Roundup
(1) Here’s a good summary of the Michigan “kidnapping” case and the FBI’s involvement. Perhaps we should rename it the FBE: Federal Bureau of Entrapment. Here are some interesting things that I hadn’t remembered. The first is that – if I’m interpreting this correctly – the future defendants were identified as suspicious by none other than Mark Zuckerberg of Facebook:
Facebook chief Mark Zuckerberg testified to Congress in October 2020 that Facebook had “identified” the Whitmer kidnap plot “as a signal to the FBI about six months ago” regarding “suspicious activity on our platform.”
But the plot didn’t exist at that point.
The second is how SCOTUS enabled the FBI’s move towards more flagrant entrapment by making if far more difficult for defendants to claim it as a defense:
Prior to the 1970s, defendants often successfully challenged entrapment as a violation of due process. But in 1973, the Supreme Court, in an opinion written by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, gutted most defenses against government entrapment by focusing almost solely on the “subjective disposition” of the entrapped person.
If prosecutors can find any inkling of a defendant’s disposition to the crime, then the person is guilty, no matter how outrageous or abusive the government agents’ behavior. Justice William Brennan dissented, warning that the decision could empower law enforcement agents to “round up and jail all ‘predisposed’ individuals.”
Justice Brennan would get to say “I told you so” if he were still around.
(2) Russia makes nuclear threats if Sweden and Finland join NATO. See also this:
One of Russian President Vladimir Putin’s closest allies warned NATO on Thursday that if Sweden and Finland joined the U.S.-led military alliance then Russia would deploy nuclear weapons and hypersonic missiles in an exclave in the heart of Europe…
Dmitry Medvedev, deputy chairman of Russia’s Security Council, said that should Sweden and Finland join NATO then Russia would have to strengthen its land, naval and air forces in the Baltic Sea.
Medvedev also explicitly raised the nuclear threat by saying that there could be no more talk of a “nuclear free” Baltic – where Russia has its Kaliningrad exclave sandwiched between Poland and Lithuania…
Lithuania said Russia’s threats were nothing new and that Moscow had deployed nuclear weapons to Kaliningrad long before the war in Ukraine. NATO did not immediately respond to Russia’s warning.
Can’t imagine why they’d want to join up, right? As I’ve said before, in the Hotel Russian Empire you can check out any time you like but you can never leave.
(3) Elon Musk is trying to buy Twitter:
Elon has offered to buy Twitter for $43 billion in cash. He wants to take it private and “transform” it into “the platform for free speech around the globe” (his words).
The left thinks the idea of a Twitter that allow people like Donald Trump to tweet is anathema.
Russia’s in a hole, so it keeps digging. I have a feeling this is just deeply embedded in the political culture. You face a problem, and your go-to response is a mix of blackmail, bullying, and force. A cutting critic of Putin noted he’d been outmaneuvered by the likes of Victoria Nuland.
On Sweden and Finland, a government official in Lithuania said it’s a hollow threat as the Russian nukes have been in place for years, and everyone knows it.
Elon Musk is my favorite Billionaire.
He has done more for Humanity in his 50 odd years than the entire democrat party in the last 50 years.
FJB!
So moving nuclear weapons inside your own borders to be a few hundred miles closer to another country is a “nuclear threat”?
So if we announce we’re moving some of ours into Alaska or Guam, we’re making “nuclear threats”? I just want to be clear on the principle being established in the media here.
Kaliningrad IS Russian territory since WWII. In justice it shouldn’t be but the same can be said for large chunks of Poland (used to be Germany) and Ukraine (used to be Poland).
And it’s not like they’re not already there, don’t know about Alaska though.
I agree with Tuvea. Elon Musk makes the Left insane. This is a very good thing. I hope he pulls off the Twitter purchase.
Frederick:
The US policy regarding nuclear weapons on Navy ships going to Japan for instance was we “neither confirm nor deny their presence.” That was a big deal in the Cold War.
And your point about Alaska and Guam vs Kaliningrad nukes is relevant somehow? Whom would we be threatening, Canada?
BTW USAF interceptors used to carry nuclear air to
air missiles. And it is likely that USAF planes now in Alaska have nuclear capability. Likely, IDK. Do you know?
@om: I never said that I thought moving nukes from part of my country to another was a “nuclear threat”. If the media decides it now is, then there’s a lot more “threatening” going on. That’s why it’s relevant. Of course the media won’t mind reversing themselves on this if it helps the Dems.
I guess some would argue that as long as you move your nukes with a pure heart then it’s not a true “threat”?
As for threatening “Canada”, if you check a globe, you will see that Russia shares a border with Alaska. It’s not a land border, true. Alaska is closer to Vladivostok (the only Russian warm water port and home of its Pacific fleet if it has one), as well as Beijing, than any place in the lower 48.
So if we don’t have any in Alaska, and we move them there at some point, I’d not want people to have a habit of calling that sort of move a “threat”.
Frederick:
Vladivostok is where the Russians base their Pacific boomers and their Pacific fleet (they have one). Offshore of Vladivostok was where the USN tapped into the USSR’s seabed military communications cable back in the Cold War.
If you check your, whatever,
you may discover some people know what a globe is. It’s kind of important for geologists to know, but for some physicists, IDN.
“So if we don’t have any in Alaska, and we move them there at some point, I’d not want people to have a habit of calling that sort of move a “threat”.” Frederick
From a strategic security perspective, of course Russia would view emplacement of nuclear weapons closer to Vladivostok as a strategic threat. So too would the Chinese view emplacement of nuclear weapons closer to Beijing as a strategic security threat. The less time to react to a launching of nuclear weapons, the greater the strategic concern.
If you listen to the Legacy Corporate Media propa-babble, then Russia is becoming a bigger and more erratic menace by the day.
But I came across an interesting graphic today that sort of brings things into focus a bit, for me: The US defense spending budget was about $778 billion in 2020. The next 11 highest countries, combined, come to $761 billion, and Russia is #4 behind China and India, and just ahead of the U.K., Saudi Arabia, and Germany. After China,they’re all less than $100 billion each.
China is the menace, not Russia.
1) Disband the FBI
2) Why can’t the Russians understand that NATO’s eastward expansion is a reaction to the fear of Russia’s westward expansion?
3) There’s little doubt that finding a way to prevent twitter from being returned to a free speech platform is high on the left’s priority list. Obviously an Executive Order is called for… maybe a declaration that national security requires that publicly traded companies cannot return to private ownership. After all, that would be a threat to democracy itself.
“China is the menace, not Russia.” Aggie
Not to… the connected.
Poland, Latvia, Lithuania,Estonia, Slovakia, The Czech Republic, Germany, Norway, Finland, Sweden, Ukraine, … all those “unconnected” peoples.
Astounding that they are so common. And unthreatened.
Geoffrey Britain said: ” Why can’t the Russians understand that NATO’s eastward expansion is a reaction to the fear of Russia’s westward expansion?”
Probably because the West has actually been expanding NATO since before Glasnost and has methodically encroached on Russia’s western boundaries, getting closer with each NATO country.
– 1990 (German Reunification),
– 1999 (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland),
– 2004 (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovienia),
– 2009 (Albania, Croatia),
– 2017 (Montenegro)
– 2020 (North Macedonia)
These are all years in which NATO expanded its list of participating countries, and each one of which moved inevitably closer to Russia and consolidated the mass of countries in its proximity. What should Russia be understanding from this message?
I’m no Putin apologist but if you check out the map (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Enlargement_of_NATO) you might ask yourself what the US’ response might be if Justin decided to claim himself a rightful heir to papa Castro’s legacy and make the final turn to Socialism in Canada while Mexico and most of Central America decided to flip Red and arm themselves against the Yankee menace. I believe this is the right analogy to choose. Putin is dealing with a lot less GDP and economic leverage to support his foreign adventure in Ukraine. But it’s not hard to see what his motivation is. He’s been poked for 20 years by an encroaching West that has maintained its innocent motives while doing the opposite, and he’s had enough. I say, let Europe and the EU defend the hole they’ve dug for themselves.
It’s also quite easy to understand Putin’s reaction to the prospect of Finland and Sweden joining NATO if you look at the map at this link and include those countries.
What is the West really up to with this, while China implacably continues to actually expand its military presence in the South China Sea and actually is taking steps with trade and monetary policy to undermine the west? Even Democrats can’t be as imbecilic as that to not recognize the threat, but here we are.
