Why was the intelligence community wrong about Putin?
I’ve not been impressed by the intelligence community’s take on much of anything Russian (or maybe anything in general), and that’s not just lately. I’ve written before about how the intelligence community failed to accurately foresee and predict the collapse of the USSR (see this post, for example).
So this observation about the intelligence community, from former CIA officer Mike Baker, is unsurprising as well:
Putin has been “pretty damn consistent over the years.”
“If you look at what he did in Chechnya, if you look at what he did helping Assad in Syria, if you look at what he did annexing Crimea, if you look at Georgia, Abkhazia, South Ossetia. Every step of the way he’s been following in his mind this stated desire, that he’s made very public over the years, to rebuild his sphere of influence.”
Baker also says that “intelligence on what Putin actually wants is hard because his inner circle keeps getting smaller and smaller.” I have little doubt that’s the case, but as Baker said in the featured quote above, Putin’s actions indicated he would attack Ukraine at some point.
The Biden administration seemed an opportune time.
I think what should have been the biggest surprise was the scope and furor of the attack on Ukraine. But even that was apparently foretold in Chechnya, where apparently tons of civilians were killed. Russia’s actions in Syria, likewise. However, I suppose those were distinguished from Ukraine by being mostly Moslem populations, whereas Ukrainians are fellow Russian Orthodox. Perhaps our intelligence community didn’t think that Putin would unleash so much ferocity on a population that he claimed was a brother population to that of Russia.
But unleash it he did. Those who claim “well, he might have been even more ferocious than he has been” are mounting an argument that makes little to no sense to me. Hey, he might done any number of even more awful things. But the things he did have been awful enough.
[NOTE: Of course, all of this assumes that the intelligence community actually was wrong about Putin. I’m going to assume it was.]
Oscar Fight Night
I used to watch the Oscars every year for the fashions. That was fun. And I even liked some of the movies.
Then it became way too annoying to watch the Oscars. I didn’t care for the new movies themselves, the fashions were mostly ugly, so many of the actors and actresses were self-congratulatory and ridiculously full of themselves, and leftist politics was an almost constant drumbeat.
So I wasn’t watching it this year when actor Will Smith sucker-slapped comedian and presenter Chris Rock, cursed at him after returning to his seat, and then went on to win Best Actor and continue to shame himself with a maudlin and over-the-top thank-you speech in which he apologized to just about everyone except Chris Rock and somehow made himself out to be both victim and hero, quite the combination. And quite the performance, as well. Ugh.
Authorities – bouncers? – should have escorted Smith out of the building after he slapped Rock, but of course that didn’t happen.
If you’re interested – and you might not be; I’m only marginally interested myself – you can find video about it on YouTube and elsewhere. For example, here’s Smith’s acceptance speech. But perhaps the most fitting commentary might be from good old Ozzy Man, no stranger to the F-word himself:
Biden then, Biden now
Commenter “Yawrate” writes:
But judging by what the president has said throughout his career in the senate when he was in complete control of himself he wouldn’t have bought into the wholesale destruction of our country. Which tells us that he really isn’t in charge.
Well, it depends what one means by “in charge.” He’s certainly not fully in charge, but as I’ve said before I think he’s significantly in charge of foreign policy and at least partly in charge of much of the rest. There are also plenty of advisors, both known and unknown, who have input. Their input is probably somewhat greater than in previous administrations, but not all that much greater.
But what’s more – and probably more relevant to what Yawrate wrote – although it’s true that when Biden was a senator, he “wouldn’t have bought into the wholesale destruction of our country,” that was a long time ago. The last time he was a senator was in 2008, wasn’t it? At that time, I would have said that Democratic officeholders in general “wouldn’t have bought into the wholesale destruction of our country.”
But the times they have a-changed. What happened between 2008 and now?
Why, first eight years of Obama and then four of Trump and Trump Derangement Syndrome. During the Obama administration the country “fundamentally changed” and many people grew to accept a leftward slide and a foreign policy that rewarded enemies and punished friends. In fact, to many of us on the right, the Obama administration seemed purposely destructive of our country.
And who was vice president then, going along just about every step of the way? Why, none other than a non-demented Joe Biden, that’s who.
My read on Biden is that he never had any principles save “what’s in it for Joe Biden” (and, at times, his relatives), and he was highly adaptable along the way. He was always willing to lie. He was always willing to do what was necessary, and his adaptation to the left happened during the Obama administration. He still is adaptable, even though his cognitive challenges are now greater. But his cognitive challenges were always substantial.
It is amazing and depressing – as well as dangerous – that someone like that managed to become president. But that’s the situation we’re in.
