earlier in 2004. That's not to "justify" Putin, as I don't in general. But, it IS to offer background.

July 23, 2021

Best proof yet there was no Trump-Putin collusion? Or not?

I know #BlueAnon continues to claim there was, like Emptywheel (Emptyhead?) Marcy Wheeler did long ago, including narcing on a reporter and then never naming who it was, and other unethical items.

I know that there's no evidence Trump got help from Russia, though, contra the allegedly outside the box stenos  — the same old group of names, including, on various issues, Aaron Maté, Mark Ames, Yasha Levine, Ben Norton and Max Blumenthal, along with fellow travelers that at times include Matt Taibbi, Glenn Greenwald and others who should know better, and conspiracy theorists like Jimmy Dore and his fellators (typed that all out this time so I can do a copy-paste) — there's plenty of evidence Russia meddled plenty in 2016, including but not limited to hacking BOTH the DNC and ALSO the RNC computers, creating both pro-Trump AND pro-Clinton Facebook groups, etc., and succeeding far beyond Vladimir Putin's dreams.

As for actual collusion? Yes, Trump asked Julian Assange for more DNC-hacked emails. But? We don't know if Assange at the time knew his source. And, even if he did, he surely wasn't telling Trump. So, Trump-Assange "collusion" is not Trump-Putin collusion.

As for post-election but pre-inauguration meetings? Flynn's meetings were generally legal. Besides, the country who likely got the most help? Israel, via Flynn's meetings with Turkish cutouts. Take that, Zionists within Blue MAGA, and shut up.

Besides, all along, I've said Vladimir Putin is way too smart to have hitched himself to a flighty weathervane like Donald Trump.

And, we now have proof Putin was thinking exactly that.

Business Insider reports (but SECONDHAND) that leaked Kremlin docs called Trump an "impulsive, mentally unstable and imbalanced individual who suffers from an inferiority complex."

On the other hand? The Guardian, from whom BI is pulling (and this is why it's always important to go back to the original) claims that some of the documents claim they had the dreaded "kompromat" on Trump.

Seriously? Is the Guardian overreading into things, or is Putin that dumb, too? You can't compromise someone who has no sense of shame. And, though this was before the leaking of the "grab 'em by the pussy" old tape, Trump's semi-macking on Ivanka was old news, as were other things.

Finally, contra BlueAnon and BlueMAGA, as well as the Guardian, Trump WAS tougher on Russia in some ways, at least, than Obama.

And, Business Insider talks to better intelligence experts than the Guardian did. By the time I was done with the Guardian, I was believing what Thomas Rid and Chris Krebs told BI: Deliberate disinformation leak, or at least possibly so. Krebs even goes one more and says much of it could indeed be real, even all of it, but yet a deliberate leak.

Putin's playing chess again, knowing Trump wants to run in 2024. And, he knows that BlueAnon is still suckers for the "kompromat" angle. (That part, especially since it points to an appendix the Guardian docs mysteriously don't include, reinforces my idea that this is indeed legit but misdirection at the same time.

Or, to use another word? Catfishing. The Kremlin knew Dum Fuqs would continue to bite on kompromat. One doesn't have to be Aaron Maté pandering to semi-wingnuts at Real Clear Investigations to know that.

August 09, 2019

Assange, Seth Rich, Russian election meddling
and other whataboutism gap, part 2

I'm sure that, even with the Mueller collapse before Congress, some of the usual whataboutism folks on Seth Rich in particular and Assange's connections with Russia, more broadly, and Russian general interference in 2016 elections, most broadly, will bray from the rooftops that this is all a fake.

That would be, per Jeff St. Clair of Counterpunch, the "more credulous precincts of the Left."
To which, I quoted from the Tweeting of Jeff St. Clair I had done earlier in the day, starting with the background of and link to what St. Clair said:
Followed by this quote, which I later sent to the "more credulous precincts of the Left":
Followed by the other half of the quote:
There you go.
 
(Sadly, St. Clair, along with managing editor Joshua Frank, have crappy editorial control in general over free[lance] submissions that they publish, as he's let his own site fuel this bullshit.)

The "more credulous precincts" of the left is delusional indeed if they're citing Ty Clevenger, and saying that Isikoff was trying to get out in front of him. But they are:
And, if just 1/10th of this CNN exclusive about Assange in the Ecuadorean embassy is true, even though it doesn't mention Seth Rich, the "more credulous precincts" will have to double or triple down on that.

First, the timetable issues. Assange receiving new computer equipment shortly before the original, early 2016 hacks from the DNC.

Second, the fact the embassy gave Assange power to censor names from visit logs would explain why at least one visitor wore a bag over his head.

I have noticed that more credulous precincts of the left haven't talked much about the CNN piece, at least not on my Twitter.

Is there anything illegal with wearing a bag over one's head to visit the embassy? Of course not. But in London, the world's capital of government surveillance video, it's surely being done for a reason.

And, as I have said before, the RNC reported a mix of successful and unsuccessful hacks against its computers in 2016. GOP Congresscritter Michael McCaul publicly admitted it until the RNC hauled him on the carpet. Comey publicly discussed it. The Seth Rich conspiracy theorists, and the Assange whatabouters who try to avoid going explicitly down that road, generally maintain tight radio silence on this issue. (And, by this point? Ignorance is no excuse. Others besides me have mentioned this, too.