Let’s just think about it. All those countries with a shared common experience with Roosian conquest and Roosian rule for some reason wanted nothing to do with it when not forced at gunpoint,
Inconceivable, but there it is. So easy to understand when you look at things from Vlad’s point of view. You really don’t want to read what’s Vlad’s point of view is, do you? He hasn’t been reticent. It’s not rainbows and unicorns. “I’m no Putin apologist” (?) but it sucks to be them.
With any luck it will soon suck even more to be Vlad,
FWIW, I knew an ex-sailor in college who told me his ship (a carrier, can’t recall which one) absolutely unloaded her nukes before making port in Japan.
Meanwhile, the “Leader of the Free World” sinks further into senility.
See the enclosed clip, where, after finishing his speech, Biden pivots 90 degrees with his hand out–as if to shake the hand of someone on stage–stares vacantly for a few seconds as he discovers there is no one on stage to shake his hand, pivots another 90 degrees so his back is to the audience for several seconds—perhaps Biden is gesticulating and talking to himself here?–then, he pivots another 90 degrees, and shuffles off the stage.
We are obviously in the best of hands.
See https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-10720467/Anyone-Biden-sticks-hand-appears-shake-air.html
The left thinks the idea of a Twitter that allow people like Donald Trump to tweet is anathema.
It’s hilarious to read the earnest pleadings by knowitall ‘progressives’ for preventing just anyone from having a platform to express a thought or opinion. It’s as if Alfonso Spagoni ‘just isn’t one of us’, and should give his opinions only in unpublished letters to the editor.
P.S.–At what point does ol’ “Lunch Box Joe,” Herr Professor Biden, the guy who used to drive 18 wheelers, the guy whose father slaved away in the coal mines, the guy who faced down Corn Pop with just a chain wrapped around his mighty fist, get so bad that he has to get “the Hook”?
It seems to me that we are fast approaching that time.
@Snow on Pine:At what point does ol’ “Lunch Box Joe,
3 times now he’s shot off his mouth in a way that could get us into war. 3 times now they’ve had to “clarify” that just because the President says it in front of the whole world doesn’t mean the American government will actually act on it.
Elon Musk is not perfect, but who is John Galt? I’m so excited, I even bought a tiny bit of Twitter. This feels like we are starting to turn the arc of “history”.
@Snow on Pine
The invisible hands Joe was shaking were those of swing state voters who put him over the top in 2020. Reminds me of the Jimmy Stewart movie Harvey.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CvhMmWZmTOQ&t=12s
After a whole bunch of Western leaders have shown up in the Ukraine, in Kyiv, the White House says there is no plan to send Biden there.
I guess the White House thinks it would be a bad look if they had to send Biden over with a note pinned to his jacket, telling people how to return him to home if they find him wandering around Kyiv, mumbling to himself and pushing a half wrecked shopping cart he’d somehow liberated.
}}} Elon has offered to buy Twitter for $43 billion in cash. He wants to take it private and “transform” it into “the platform for free speech around the globe” (his words).
“I’m sure this is some kind of a violation of antitrust laws. We must make sure it doesn’t happen”.
– Brandon’s SEC –
“This is clearly an attempt by racists to control the entire internet. Musk needs to be examined carefully. Get out the proctoscopes.”
– Brandon’s Justice Department –
}}} Elon Musk is my favorite Billionaire.
He has done more for Humanity in his 50 odd years than the entire democrat party in the last 50 years.
Yup. I’m still holding onto hopes that he’ll finally be the billionaire we’ve all been waiting for, and become Batman.
😀
Yeah, he’s a bit old to become Batman at this point, but … he could FINANCE Batman, at least. 😛
}}} So if we announce we’re moving some of ours into Alaska or Guam, we’re making “nuclear threats”? I just want to be clear on the principle being established in the media here.
Well, if the USA does it, certainly. The media will be caterwauling against it in moments.
I will grant there is precedent, in Khrushchev vs. Kennedy: Moving missiles into Turkey, and then Cuba, it established the not entirely invalid notion of increasing proximity as a nuclear threat.
Probably because the West has actually been expanding NATO since before Glasnost and has methodically encroached on Russia’s western boundaries, getting closer with each NATO country.
– 1990 (German Reunification),
– 1999 (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland),
– 2004 (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovienia),
– 2009 (Albania, Croatia),
– 2017 (Montenegro)
– 2020 (North Macedonia)
You need a geography lesson sister. The last four admissions were tiny countries running parallel to the Adriatic and adding them didn’t bring NATO any closer to Russia. All the other admissions were perfectly and the admissions process was implemented over a period of seven years. There’s a reason they took an interest in joining NATO, as the last two months have instructed us. (Haven’t instructed you, however).
Albania was at one time a member of the Warsaw Pact. It withdrew from the organization de facto in 1961 and de jure in 1968. The other three countries are derived from Yugoslavia, which was never a member of the Warsaw Pact.
}}} The US defense spending budget was about $778 billion in 2020. The next 11 highest countries, combined, come to $761 billion, and Russia is #4 behind China and India, and just ahead of the U.K., Saudi Arabia, and Germany. After China,they’re all less than $100 billion each.
China is the menace, not Russia.
Wait. India is #2, then? OK, not to disagree with your overall assertion, just pointing out. India spending more money than China is nontrivial. We in the West don’t really think about global “historical enemies/enmities” (being as we really have none), but India and China are indisputably an example of such (Think France vs. England or France vs. Germany. Or any of the former Yugoslavian states. Or Turkey vs. Armenia).
If one of them is arming up, then so will the other, in equal amount. One of the arguments about giving Pakistan nukes was the triumvirate move:
Many today don’t know (or remember) that France overtly and deliberately gave China their nukes. They did it after the Cuba standoff. One obvious reason for this is that it formed a triumvirate: If the USA or Russia attacked the other, tried to take them out, then the two would both lose and China would win. Debatable reasoning in The Real World, yes, but nontrivial in the world of Power Politics.
Triumvirates of power are remarkably stable. If one leg of the stool gets too long, the other two combine power to hack it back down to size. In the USA, this triumvirate is the reason for the triple branches — the SCotUS, The PotUS, and the Legislature (yes, it’s very much out of whack right now).
For the former USSR, it was the Army, the Communist Party, and the KGB.
After Stalin died, and Beria (KGB) started to get too powerful (he had “files” on everyone, mind you), the Army stepped in and took him out. This released the shackles on the Army, so the Party stepped in and deposed some of the Generals. And this stabilized the system back down, and the USSR went back to “normal”.
Arguably, this explains/justifies why Clinton gave nukes to the Pakis. As a lesser natural enemy of India, it stabilized the threesome into a triumvirate, so that none of them wanted to go against their main nemesis.
Anyway, this is just to consider as applicable and of some relevance.
I still agree with the overall premise, that the actual threat still remains China, especially given the realization of
SovietRussian military ineptitude vis-a-vis The Ukraine, but this is because China has strong eyes on Taiwan (another of those kinds of enmities, which, as with The Ukraine and Russia, they refuse to give up).Taiwan is a major industrial powerhouse, as is Korea, Japan and Indonesia. If China can rattle its saber and get them to knuckle under, it is nontrivial, politically. And China probably can. Japan needs to step itself up onto the military stage to act as a counter to China Foreign Military Adventurism, as it’s clear the USA is being weakened in that arena by our Fifth Columnists, despite still having substantial power — we lack the will.
(1) Putin is a butcher, thug, and all-around stain on humanity.
(2) The actions of the west vis-a-vis NATO expansion, various revolutions/coups that we’ve supported in the Ukraine, and the like, may not have been the best policy and predictably provoked Russia.
Numbers (1) and (2) can both be true at the same time, and indeed are. Failing to understand that will just lead to more situations like the current Ukraine war. I’m reminded of John Kerry, then Secretary of State, when Russia seized the Crimea in 2014. He seemed genuinely shocked and claimed that Putin’s actions were not 21st century moves, or something to that effect. I was dismayed that we were being governed by such idiots. Aggressive actions towards neighboring countries should be expected in any century that happens to include human beings.
We may not be interested in great power politics, but great power politics are certainly interested in us.
Regarding entrapment – it really hurts to admit that Justice “count-to-five” was right, but in this instance I think he may have been.
}}} These are all years in which NATO expanded its list of participating countries, and each one of which moved inevitably closer to Russia and consolidated the mass of countries in its proximity. What should Russia be understanding from this message?
You act as though NATO were not a primarily defensive organization.
There is no way in fucking hell that NATO, without a massive, exceptionally visible restructuring, not just of itself but also of the EU, could possibly act as the armed offensive force of a United Europe.