I’ll add that it seems ironic to me that whatever it was that people initially feared from a Trump presidency – chaos, stupidity, world crisis, economic crisis – has actually happened under Joe Biden and mostly as a direct result of Biden’s policies. Trump himself was quite the opposite, and his administration would have been very successful in most realms had it not been for the forces on the left (that includes the Democratic Party and the GOP NeverTrumpers) relentlessly trying to destroy him. Those same forces are mostly still trying to prop up and make excuses for his successor, Joe Biden.
Open thread 3/28/22
A number of people on Saturday’s Fogelberg thread said they didn’t like his music because it was too “sweet.” I hereby offer you the following unsweet Fogelberg song – one of my favorites:
Same Old Lang Syne
It’s not the season for it, but oh well – I’ve always liked this song of Dan Fogelberg’s. Turns out it has an interesting story behind it, too:
Remember that reset with Russia?
A little stroll down memory lane:
The appeasement policy began in February 2009. Russia had invaded its neighbor and former client state, Georgia, six months earlier. The lame-duck George W. Bush administration planned to put missile defense structures in Eastern Europe to deter Russian aggression against its neighbors.
But one of the Obama-Biden administration’s first foreign policy maneuvers was to cancel that plan via a “secret letter” to Putin’s placeholder, Russian Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. Why? U.S. leaders apparently wanted to make deals with Russia, and giant missile silos in Putin’s backyard were a nonstarter for Moscow.
But the canceled missile defense in Eastern Europe was only the beginning in a long line of concessions to Russia that not only emboldened Putin, but advanced Russian military capabilities in ways that are now having deadly consequences for Ukrainian civilians (think hypersonic missiles) while threatening the global economy.
Please read the whole thing. You probably remember a lot of the events it describes, but it’s really quite extraordinary when put all together in one article like that.
And now, in 2022, those events take on even more significance in retrospect.
Are the Democrats getting ready to eject Joe and Kamala?
Why do you suppose that the New York Times has decided, finally, at this late date, to acknowledge that the story that the New York Post broke about Hunter’s laptop was true?…
The issue is never the issue. I suspect that Joe Biden is being prepped for ejection. Exactly how it will happen I do not yet know. But he is on the threshold, or possibly has even passed the threshold, where he could appear to govern. His minders understand this. They must be the ones to replace him, otherwise they themselves risk being replaced, which would be intolerable. As I say, it’s not entirely clear yet how the defenestration will take place. Obviously, Kamala will have to be dealt with first, and she will be. Look for some ground softening stories such as the Times just served up about the laptop. They won’t be long in coming.
When Biden was first elected I remember that a lot of people on the right said he’d be removed from the presidency and replaced by June of 2021. I didn’t think so, for one reason: who would replace him? It was pretty clear from the start that Kamala wouldn’t do, either, and if they both were removed then we’d have Nancy Pelosi, who’s even older than Biden and also somewhat “challenged” at this point.
And although it’s also pretty clear that Joe could be removed with the excuse of health (that is, cognitive) problems if the Cabinet wanted to do so, on what grounds would Kamala be dumped? Her difficulties would be harder to frame as a consequence of age, and in fact they’re not. Harris’ being the first person-of-color female vice president makes her removal even more difficult in terms of angering the Democrat base, which is the left. As Kimball points out in his piece, there doesn’t seem to be any corruption of the usual kind in her resume.
And even if Kamala could be removed, who would replace her? Some have said Hillary, but I think the Democrats know that would be a highly unpopular gambit, too.
I think they’re stuck. Deeply stuck. Which is not to say they won’t somehow find a solution. But like Kimball, I don’t see what it would be. Unlike Kimball, I’m not at all certain they’ll come up with one.
In the meantime, we limp along with Biden in charge if only nominally. He continues to speak extemporaneously in ways that cause big problems for his apologists such as Psaki, and much much bigger problems for the nation. Incidents such as this happen frequently, and the world is presently involved in so many crises – not unrelated to Biden’s being an incompetent president – that his bizarre utterances could ignite a powder keg.
Simply put, the man is potentially very very dangerous. He’s already caused major problems, but the potential is there for much greater ones:
But here’s the bad thing he said that could blow back on us big time and he needs to explain what the heck he is talking about here. He appeared to tell the members of the 82nd Airborne what they could expect when they arrived in Ukraine. What?
“You’re going to see when you’re there — some of you have been there — you’re going to see women, young people standing in the middle, in the front of a damn tank saying ‘I’m not leaving,’” Biden declared.
So they’re going to Ukraine and some have already been there? Or where else is he talking where they would be sent with people standing in front of tanks? Big problem. Biden has previously said he would not be sending any troops to Ukraine because it could set off World War III.