IF (and this is a big if), Assange had ties to Russian intelligence, when did they start? IF 1/10th of the information at the CNN piece is true, how much did it connect to the Assange indictment? Was that behind the pending indictment six months ago on initial leak?

Removing 100 hard drives, with the help of persons who Assange had gotten the Embassy to guarantee could not be searched, doesn't look good either.

If 1/10th of this is true ...

As for claims (yes, affecting the case, but legally unsubstantiated one way or the other) that the Internet Research Agency isn't directly connected to Russia? Aaron Mate waved this like a flag.

And Big Fucking Deal. China's Red Army makes the same claim all the time about its hackers. Do you believe that, too, Aaron? If you really do, I've got beachfront property in Wyoming to sell you.

And, are you also pretending that Russia's extended cyberwar against Estonia a decade didn't happen? Or are you going to claim Russia didn't do that?

The one possible alternative that I would accept as credible is that the IRA is connected to Russian organized crime, not the government, per Sy Hersh's theory on the Skripal poisonings.

==

Meanwhile, it appears that a high percentage of Seth Rich conspiracy theorists are also TulsiTwerkers.

Update, Dec. 9, 2020: The fact that RNC computers as well as DNC ones were hacked undercuts the Seth Rich leaker thing right there. Unfortunately, for a while, I listened too much to bullshit artists like Aaron Maté (you ARE, on this, Aaron, shut up!) who said "cloud computing" and "mirrors" etc. were no substitute for the real thing. Well, when you use cloud servers, Aaron, that IS the real thing. If you're that much of a gasligher, you too can go fuck yourself along with Clevenger. If you're that much of an idiot, again, shut up. Ditto for anybody else repeating that nonsense.

March 02, 2019

Mueller Report realities

I have long believed that there has been no collusion between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. (Indeed, per links below, no such federal crime called "collusion" even exists.)

So, as we await the Mueller report, here's a summary of thoughts related to it, most of which have been held by my for many moons.

First, Putin's too smart to trust a flighty weathervane like Trump. And, in any case, Michael Cohen testified that no Steele dossier type of blackmail-able information exists. Frosty Douthat has a good roundup.

Second, Russian government spinoffs doing low-dollar meddling to confuse voters (and by social media activities that were both pro-Trump AND anti-Trump) is NOT "collusion." It IS, though, election meddling of some sort. (I know we've done that, too, but this post isn't about twosiderism or whataboutism. It's about where we're at on the pending Mueller Report.)

Third, yes, Trump may be laundering Russian mafiyya $$$ and rubles through his real estate empire, but that doesn't mean that Putin's masterminding the money laundering, let alone doing it for reasons related to Point the First. Again, he's smart enough to stay generally detached on something like that. Beyond that, he's "got his" to the tune of $200 million or something, so he doesn't need (more?) Russian mob money.

Fourth, although Julian Assange is NOT a journalist (he's not, and neither is Edward Snowden; neither have actually worked as journalists in any old or new media outlets), he's not an agent of the Russian Federation, either. BUT, he has LONG left himself open to that charge by not only not cultivating leakers inside Russia, but also not collating known leaks. As reported by Daily Beast, though, another group, Distributed Denial of Service, IS doing that as part of its work. In turn, while Assange continues to camp out at the Ecuadorean Embassy in London and it's a situation I don't like, it's also not a situation I cry too big a river about. I digress ...

Fifth, I understand how the 25th Amendment works better than Andrew McCabe.

Sixth, a Democratic Party that has lost two Electoral College votes this century should focus on amending the Constitution, not litigating the past election. You too, sheepdogging Bernie.

Seventh, at the same time, contra ShirtLost DumbShit Haller and many others, I do believe that, per points second and fourth above, there WAS an actual Guccifer 2.0. (Not sure what the likes of Mark Ames and Yasha Levine think on this one and it doesn't matter to me.)

Being known, like others, by my online enemies of sort, like Marcy Wheeler and the rest of the Kossack Dead-End Kids, per this, and other vaguely Donut Twitter types, convinces me of whereof I stand. That said, sadly, Bernie Sanders believes much of this, too, it seems.

Eighth, per Aaron Mate, up through mid-March, Mueller had yet to indict anybody for conspiracy with Russia. (That would be the actual charge, since "collusion" doesn't exist.)

With that all said, I present a great in-depth analysis of where we're at on the Mueller Report. Yes, it's the Washington Examiner. But, per Media Bias Fact Check, while they slant stuff at times, the information / facts are usually solid.

Former federal prosecutor Renato Mariotti largely agrees at Time. And, he says "both sides" (ignoring that there are really more than two sides to the issue) could well be disappointed. That said, the Donut Twitter side has set itself up for its disappointment. As Mariotti notes, there is no such federal crime called "collusion." (That may still be news to Emptywheel, Bmaz and the other Kossack Dead-Enders.)

What we really have, as I see it, is a lot of Donut Twitter wishing criminal law worked like civil law — preponderance of evidence instead of beyond a reasonable doubt. But, that AIN'T the way it works, quite fortunately.