In case you hadn’t noticed, the EU is in general trouble and disarray, not a position where it could — even were it inclined — be moved to adopt NATO as its defacto military arm akin to the US Army, and act as a unified tool to project military might of the EU to other places.
This argument — that Russia could be fearful of NATO being near to its territory for reasons of possible offense — is so preposterously ridiculous that one must rationally question the motives or intelligence of anyone asserting it as either being lying (motives) or imbecilic parrotry (intelligence).
tl;dr: It sounds flat-out stupid if you are not a complete moron.
Pure and simple:
The only reason/way expanding NATO could “threaten Russian interests” is that it limits Russian capability to threaten its neighbors — something Russia has certainly done multiple times not just in recent history but going back for centuries.
…as leaders around the world assemble their aids and advisors and ponder:
What is the sound of one hand shaking?
(As though they don’t already know….)
File under: Yes we koan!
– – – – – –
Meanwhile, revenge of the realists (or should that be, alarmists? Realist-alarmists?):
“The West Needs WWIII”
https://www.zerohedge.com/geopolitical/west-needs-wwiii-martin-armstrong-warns-theres-no-return-normal-here
It looks like war is the preferred reset when none of the other “resets” works…
The actions of the west vis-a-vis NATO expansion, various revolutions/coups that we’ve supported in the Ukraine, and the like, may not have been the best policy and predictably provoked Russia.
There were no ‘revolutions / coups’ in the Ukraine outside your imagination. Victor Yanukovich fled the country in the face of street demonstrations when the security forces and his own party abandoned him. He was replaced by the speaker of the legislature according to constitutional processes. That man was in turn replaced by an elected successor (who was, five years later, voted out of office in favor of Zelenskyy).
And as we mull what one hand shaking might actually mean—my own feeling is that he felt (feelings being such an overwhelming driver in the current WH) he was shaking hands with “The smartest man I know”—remember: whatever you say, DON’T say “hyperinflation”
“Peak Inflation Is Just Wishful Thinking”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/personal-finance/peter-schiff-peak-inflation-just-wishful-thinking
Key graf:
“Forty years ago, we used entirely different CPI than we use today. And as far as I can tell, we are generally missing the mark by about half, meaning that if we use the 1981 CPI to measure the 2022 price increases, we probably would see a year-over-year rise of 17%, which is twice eight-and-a-half.”
…especially not in Turkey…
“Turkey Mulls Jail For Publishing ‘Unapproved’ Economic Data”—
https://www.zerohedge.com/political/turkey-mulls-jail-publishing-unapproved-economic-data
That “unapproved” is a really nifty touch….
– – – – – – – –
And in other “not even fake news” it does seem that Janet Yellen has finally thrown in the towel with regard to the economy (“smart” move on her part given her role in its destruction) and has decided to try her hand at international relations (another “smart” move given the current vacuum in that department).
Pretty clear that in her case, at least, the vacuous abhor a vacuum. Besides, she really couldn’t do much more damage than she’s already done…so why not?
Art Deco said “You need a geography lesson sister. The last four admissions were tiny countries…..”
I’m not any old lady’s sister, thank you, and my geography is just fine – in fact, I referenced a map, and then said: ” These are all years in which NATO expanded its list of participating countries, and each one of which moved inevitably closer to Russia and consolidated the mass of countries in its proximity”.
OBloodyHell said: “Wait. India is #2, then? OK, not to disagree with your overall assertion, just pointing out…”
No, China is #2, and India is #3; as I said: ” After China, they’re all less than $100 billion each”.
Here, let me simplify things for you:
http://www.pgpf.org/blog/2021/07/the-united-states-spends-more-on-defense-than-the-next-11-countries-combined
As for your subsequent post, I’ll let your thoughts stand on their own merits.
I’m not any old lady’s sister, thank you, and my geography is just fine – in fact, I referenced a map, and then said: ” These are all years in which NATO expanded its list of participating countries, and each one of which moved inevitably closer to Russia and consolidated the mass of countries in its proximity”.
Repeating a factually untrue statement does not make it a correct statement.
And in other “not even fake news” it does seem that Janet Yellen has finally thrown in the towel with regard to the economy (“smart” move on her part given her role in its destruction) and has decided to try her hand at international relations (another “smart” move given the current vacuum in that department).
It is Jerome Powell et al who are responsible for the inflation. It is Congress which is responsible for the spending puke.
“Forty years ago, we used entirely different CPI than we use today. And as far as I can tell, we are generally missing the mark by about half, meaning that if we use the 1981 CPI to measure the 2022 price increases, we probably would see a year-over-year rise of 17%, which is twice eight-and-a-half.”
We wouldn’t use the 1981 CPI because the distribution of consumer expenditures varies over time.
Aggie at 8:40
each NATO country.
– 1990 (German Reunification),
– 1999 (Czech Republic, Hungary, Poland),
– 2004 (Bulgaria, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania, Romania, Slovakia, Slovienia),
– 2009 (Albania, Croatia),
– 2017 (Montenegro)
– 2020 (North Macedonia)
These are all years in which NATO expanded …. What should Russia be understanding from this message?
Well, let’s see.
Most (all?) of the nations you cite either were part of the USSR (and not by choice) or members of the Warsaw Pact military alliance. ALL of the nations you cite have had first hand experience with the Russian boot on their necks since 1945 and/or for the previous hundreds of years.
So what Russia should understand is ;
“why are all these former allies seeking, voluntarily and willingly, to join a military alliance that was established specifically to deter Russia and it’s Warsaw Pact allies?”
The notion that it’s NATOs actions, post 1991 or so, is total BS; pure, unadulterated Russian propaganda / disinformation.
Russia / Putin seeks to establish, yet once again, an Imperial Russia. Putin has stated that Ukraine has ALWAYS been “Russian.”
What part of that do you not understand?
Russia sent in it’s army to Hungary in 1956, to Czechoslovakia in 1968, it allowed E.Germany to build a wall around Berlin in 1961, Russia sent it’s army to E.Germany in 1953, and more recently invaded Georgia, Crimea, etc.
Yep, you’re right; I just don’t understand why all these nations you cite desired to join NATO.
I just don’t get it.
Well, soon you may be adding Sweden and Finland to your list of “threats” to Russia.
Yep, you will soon have the opportunity to explain why they too will deserve to be invaded by Russia.
Let’s see, street demonstrations, egged on by two sitting United States Senators, lead an elected leader to flee the country after security forces side with the crowd.
Nope, no revolution there at all. How could I have been so foolish?
I’m not defending Yanukovich BTW, but we have to live in reality about what happened.
Yeah, United States Senators are truley, Shirley, a force on the stage of world events such as Maize Hirono and Elizabeth Warren. I’d certainly follow them to the gates of Hell, or not.
Now it is possible that in 2014 there were even more forceful and impressive US Senators, say Lisa Murkowski or Susan Collins to guide those as they risked their lives in Ukraine?
I seriously doubt that the Senators had any effect whatsoever.
John Tyler said: “Yep, you will soon have the opportunity to explain why they too will deserve to be invaded by Russia.”
When did I ever say anybody deserved to be invaded by anybody, and when did I say that Russia has the right to invade Ukraine? I will say this, again: I am not a Putin apologist. I’m not defending or endorsing the Russian aggression, it’s an outrage, just as the invasion of Crimea was an outrage during Obama’s lax stewardship. I’m just interested in understanding the motivations, and very interested in seeing the EU and NATO fix their own problems.
ALL of the nations you cite have had first hand experience with the Russian boot on their necks since 1945 and/or for the previous hundreds of years.
Albania and Yugoslavia were not Soviet satellites. Albanians were under the boot of their domestic tyrants. Yugoslavia was throughout the postwar period one of the least abusive Communist countries in Europe.
I’m just interested in understanding the motivations,
They want to rebuild the Soviet Union and it’s satellite pool, with some amendments. Conquering the Ukraine was to be step one.
We already have Biden’s fake White House set, and as Biden’s decline becomes so obvious that it is no longer possible to ignore and/or spin, what’s to prevent the real people behind the throne from using modern technology, CGI, to present us with a synthetic, fake Biden image that moves and talks–a President Biden who appears to be competent, and talks to us via video–to buy themselves time?
They just need to make up some excuse for why Biden can’t leave the White House or be seen in public, and to reassure us by getting enough lackies to claim to have seen Biden (perhaps in a small public setting) and, say, “oh, yes, I just saw Biden, and he’s in great shape. “
I’m not defending Yanukovich BTW, but we have to live in reality about what happened.
Yes, we should. I’m telling the truth and you’re lying. That’s the reality.