Andrew Feinberg of the Independent caught Biden’s comments and asked the White House what was going on…
The White House tried to clean it up, claiming he had been clear that we were not sending troops.
And these bizarre and unsettling ad libs are separate from all the destructive things he’s already done and plans to do purposely, as a matter of official policy.
The Democrats knew who he was and what he was, and yet they nominated him and propped him up and dragged him across the finish line. And they knew who Harris was, too; it was obvious even during the primaries. Even if you think the left doesn’t care if the nation goes down the tubes (or even considers that a consummation devoutly to be wished), they should have known that this debacle wouldn’t be helping their party any, either.
And yet they did it. Defeating Donald Trump was just that big a deal to them. A big f***ing deal, as Joe Biden would have put it in his somewhat more coherent days.
More on the Russian military
This is basically an addendum to yesterday’s post on the Russian military.
I came across some interesting articles: on graft and corruption, on logistical problems, and on organizational problems. There is also evidence that some of Russia’s newer weapons designs have been mostly for show:
In fact, many of Russia’s high profile technological leaps in military prowess have since proven to be little more than publicity stunts. The Su-57, Russia’s 5th-generation stealth fighter, exists in too few numbers to matter even if it were as capable as they claim. Expert assessments place their premier stealth fighter’s radar cross-section as about comparable to that of America’s 4th generation F/A-18 Super Hornet, and their recently unveiled Checkmate fighter, if it ever flies at all, will almost certainly be even less stealthy.
Likewise, Russia’s T-14 Armata main battle tank may also prove to be among the best in the world, if only Russia could afford to build any.
That entire article is well worth reading.
I have just about zero knowledge about any of these topics, but I know that some of you have quite a bit.
Open thread 3/26/22
Another roundup
(1) Hat tip: AesopFan.
The wheels of justice keep up their extremely slow grind:
A Politico report this week confirmed that investigations are underway after researcher Mark Glaeser began crossing-checking Florida voter lists against lists of the state’s convicted sex offenders and felons still in the Alachua County, Florida, jail.
In one such case, an election official in Alachua County is accused of registering felons to vote at the county jail despite their being ineligible…
Aside from felons, the Public Interest Legal Foundation (PILF) has been uncovering records showing foreign nationals on state voter rolls in North Carolina, Pennsylvania, Texas, New Jersey, and California.
Most recently, PILF reached a settlement with North Carolina election officials to disclose the number of foreign nationals on the state’s voter rolls.
As of 2018, there were nearly 250 counties across the United States with more registered voters on the voter rolls than eligible American citizen voters. There were also nearly three million individuals who are registered to vote in more than one state.
(2) The Taliban prohibit girls attending school beyond sixth grade. And some supposedly intelligent people seem “baffled” by this?:
Aid groups and many others remained baffled.
The Taliban have so far refused to explain their sudden decision to renege on the pledge to allow girls to go to school beyond sixth grade. Schools were supposed to reopen to older girls on Wednesday, the start of the new school year.
The ban caught even the Taliban-appointed Education Ministry unprepared. In many places across Afghanistan, some girls in higher grades returned to schools, only to be told to go home.
I’m baffled as to why anyone would be baffled.
(3) Joe Manchin announces he will be voting to confirm Ketanji Brown Jackson for SCOTUS justice. This is also not a surprise; Manchin will go only so far to the right and no further.
(4) A Maryland court rules against some recent Democrat gerrymandering in Maryland. Maryland is a very blue state anyway, but:
The 30,000-foot view of this ruling is that the judge said the legislature’s map violated the state constitution, which has some provisions in it requiring districts to be compact, while giving some eye toward political subdivisions (i.e. if 35 percent of voters are Republicans, they shouldn’t be getting only 12 percent of the districts). From there, the judge then ruled the map, because it violated the state’s constitution, also violated the free speech and equal protection clauses.
There is no doubt the ruling will be appealed, but because of Gov. Larry Hogan’s judicial appointments over the last several years, the chance this ruling is overturned is slim. Maryland’s appeals court and supreme court lean heavily Republican at this point.
(5) Some “cautious optimism” from Ukraine on negotiations between Ukraine and Russia. Accent on the “cautious”:
The first sticky point is the definition of Ukraine’s position with the West. This seems to be steadily gravitating towards a neutral Ukraine that can be an economic member of the European Union, but not an alliance member of NATO. Think Casablanca the size of Texas. This is probably something that everyone will soon buy into.
The second sticky point is the withdrawal of Russian forces: where’s the line?… It may require both sides to agree to make disputed territories like Crimea and Donbas the world’s next security guarantee protectorate, where neither party takes claim for some time…
This brings up the third sticky point in the negotiations. Wherever the lines are drawn, who guarantees that both parties honor the line after the shooting stops?
Is the Russian military somewhat of a Potemkin village?
Ever since Russia’s invasion of Ukraine we’ve been arguing in the comments here about his motives and goals. Putting that aside, this post is about something else: the state of the Russian military.
And by “military” I mean army, navy, air force, that sort of thing – and not nuclear weapons, which are a separate (although perhaps related) matter. Nuclear weapons are an important matter indeed, however, because if it weren’t for Putin’s nuclear weapons, NATO and the US would almost certainly be defending Ukraine far more vigorously, if only to send them better weapons with which to repel the Russian attack. Putin’s nuclear arsenal, and his willingness to threaten it and leave the world guessing as to what he would actually do with it, deters them.
But at the moment, Russia’s war is being fought with more conventional means. For the first few weeks, many of the reports about Russian failures or stalls or the Russian military being “bogged down” were considered to be possible or probable Ukrainian propaganda and exaggerations. There’s probably still some of that. And it’s certainly possible that through sheer numbers and willingness to take and inflict heavy casualties that Russia will win militarily in the end. But over time I think it’s become more clear that the Russian military actually does have grave problems.
Some people were well aware of that already, as the video I posted yesterday makes clear. And last night commenter “J.J.” posted the following comment here:
After I read “Mig Pilot: The Final Escape of Lieutenant Belenko,” I knew the Soviet military was as corrupt as any military can be. Since the end of the USSR and the transition of Russia to a corrupt autocracy, I doubt that much has changed. I’m sure they have some well-trained elite units, but any army that has to draft soldiers will have morale problems. Especially if it is as unfair and corrupt as MP Nevzorov implies.
Soldiers and sailors will go through h**l, if they are well trained, well led, and treated fairly. I get the picture that the Russian military are busy protecting their little fiefdoms and privileges – as they were back in the USSR days. In other words, you use your rank to get extra perks and privileges – no fair treatment of underlings. Then there’s the problem of vodka. It is regularly abused by Russian men and the military reflects the society. So, I’m not surprised at this man’s predictions.
Indeed, what I saw of the poor maintenance of facilities in Russia when we visited in 2006, probably hasn’t changed all that much in 16 years because, while Russia has made some economic progress during that time, it has not had the amazing progress seen in China.
Thus far, MP Nevzorov’s insight has been pretty spot on. They seem to be poorly lead, poorly trained, and not well motivated.
So, is the Russian military at least somewhat of a Potemkin village? That doesn’t mean they can’t inflict great damage – they can – but it certainly hampers them in that effort. And the deleterious effects may be even greater in Ukraine, because reports are that mud season has been a problem (we know about mud season in New England), and troops were not even told they would be fighting in Ukraine and they don’t consider Ukrainians the enemy. So there may be a lot of increased internal psychological conflict and morale may be even lower than usual.
In politics and economics, a Potemkin village is any construction (literal or figurative) whose sole purpose is to provide an external façade to a country that is faring poorly, making people believe that the country is faring better. The term comes from stories of a fake portable village built by Grigory Potemkin, former lover of Empress Catherine II, solely to impress the Empress during her journey to Crimea in 1787.
The term seems especially apropos because the story was about a Russian, and the Crimea was involved. The story may not be true – which would also be apropos, wouldn’t it? – and of course the Russian military is hardly wholly a facade. But still, maybe somewhat of a facade, at least in terms of its fighting power.
If so, why is this the case, and why has it persisted? I’m not even remotely an expert on this, but from what I’ve read it seems some of the factors are money problems (cutting corners), graft and corruption, maintenance problems, design problems, morale problems, and drinking problems. That’s not meant to be any kind of exclusive list. I’ll add possible motivation problems, not a meritocracy, even maybe sabotage, reliance on conscripts, and a top-down too-rigid command structure.
Believe this or don’t believe it, as you wish. It’s from an Australian news site:
There’s also this report about big problems with Russia’s precision-guided munitions.
And to return to the question of Russia’s nuclear arsenal, I wonder how well-maintained that is. Of course, we don’t want to have to find out for real.
I also wonder how our military is doing in these woker-than-woke days. As I said in a previous post, our exit from Afghanistan wasn’t the least bit reassuring.
[NOTE: Here’s another interesting video. This one’s from 2019, and it is an interview with Oleksiy Arestovych, who is a Ukrainian military advisor (among other things). His analysis of what Putin is after conforms quite closely to the views of Angela Stent discussed yesterday in this post:
If this guy’s been helping to prepare the Ukrainian forces for this war, I think it explains some of their relative effectiveness.]