The only official who departed office was Yanukovich himself, whose term was due to end in a year. (Sort of amusing how the Putin press agents in fora like this seem to think he was legitimately President-for-Life and should have been in office this whole time or get the idea that Zelenskyy has been in office for 8 years when he’s been in office for 3). Yanukovich himself was hardly a paragon of legality. His opponent in the 2010 presidential election was cooling her heels in prison at the beginning of 2014.
The sequence of events in the Ukraine in 2014 has since 1990 occurred about every three years in one or another Latin American country (Argentina, Paraguay, Bolivia, Peru, Ecuador, Guatemala, Honduras have all been through this, Ecuador multiple times). It attracted sustained notice just once, when the Chavez wannabe in Honduras was bounced out of office in 2009. (The Obama Administration and the minor red-haze lobbies (NACLA, WoLA) were most displeased, because the left’s just not supposed to lose). The Putin press agents tell us this was a fantastic political cataclysm when it is in fact something that is filed away and forgotten just about anywhere else in the world.
@Art Deco:how the Putin press agents in fora
Can you stop doing this? It’s inflammatory and the person you have responded to has already disavowed being pro-Putin.
It’s enough, surely, to say that someone is wrong without saying they are an agent of Putin?
In re Elon Musk & the Twitterari: there are lots of stories by pundits wallowing in the schadenfreude of it all, to be filed under “if the Left didn’t have double standards they wouldn’t have any at all” — this one does a good summary.
https://thefederalist.com/2022/04/14/elon-musks-twitter-bid-proves-the-private-business-can-do-what-it-wants-censorship-defense-was-always-garbage/
This PLB post by David Horowitz is concerned mainly with the double-standards of our resident Congressional Communist, but gives a short bio of Musk down toward the end, as a Capitalist contrast.
I didn’t know all that – he really is amazing.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2022/04/the-unbearable-lightness-of-bernie.php
Can you stop doing this?
No, it’s apt.
Lead with an argument that suggests a misunderstanding of geography, follow it up by noting the various nations along the Adriatic Sea that joined the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. Lol
@Art Deco:No, it’s apt.
Aggie has commenting here a while and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t work for Putin. It’s not right for you to say so. As you’re doubling down I can see clearly I am not misunderstanding you and that you are deliberately smearing people.
Shirley reads minds and knows the evil that lurks in the hearts of others.
People repeat talking points from Vlad’s apologists but may not be apologists, just carriers of the spin.
@om Sorry Om, but Geoffrey and Frederick are in the right here. The fact is that moving nuclear weapons around one’s sovereign territory does pose a threat to those in range of them, even if relations are otherwise warm. That doesn’t mean it isn’t a sovereign right of the country in question or that it will quickly lead to hostilities, but I can hardly fault Frederick for asking what benchmark we will use to judge both Russian actions and our own.
One of the major reasons I have condemned those whitewashing Putin’s crimes- and even come to verbal argument with Geoffrey- was from using tortured standards or not evaluating things fairly. I’d be even more of a hypocrite if I did not apply that to the Russians, regardless of my feelings.
@Bauxite
Fair point, and it is worth noting that one of the official terms for the events of Euromaidan in Ukraine itself are the “Revolution of Dignity.” So it’s not like this term is entirely out there.
That said I do think it tends to underplay the importance of Yanukovych being challenged by his own Democratically-elected Rada (for things like trying to sic the army on the demonstrators), their decision to order him to appear on the floor to answer questions (which led to him fleeing the country), and the subsequent vote to strip him of office.
Turtler:
We disagree for the basic reason that Frederick and Geoffrey are ever so strident in considering the potential actions and dark motives of the US and the West but not so concerned about what Vlad has said and the actions of Vlad.
Aggie has commenting here a while and I’m pretty sure he doesn’t work for Putin. It’s not right for you to say so. As you’re doubling down I can see clearly I am not misunderstanding you and that you are deliberately smearing people.
No, I’m characterizing them in ways that are apt but which you find inconvenient. (You’re also in the business of attempting to persuade people that you do not understand metaphor).
@Turtler: Thanks for demonstrating reasonable disagreement by example. Unfortunately there are some regulars who simply will not stop smearing people. While they stick to good faith disagreement I engage with them, but once they start up the smears I just try to ignore them from that point forward.
@Aggie Don’t think I have seen you around, so meeting. Well, seems like you are missing a few things. So let’s discuss.
I’d say it is certainly becoming a more erratic threat for various reasons, not unlike the PRC is, but that’s for directly opposite reasons. It’s acting erratic not because it is getting bigger but because by basically every metric it is growing smaller: Demographically, Economically, Militarily, in terms of Credibility.
I’d say embrace the power of And. China is The great conventional menace (as opposed to the Iran Regime and Salafis, who I would argue are the unconventional menace), but Russia is a lesser conventional menace. Particularly worth noting since Russia and the PRC have been working to increase their cooperation for years and the PRC is generally playing diplomatic wingman for Russia in this war.
This is accentuated by the fact that Russia has some experience and specializations that the PRC at present lags behind in. When talking to a friend who at a minimum convincingly claims to be a retired US Air Force Intelligence Officer why Snowden fled to Russia rather than the PRC (or others such as Switzerland or Sweden) he argued it was because Russian intelligence such as the SVR and FSB are much better at “asset protection” than the PRC is. Likewise while the Russian Navy has rarely been a distinguished service for the past quarter of a millennium they are still much more versed in naval doctrine and building than the PRC is, as shown by how the PRC is listening to them like a student and buying up old Russian/Soviet Ships.
So for practical purposes I think we should regard Russia and the PRC as interlinked threats. Perhaps not inherently or inseparably linked ones, but acting in such close concert that we should expect most actions by one to have at least partial support of the other’s knowledge and resources. Nor should we assume that the PRC’s superiority and role as senior partner in the relationship as a whole means it is the greater threat in all aspects.
Still, I am more concerned with the Islamists and the domestic despotism than I am with even a Russo-Chinese alliance for now.
There’s a lot wrong with this, so let’s start:
Firstly, as Art Deco pointed out, the nations from 2009-now added were not growing closer to Russia but instead branching off to the side in the Balkans. Which on some level might help consolidated “the mass of countries” but aren’t really in its proximity. A trifling and side issue, but still.
Secondly: Glasnost as official Soviet policy started in 1986, well before the date you specify.
But all of that pales in comparison to..
Thirdly and most importantly: All of this comes decades after Soviet expansion into the heart of Europe and elsewhere, erected by Red Army Bayonets and cemented by “Chekist” scheming to eliminate even those free governments that were elected after the Soviets moved in, as the fate of the last free Hungarian and Czechoslovak elections showed.
Which unsurprisingly was the proximate cause for the collapse between East-West relations and close to the heart of the cause for the Cold War (the actual heart being the old Bolshevik and Marxist determination to spread the revolution globally and without mercy).
Unsurprisingly, this bred in both the West and these nations a desire to not be subject to Russian expansion ever again. Which is why most of these nations stampeded to join NATO as fast as possible.
Moreover, I’ll note that this was reinforced even after the end of the Cold War with things such as the Transnistrian, Abkhaz, and South Ossetian Wars, which showed that the Kremlin was not above inflaming old wounds in order to destabilize the nations in its “Near Abroad.” It also underlined an urgency to get in NATO because the Bear turned its gaze to you, since NATO does not accept members with ongoing unresolved territorial disputes.
Putin has actually not helped this, since nations that emerged out of the USSR and sought neutrality or non-aligned status generally became much more prone to invasion or destabilization from Russia.
Offhand?
“People don’t like you for some reason.”
And
“If you want to help prevent nations from joining NATO, you should prevent nations from WANTING to join NATO. So perhaps you should adjust your foreign policy approach and use less stick and more carrot?”
It’s also worth noting that Putin tends to be incredibly demanding and harsh even to his own clients in the “near abroad”, making a lot of demands and sustaining a rather counter-productive tariff war even with the likes of Yanukovych in Ukraine (the dude whose ouster helped spark the war but who was elected to office in 2010 by promising to use EU Negotiations as a means of economic triangulation) and Belarus’s Lukashenko (a man who if anything is even more pro-Russian than Putin hmself).
We’ve already seen that analogy play out, and the answer is surprisingly muted. Take a look at the Castro legacy in Cuba today and the “Bolivarians” in power in Venezuela.
The US was never quite as all-powerful or all-intervening as the likes of leftists like Gabriel Garcia Marquez and the like enjoyed claiming, and it has gotten quite a lot LESS interventionist in recent decades. If you don’t know that, take a look at the remarkable lack of response the US has had to the likes of our old enemy Comandante Ortega reclaiming power in Nicaragua and proving himself to be the totalitarian, repressive monster the old Cold Warriors claimed he was.
The US will certainly try and deny legitimacy and destabilize these regimes when it finds that economical or at least unlikely to be too disruptive, but try finding the last major combat operation the US did in the Caribbean Basin and you’ll see the issue.
Honestly, yes it is and emphasizing NATO expansion is probably more of a distraction from the real cause than an analysis of it.
It’s at this point that I remind everybody that the proximate cause of this war starting in 2014 was Putin’s own Ukrainian Client-President Yanukovych negotiating with the EU for an Association Agreement. Which Putin responded badly to and which he used his pressure to force Yanukovych to climb down from in exchange for what the Ukrainian public (including many traditionally “Blue”/Pro-Russian parts of it like the Donbas Rust Belt) viewed as humiliatingly inadequate concessions.
Which is one reason why Euromaidan took both Yanukovych and Putin by surprise and why they generally resorted to such harsh and overkill measures even before it turned violent. Which ultimately culminated in Yanu’s own Rada removing him from office on the grounds of refusal to answer constitutional questions.
And rather than wait for any kind of indication on what the “new” Ukrainian government would be like- either in its interim form or in a more permanent post-snap-election one- Putin invaded Crimea and the Donbas on nakedly false pretenses, claiming the Spetznaz troops going around capturing and/or shooting baffled Ukrainian troops around Crimea were not really his.
Before admitting that yes they actually were (at least in Crimea; they still maintain the thinnest of strands of deniability in terms of the troops that went into the Donbas in 2014).
After the fact they tried to justify this with assorted untrue bullshit about “protecting ethnic Russians” from “Ukro Nazis” or some stuff. But we know this isn’t true because not only did Putin have to LIE about his reasons and the very involvement of Russian troops at the start, but also the fact that you can land troops to defend people and assets without freaking holding fake elections to annex the region. The USMC spent a lot of time acting as a QRF in the Caribbean for more than a century, but you’ll note that it didn’t respond to things like rebelling Nicaraguan Generals by annexing the Bluefields to the US.
So merely chalking this up to “NATO Expansion” is provably inadequate to explain Putin’s actions and that of the wider Kremlin. I’m sure that they play a significant role in the Kremlin’s mental space, but the Russian Military even before Putin and NATO expansion happily dabbed its toes in to intervening in Moldova and Georgia’s internal wars, and again the proximate cause of the War in Ukraine was arguments over an Association Agreement with *the EU.*
I think on this we have to go back further and to a much more basal level. Ukraine is an immensely rich and strategically important region, and one that Russian nationalists have been claiming for centuries is not only the birthplace of their nation but is populated by people who are not merely “fraternal” peoples but are in fact parts of the one Great Russian People..
Which has led Russian regimes throughout history- Tsarist, Soviet, and now post-Soviet- to try and enforce “unity” on Ukraine and its people, not merely politically but also culturally and economically. Even back in 1654 Hetman Khmelnitsky was rather frustrated and worried at the terms the Tsar’s diplomats gave him at the Congress of Pereyaslav due to how rather little shrift they gave concerns about Cossack autonomy. He ultimately signed them because he was in a major war with the Polish-Lithuanians and needed the help, but came to regret it. It’s worth noting that he and his successors would spend the next decades up until Poltava negotiating with other powers (Sweden and even the hated Polish-Lithuanian and Ottoman Turk enemies) to try and loosen the bonds.
For their own part the governments in Moscow usually responded with tightening the leash and conducting campaigns of extermination and terror ranging from “their political adversaries” (which I suppose is fair enough) to “those trying to express Ukrainian cultural forms at all.” Hence things like Pyotr the Great’s Harrowing of the Great Fields in the second half of the first decade of the 18th century, the Late Romanov censorship of Ukrainian Culture, the Ukrainian Holodomor in the Soviet Union, et cetera.
We also know that Putin shares or at least openly expresses this view, with things like “On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians”.
There’s also plenty of practical reasons, since Ukraine’s “Black Earth districts” were a hearty supplement to Muscovy’s rocky fields, helping to fuel the population boom that made Russia first a Great Power and then a World Power and which nearly helped bring the USSR down when the Axis captured most of them in WWII. Add that to the coal of the Donbas and the ports, and you have a potent reason to want it.
NATO and the EU in these cases are less of a threat less in their own right (Though they unquestionably are) but because they serve as an alternative to Russian dominance. One which – if chosen- would utterly cripple Russia’s long term hopes of power.
Which I think explains Russian policy throughout history and especially now FAR better than merely pointing to NATO expansion and talking about “Look at how Putin must be worried!”
Ok, sure, Putin’s doubtless worried, but that doesn’t change the fact that Ukraine isn’t in NATO, wasn’t going to be joining NATO for years, and that this war started in 2014 over the EU Association Agreement.
Yaaah.. no.
I have little love for the EU or Globalists now, and little faith in foreign entanglements after the cock ups in Afghanistan and Iraq, but Putin has consistently been the Poke-er rather than the Poke-d in historyl.
I still remember back in 2008 when he took advantage of the best Georgian troops being in Iraq fighting alongside us to have the local South Ossetian and Abkhazian separatists step up attacks on Georgian positions in order to trigger a response, and then using that response to wage war and send combined arms forces through the Roki Tunnel long before people expected him to if he was actually responding to a developing crisis. All while we had to rush the Georgian troops in Iraq home in the middle of the Surge.
And of course, Obama blamed Bush for this and promised to “reset” relations with Putin’s Russia, which Putin gladly used as an opportunity to consolidate his gains and screw the West and wider world again.
That points to the real source of the problem, and it is in Moscow.
Especially since the Kremlin has at least paid lip service to the rights of nations in its Near Abroad with things like the Helsinki Accord and Astana.
Europe and the EU have been digging lots of holes for themselves, but this isn’t one of them, for the reasons I mentioned.
Not really, particularly if you assume Putin is a foreign policy actor with his own freedom and ability to make choices. Sweden and Finland were pushed towards joining NATO in large part because Putin has- to put it bluntly- acted like a fucking undiplomatic asshole with a penchant for poking his neighbors, that many of said neighbors ignored to greater or lesser degrees in order to avoid yet another wider war with Russia (such as continuing the polite fiction of a Nuclear-Free Baltic).
But that willingness had to be sustained diplomatically, and casually throwing around threats (sometimes of a nuclear deployment nature) is a poor way to do that.
Moreover: Diplomacy is a Two-Way Street. It should be easy to understand why Sweden and Finland would find NATO membership appealing and indeed have for Decades.
For decades, Russian statesmen understood this and took measures to avoid that becoming too appealing, largely in the usual carrot-and-stick of diplomacy, concessions and threats.
But the USSR was never that appealing as an economic or social partner and Putin’s Russia is even less so, and even with that unpromising set Putin generally seems to seriously discount the value of carrots when dealing with nations he views as inferiors or in “his sphere of influence.”
Another reason why the US and Monroe Doctrine hegemony over the Americas is such a valuable point of comparison, and particularly why the US has generally been successful in maintaining it even with increasingly little intelligence and military intervention.
Again: the Kremlin has been quite happy to support the PRC in its misadventures like the Cow Tongue Maritime Map and so on. Which goes back to my point about Russia and the PRC being complementary and linked threats.
But in any case, the fact is that even the likes of Thailand and the Philippines (let alone the likes of Vietnam, which likes proudly touting its legacy of resistance to the Chinese in order to compensate for its even-longer history of vassalage and collaboration with them) are far more hesitant at partnering with the West than the average Eastern European nation.
Which brings us to what this equation is missing: the local element. What the likes of the Ukrainians/Latvians/Estonians/Filipinos/Thais/etc want.
An ironic train of thought often peddled by self-proclaimed “realists” like Mearsheimer, but which has very little LESS realistic than accounting for at least some of local opinion.
Now, could US policy towards the PRC be way better at containing it? Hell yes. Trump I think was the only US President in recent history to be serious about that, and alas he was toppled by backstabs from within. But the simple fact of the matter is that Russia’s a softer threat that lacks many of the diplomatic gifts and appeals that the PRC can muster, and which also has far less residual sway in its “near abroad” than the PRC has.
So I do not view strengthening our position and looking for allies in both Eastern Europe and the Pacific as mutually exclusive.
And at least as importantly, neither do the Kremlin or CCP, judging by their cooperation.
@om
Even if that charge were true, it has nothing to do with whether the point about whether the US moving nuclear missiles around its own territory (let alone that of willing allied territories!) like the Russians propose to would be regarded as a threat or provocation. Hence my issue.
I have been incredibly harsh against Putin and those I believe are giving him too much in the form of an excuse or leeway, but that doesn’t mean the question of “what is fair” in terms of moving nuclear weapons isn’t a valid question.
@Art Deco
This is manifestly untrue.
Almost the entire Yanukovych Cabinet left office when or around the time when Yanukovych did, whether immediately (by way of resignation or being removed from office) Or later (due to the nature of the Ukrainian Constitution and how Executive Branch personnel functions).
In particular a lot are now wanted by the Ukrainian Government, like former Finance Minister Azarov, and Interior Minister Zakharchenko.
@Turtler: As usual I find that there isn’t much to quibble with you factually. Unfortunately another commenter saw fit to lie to you about my views, so I will explicitly state them:
1) NATO expansion toward Russia was not done with any sinister intent to hurt Russia. The Western nations mostly seem to think Alliances Are Good In Themselves and extend them for that reason. However, insufficient preparation was clearly made for how Russia would react to NATO expansion, and so I think this weakens the collective security NATO was intended to provide. We’re stuck with it and have to make the best of it.
2) I do not believe the US has any business being in NATO any longer as I do not believe America is made safer, freer, or richer by being in it. The US puts way more into NATO than the nations getting the primary benefit, and I think it’s an open question that the US may be LESS safe by participating. And not only do most NATO nations not meet their military commitments, France won’t even share its submarines… so when we can do so safely I think we should leave.
3) That said, a NATO without the US in it should quite rationally seek to include any European nation that fears Russia. They may find a year from now there is a great deal less to fear, as Russia seems to be wrecking its army and part of its navy trying to deal with Ukraine. But together Europe is much bigger and stronger than Russia.
4) Maybe Europe should also reconsider who they get their energy from. I understand that Fat Tony has the best price on cigarettes but he usually wants something else from you in addition… Germany has lots of coal and they can build more nuclear plants. Their unseriousness about their energy supply is of a piece with their unseriousness about their military capability, and I don’t think Americans should have to pay or die for either.
Almost the entire Yanukovych Cabinet left office when or around the time when Yanukovych did, whether immediately (by way of resignation or being removed from office) Or later (due to the nature of the Ukrainian Constitution and how Executive Branch personnel functions).
Yes, when the President leaves office, his discretionary appointees shuffle off with him after an interval. I cannot figure out if your literal-mindedness is a debating tactic or is sadly real.
@Art Deco
It’s both. Which has also helped me do things like take down some claims made by the likes of Geoffrey and the Russian government RE: Astana Accord and so on.
In any case, cabinet members are constitutionally officials of the Ukrainian Government, and given the important role many of them played or at least are alleged to have played in crimes regarding Euromaidan I think noting them is an important part of the story.
Turtler:
I am not really too interested in Frederick’s hypothetical conjectures about moving ICBMs into Alaska and how that hypothetical might cause Vlad to soil his nappies. The US has never had ICBMs there because they would be too vulnerable in a military sense, at least that is from what I find searching the interwebs. So much for another Frederick grand question.
The US may or may not have other nuclear weapons in Alaska, IDK. Do we need Vlad’s concurrence about that? I’m just asking, Frederick, you didn’t say it.
I’m assuming Vlad has nuclear weapons in the far east that he moves about as he wishes.
But, but, but we must not assume our motives are without blemish. Another one of his false choices. Who said our policies are perfect or are handed down from God? I do assume they aren’t as evil as Vlad’s.
Silly me, eh, Frederick?
Frederick can opine about whatever he pleases even “if this is true” or talking as a “Boy Scout.” As regards his opinions about grand strategy and NATO, bless his heart.
@Turtler, thanks for your thoughtful response, much appreciated.
I agree with you that China and Russia are linked threats, that the linkage has recently been made stronger, but I see China’s determined arms expansion as a much bigger threat to the USA than Russia, which is in a prolonged multi-faceted decline as you note. Russia may have expertise to offer China, but I believe China’s experience-building program will eclipse the value of Russia’s input in the medium term. I think the partnership has been strengthened largely because of the West’s foreign policy mistakes (or omissions), and I think they both view the US foreign policy as weak and ineffectual under the current Administration. I think Trump is the only recent President they respected on foreign policy matters.
The link I provided to NATO expansion has the full list of countries that have joined from its origin. I didn’t mention pre-Glasnost additions for brevity. I well remember the Iron Curtain and the Cold War, Russian Expansionism, and the various countries that struggled under Soviet-placed leadership and totalitarian regimes while not being specifically Soviet. They may have had their own home-grown tyrants, but as Communist Bloc countries it seemed pretty clear who was in charge. Hence it is significant when they choose to align with Europe.
I think you may have misunderstood my analogy. I was not referring to the US and its neighbors as they presently are. I was imagining the reaction the US might have if all of its neighbors became armed, organized ideological opponents – if Canada completed Trudeau’s apparent present trajectory and turned to Socialist tyranny, if Central America organized and declared themselves belligerent to the US and its policies, together with Cuba – what might the US do in response? The US’s past nearby interdictions have been forceful only when necessary, contained and mostly conciliatory afterward (Grenada or Panama or Honduras). That we haven’t moved on Daniel Ortega in an obvious display I think shows that the US prefers the more subtle methods to keep the peace. We can afford to though, in the present realpolitik. What if?
Which is to say that I think invasions are usually something of extreme resort, if not last resort, because leaders will normally resort to defensive measures first, before committing to more expensive offensive ones. I don’t think Putin is crazy, so I’m trying to understand a rationale even if it’s abhorrent to us.
I thought you brought up a great point, the hand-in-glove nature of NATO expansion subsequent to expansion of the EU. Nearly all of the former Soviet and Soviet satellite countries have pursued inclusion in the EU Market as a way of transforming their own national economies (access to debt and other market economies, etc), and the NATO umbrella is maybe more of an accessory benefit to this. If you are saying this is what presents the existential threat driving Putin to foreign adventures, especially with the Ukraine having had discussions with the EU, I don’t disagree.
But I still think that the US should look to disengage gradually from NATO, and that the remaining EU/NATO countries should be handling their own diplomacy, including their own local skirmishes without the US getting involved.
On the Chinese expansionism issues, I wonder if the reluctance of the Philippines / Thailand / Vietnam / etc to align themselves with the US has more to do with their doubts that the US would be either capable or stalwart in a defense partnership ? The Philippines in particular has had some confrontations with the Chinese and territorial water disputes that were openly hostile. My interpretation is that US influence has been on the wane in the region for decades, and that this is a grave foreign policy unforced error on our part.
Again, thanks for your well-reasoned and thoughtful response.
OBloodyHell,
Re: “There is no way in fucking hell that NATO, without a massive, exceptionally visible restructuring, not just of itself but also of the EU, could possibly act as the armed offensive force of a United Europe.
Russian paranoia is not focused upon any threat from the EU members of NATO. Russian paranoia is focused entirely upon what they regard as the “Empire of Lies” i.e. the U.S.
“We disagree for the basic reason that Frederick and Geoffrey are ever so strident in considering the potential actions and dark motives of the US and the West but not so concerned about what Vlad has said and the actions of Vlad.” om
Strident? Really? Just for the record, that’s a huge amount of projection. To suggest that I haven’t acknowleged Putin’s brutality toward anyone who opposes him is at best disigenuous.
I’ve never disagreed about Putin’s actions, only asserted that his motivations extend beyond his territorial ambitions.
I’m not disputing that Putin wants to return Russia to its former prominance, just that, that desire is not his primary motivation in his aggression. Putin is, above all a realist because that is absolutely essential to his survival. Formerly in the KJB and in aftermath of the break up of the Soviet Union’s chaos.
Given that reality, his primary motivation for his seizure of the Crimea and part of Georgia and now in invading the Ukraine is in reaction to NATO’s eastward expansion. Putin refuses to peacefully allow Russia to be hemmed in on its western border.
If, as I believe, that analysis is correct, then focusing solely upon Putin’s aggression is a formula for escalating conflict with a peer nuclear power.
In addition, I’ve written of the “actions and dark motives” of the US and the West’s Global Elite and current bureaucratic and political leadership because it is clearly operating below the radar of so many on the right. Demonstrated by how few even here give it much attention. Some lip service is paid but how many, even here have looked into it beyond a cursory look?
Klaus Schwab, George Soros, Obama, Trudeau, et al pose a greater threat to liberty than does even Xi’s CCP, much less Putin. History repeatedly and consistently reveals that the internal enemy is always a greater threat than any external enemy.
Frederick,
“there are some regulars who simply will not stop smearing people. While they stick to good faith disagreement I engage with them, but once they start up the smears I just try to ignore them from that point forward.”
“Cast not your pearls before swine” J.C.
BTW, IMO, Jesus was not labeling his adversaries as swine, though some people give swine a bad name, he was suggesting that reason is wasted upon a closed mind.
Geoffrey:
Others taken down your spin point by point and it is water off a duck, you persist. Strident isn’t precise enough? Obstinate, close minded because you can’t consider that you are mistaken in appending Vlad to the WEF and Davos and then throwing NATO into that foul duo?
Putin is a realist? LOL The events of Ukraine show that to be a fantasy. Much projection and wish casting IMO. So much for you realizing the limits of your perceptions.
Om,
Only in your mind has my argment been taken down point for point. Your argument is demonstrably false, evidenced by your refusal to actually refute the points I’ve made and instead you’ve exclusively resorted to mockery. News flash! Mockery is not reasoned refutation.
Once again, specifically address Russia’s refusal to allow themselves to become strategically vulnerable to nuclear wealpons just 13 minutes from the Kremlin? Show us how militarily, NATO would upon the Ukraine’s admission to NATO… not then result in NATO then having that capablity?
Turtler has shredded your positions a couple of times; Willful Blindness is calling you, please pick up.
And the 13 minutes returns. Sad, Geoffrey.
So Geoffrey the great mystery still remains. Who in the future Geoffrey world is going to be in control of these 13 minute nuclear hypersonic wonder weapons? The evil US Army missile command (with a prototype at best) or something from those cheese eating surrender monkeys? Or will it be Klaus Schwab?
Yes I’m mocking you.
And tell me about Kaliningrad while you’re crying for Vlad. Something Vlad’s lackey said about Sweden, Finland, and nukes in the here and now, not in the Geoffrey future.
Geoffrey:
Once again, when Turtler took the time to dismantle your positions, line by line, more than once, your response was to complain about the detailed fisking.
My hat is off to him for that service. You learned nothing from that.
re nuclear missiles and Russia’s borders…all US coastal cities, and many near-coast cities, are within 15 minutes of an enemy sub-launched ballistic missile attack. ‘Depressed trajectory’ flight paths may cut this to around 7 minutes.
With hypersonic missiles, even shorter times are possible…and such missiles could be fitted to surface vessels, including merchant ships, as well as submarines.
So missiles on Russia’s borders would not seem to put them in any more vulnerable position than the one we are already in.
David foster:
But that’s not important, it’s important what Vlad is feeling! (sarc)
om,
I did respond to what I felt were the most relevent of Turtler’s assertions but his extremely long comments are just too exhausting to cover. If memory serves, it comes down to simple disagreement in interpretation of the Astana agreement and Putin’s primary motivation in his invasions.
Only a fool dismisses the feelings of someone who has ultimate control of 6000+ nuclear ICBM warheads. All of which utterly dwarf the destructive power of the Hiroshima and Nagasaki atomc bombs.
david foster,
That’s true for the US not Russia. Were Russia to launch such an attack, it would not knock out our military nuclear command center at the Cheyenne Mountain Complex. So it would effectively be a suicidal attack for the Russians.
Whereas, since Putin values his survival above all else, having no time to get to a safe bunker is, for him an intolerable threat.
Geoffrey Britain:
I have no idea why you keep asserting the same strawman argument over and over and over. The most recent is in this thread when you write, “Only a fool dismisses the feelings” of Putin.
Taking into account a leader’s feelings and jumping when he says “jump” because of his feelings – and the fact that he can threaten nuclear annihilation – are two very different things. People here take into account Putin’s feelings. However, they differ from you on what those feelings are – what is real, and what is pretend, and what the hierarchy of the real feelings are – as well as what is a reasonable demand based on those feelings and what is not.
You don’t just differ with people on those issues. You seem to not even understand the distinction between the issues. That is puzzling.
Geoffrey your self serving assessment of Turtler’s critique is precious but not accurate.
Your continuing propensity to tell us what Vlad thinks is fantastic, but not credible.
You may think you know what Vlad thinks, but that isn’t the same thing as knowing.
Geoffrey spins for Vlad; this time about the unfairness that Vlad won’t be able to get to his bunker in the future Geoffrey world where the evil NATO is just minutes away. The USSR forgot to build a bunker near the Kremlin during the entirety of the Cold War, incredible, but true, Geoffrey said it.
IIRC Cheyenne Mountain is in Colorado, not in Rock Creek Park. Not within easy duck and cover distance.
Count on Geoffrey to set us straight about Vlad’s troubles. But Vlad has him by the short hairs.
@Geoffrey Britain
This is not true in the least. Russian paranoia about the EU is very real and can be shown by the fact that for all the ink that’s been spilled about NATO expansion and its relations to the crisis in Ukraine, it was an EU ASSOCIATION AGREEMENT or rather the prospect of one (and one drawn up by one of the Kremlin’s Ukrainian clients I might add) that was the immediate cause for the crisis of Euromaidan and the outbreak of war.
Moreover, one does not have to reach very far to find Kremlin-sponsored propaganda casting shade on EU members. What throws a lot of people off is that they generally focus somewhat less on France and particularly Germany (the two countries people generally think of when they think “EU”) due to the generally good relations the Kremlin has had with them for most of the post-Soviet period and how they triangulate with them against the sort of Eastern European, New-to-NATO hardliners like Poland and the Baltics, but it’s there.
https://twitter.com/StZaryn/status/1312772333967474688
https://www.osw.waw.pl/en/publikacje/analyses/2022-03-21/dmitri-medvedev-attacks-poland
Which most contributors here have agreed on. The question is what those motivations are.
The idea that Putin is, “above all” a realist does not pass the smell test for me, though of course people of good faith and will can disagree. However, Putin’s courting of self-proclaimed “realists” abroad to give cover for the regime should not be mistaken for his following a fundamentally realist foreign policy, especially since I doubt most realists could look at his enabling of Kadyrov’s Chechnya coupled with the anemic management of the ethnic Russian demographic decay and his mistreatment of diplomatic partners.
Moreover, I think it’s a mistake to downplay emotional and psychological aspects to his politics, in that it is probably not a mistake that the sinking of Moskva in whatever circumstances (itself a situation laden with meaning) was accompanied by an intensified bombardment of Kyiv.
Putin is not a particularly stern ideologue but he is also no consummate realist.
Now THAT IS a truly fanciful claim, and one that a basic examination of the chronology does not support.
“NATO’s eastward expansion” was not on the table in Ukraine during 2013-4, an EU Association Agreement Was. Now it does not take a particular sage of foreign policy to recognize that an Association Agreement is likely to precede entry into NATO, but that does not make it inevitable. As indeed the fact that Putin’s Ukrainian client Yanukovych was seeking such an Association Agreement even after making a commitment like the Kharkhiv Pact that would rule out NATO membership for decades to come.
Which is ironic given how that has been a major outcome of his foreign policy and ham-handed treatment of neutrals and even those aligned to him. That a foreign policy heavily leavened with stick rather than carrot would have this effect should surprise exactly no-one in the same way that people in a loveless marriage will often be attracted to those who tell them they are pretty and interesting and worth something better. But apparently this is something the “consummate realist” cannot understand, which is why he is lucky that Lukashenko is as committed to ties with Russia as he is due to how Belarusian-Russian political and economic arguments have grown.
But it was always folly to assume that people other than Lukashenko- a man who has staked his entire political identity and power upon Belarusian-Russian identity and solidarity- would share that tolerance.
The issue is that the analysis is NOT correct, as can be seen by ignorance of Russian paranoia about the European EU and a basic chronology. Sure, NATO expansion and ignoring its role in Russian statecraft is likely to help escalate that, but SO IS ignoring the other motives behind the Kremlin’s actions, such as fear of the EU and what it represents (and at least as importantly, what it is TAKEN as representing in Eastern Europe, which is generally a very far cry from the bureaucratic, democratic-deficit-laden, clanking leviathan that we have grown wearily familiar with due to the reporting of people like Farage).
To overstate the importance of NATO expansion is quite literally to court disaster.
A fair point, but still worth noting.
Fair enough, but that makes your earlier denial that only in om’s mind had such a rebuttal taken place quite suspect.
Astana was a centerpiece of my argument because in prior comments you had made it- and what we might “generously”- or tendentiously- refer to as “your interpretation” of it- such a pillar of your arguments that NATO had acted in bad faith towards Russia and was in violation of many international agreements.
A claim that should have raised alerts because of the conspicuous lack of formal complaints filed by the relevant authorities by the Russian Regime itself, but which moves there. I emphasized it because of how relatively easy it was to show how (while in many ways a poorly-formulated and not particularly binding feelgood agreement) it was fairly easy to tear apart your interpretation of Astana by making reference to *what was said earlier in that very same agreement and indeed even that very article*, as well as understanding what “inherent right” means in law.
So I spent an awful amount of ink belaboring this point, sure. But that shouldn’t be taken as it being a major part of my foundational issues with your claims. Indeed, most of the points were already covered by the Helsinki Final Accord (itself still binding on the Russian Federation for the reasons I mentioned before, not least due to its explicit inclusion in Astana and the fact that Russia is legal continuator of the USSR in purposes such as this). In particular I pointed out how Putin has been less consistent at opposing NATO expansion than you have argued- even in the case of Ukraine- and how other facets such as economics and especially fear of democratization or at least turmoil about it play at least as much a role as fear of NATO expansion, indeed to the point where he is willing to spark more demands and interest in NATO expansion as the expense for sabotaging it or the expansion of EU Diplomacy elsewhere.
Neo called this one well.
Re Elon Musk — prepping to become the Bat Man?
Nope. He’s already the current designated Rocket Man, with a book and his name in the title.
No. The common thought has been that Musk is the real Tony Stark (aka “Iron Man”).
But unlike Tony, he neither inherited a defense contractor’s business, not was he born an American.
It’s worse for the apoplectic Left: he’s a genuine Aftican-American.
@Aggie
No worries, and thank you kindly for your own response>
On this much we completely agree. Truth be told outside of WMD and maybe some aspects of naval and intelligence projection, China has already become a much more potent threat than Russia is and is much more worthy of our focus on the whole. And even China I think pales in comparison to the threat that now manifests from the home front with the Left.
Largely agreed, though I would move that horizon out to the medium-long term, in part due to China’s own misadventures in naval design and doctrine making even Russia’s admittedly-far-from-expert craftmanship look admirable. They also really haven’t figured how to operate past the Second Island Chain at all and are still teething their way towards a doctrine in the First Island Chain, which I think also expands their reliance on Russia’s areas of relative expertise.
I agree about Trump being the only recent President they respected, but am more sanguine. It has been de rigeur for every incoming US President- regardless of their party, philosophy, ideology, or personality- to start their term with outreach to the Kremlin, many even promising to “fix” Russo-American relations (that they explicitly or implicitly argue were ruined by their predecessor(s). The most infamous case of this is the Obama-Clinton “Reset” and “the 80s called” gaffes, but it is a much wider pattern of behavior.
And just like that pattern, it has become de rigeur for Putin to confront those entreaties with a mixture of trying to milk them for maximum benefit and ultimately shunning them.
This I think gets to the heart of the reasons for Sino-Russian relations. Mark Steyn argued about 20 years ago in America Alone that Russia would see the world returning towards Bipolarity (if not multipolarity) in the near to intermediate future, and that its leadership believed it would benefit most from being attached to the anti-American pole. I was skeptical of him at the time but he has been one of the world’s most clear-eyed analysts for a long time, and he has been vindicated on this too.
So while there have been no shortage of mistakes, omissions, and outright crimes by Western policy makers, I do not think they have had THAT much influence on Russian policy. I think the Putin regime’s alignment with the PRC is a matter of preference and not merely necessity. So I do not really hold out much hope for a reorientation or “fixing” of relations between Russia and either “The West” generally or America more specifically until the Putin and his sort of broad interest group are removed from power.
Of course, I’ve certainly been wrong before- including on whether or not Putin would openly invade Ukraine- so add as much salt to that analysis as you see fit.
Agreed there.
This is a fair point and thank you for clarifying. But at the same time while it gives a lot of food for thought and I think would justify a great deal of drastic measures (probably at least as drastic as what Putin is prepared to consider), I also think it is worth noting why that has not happened to the US. In general even during the “bad old days” of unalloyed Monroe Doctrine imperialism and interventionism, the US took pains to keep eyes on how Hispanic America was developing and to cultivate at least functional relations with a lot of important factions (mostly the governments, powerful but sympathetic anti-government factions, or- and this is often overlooked- reformist elements in those countries). Which is one reason why US hegemony has proven far more durable than Russia’s in spite of a much lighter touch on the whole, especially after the Good Neighbor Policy. And of course part of that is helped by factors the US cannot claim credit for and which Russia cannot be blamed, such as the Atlantic isolating the Americas for a good couple of centuries so the US and Britain had a head start in managing Hispanic America before the Steam Engine helped make the world that much smaller.
Russian governments are not incapable of this kind of balanced foreign policy approach and doing it successfully. Indeed, I’d argue Putin’s latest performance has been a mostly-failed attempt at doing so (with far too much stick and too little carrot) but the Empresses Katarina and Elizaveta of Russia were masterful at balancing these kinds of influence games in the Caucasus and Poland, and while to be fair they never had to contend with a relatively united bloc like NATO or the EU they also owe at least some of that to their skill at not only pre-empting such blocs from forming but more often than not taking the lead in forming coalitions. That as well as a calculated amount of schmoozing, bribery, and brutality helped them decisively accomplish so much of their foreign policies.
I’d also give due credit to the Bolsheviks for this, because while their foreign policy goals were utterly evil and ultimately blew up in their face in a big way (turns out that helping German re-armament and other totalitarian revanchism might cause problems for you down the line and not just the West or neutrals; whodathunkit?) they generally proved quite adept at maneuvering around and are a big reason for the prevalence of Third World anti-Western tinpot regimes even today.
So what went wrong? I don’t know exactly but I think a big part of it is that Putin has much fewer resources (relative to his competition) to offer himself as an attractive alternative to “the West” or even China and a lot of Islamist blocs, but also tends to exacerbate that by using too much stick in a rather counter-productive way.
Agreed, though I am not sure if the US can afford to given the “present realpolitik” and the dominance of the US at present by a mixture of corrupt kleptocrats and far-left wing nutjobs (with generous overlap between them). But I think that also goes back to how Putin has gone long on stick in a way that’s really undermined his long term chances.
Understandable. Though I am somewhat less certain about how extreme it is. post-Berlin Wall Russian military and bureaucracy has a long habit of helping to either start or stoke fires in neutral nations in its near abroad precisely to
I’m not sure it has an existential threat per se, but I do think it is a serious one that no rational authoritarian leader in the Kremlin could ignore. As we’ve seen in Ukraine, tentative negotiations with the EU and agreements on trade do not make the country immune to Russian Hard Power or invasion, but they DO (at least, from the vantage point of generally impoverished and underdeveloped former Soviet states) provide an avenue for strengthening the country’s economics and technological base for waging war, be it cold or hot.
I think that’s less because of any inherent blessings the EU itself or any particular agreement like the Association Agreement confers (and I remember some scattered reports even from the likes of the Beeb that Euromaidanites were having some Buyer’s Remorse over the terms after the fact) as much as it is a springboard for further diplomatic or economic ties. You might not get that much out of the Association Agreement itself (especially with the ongoing war) but you might be able to sit next to the French, Italian, or Norwegian foreign minister and chat them up.
I’m of two minds like this. I have never really been an isolationist but the shambles we are in now really makes even myself look at it. We are seriously underequipped to fight an existential external conflict, and frankly we are facing a life or death struggle for our Republic at home, so we need a good several years of peace. Especially given the lack of gratitude from “our partners.”
However, at the same time I do not want the US to give NATO/the EU a chance to morph into something even less tied and more hostile to us.
I think that’s at least part of the story; Thailand is still fairly solidly in our camp but it has not been harnessed quite so directly (in part due to ongoing fiascos with Burma and Vietnam) while Duarte’s attempt to play triangulation between the US and PRC has generally faltered. So the US should be able to salvage and firm up those ties without too much effort or cost (assuming of course competent and America-loving leadership, neither of which we have). Vietnam’s tougher because of their longstanding Love-Hate relationship with the PRC and I frankly don’t know which way they will jump.
In any case, the Pacific Front is at much greater conventional risk than Europe is, especially given the shambles the Russian conventional military is. The Islamist threat, on the other hand…..
… that’s a looming disaster under our feet waiting to blow up.
No worries, and thank you for your own too. It was a pleasure to deal with!