The Russians are Coming, the Russians are...oh, they're here...

[Stavros]

Another example comes to mind with the news Liz Truss has resigned today. David Cameron made what he thought was a rational decision in 2015 to sponsor a Referendum on the EU, and it was supported by the Labour Party. Cameron calculated that to silence the EU critics in his own party, and to undermine the threat to Conservative election prospects posed by UKIP, an EU Referendum would settle the question because Cameron did not believe the public would vote to Leave, a calculation that was also made by Ed Miliband as leader of the Labour Party.

From that rational decision came the unexpected resulted, and six years of bitterness, division, economic decline and political instability, which shows no sign of being settled.

Cameron bet the house on the outcome, and lost. But the original decision was entirely rational. Putin is a thug from the slums of Leningrad -will Russia be a slum when he departs the scene?

[Stavros]

I probably should have included in these arguments, the claim that Russia interfered in the Brexit Referendum campaign. This argument is based on the idea that Russia wanted the UK to leave the EU to divide that organization, and weaken the UK, two objectives that have been met. For while the relationship between the EU and Hungary and Poland was tense, since the Russian attempt to annex Ukraine, Poland has been less of a problem, whereas Hungary is seen as at least in the Russian penumbra, while outside the EU Russia appears to have some allies in the Balkans.

The complete picture of Russian interference cannot be drawn because the British intelligence services did not take it seriously, as the Intelligence and Security Committee of the House of Commons noted. It means that while no proof has been provided to link Arron Banks of Leave.EU campaign to Russian funding, the connections between Banks and the Russians (his wife is Russian, and he tweeted in 2017 'Ukraine is to Russia as the Isle of Wight is to the UK. It's Russian') has been confirmed, in addition to which he lost a libel action against the journalist Carol Cadwalladr. Why were there two Leave campaigns anyway?

That said, whatever Putin thinks benefited Russia as far as Brexit goes, he has lost in terms of NATO, which has not only -so far- been united in its support for Ukraine- but has played an instrumental role in defeating Putin's initial objectives in Ukraine. On this we are told that if Kevin McCarthy becomes Speaker of the House of Representatives after this year's mid-terms, he is likely to go Trumpy and reduce the US/NATO involvement in Ukraine to Russia's benefit, something Murdoch's marionette on Fox News, Tucker Carlson will presumably rejoice at, he being as pro-Russian as his idol Trump. He would also oppose more funding for Ukraine just out of spite, to obstruct everything the President wants to do.

An overview of the claims of Russian interference in the Brexit campaign-
Russian interference in the 2016 Brexit referendum - Wikipedia

Banks losing his libel action-
Arron Banks loses libel action against reporter Carole Cadwalladr | Arron Banks | The Guardian

A legal analysis (contains the Banks tweet quoted above)-
Arron Banks and Carole Cadwalladr – what does it all mean? | Bindmans LLP

[Stavros]

I read a review of Owen Matthews' book on Russia, out this week- Overreach: The Inside Story of Putin's War Against Ukraine in the Telegraph yesterday but it has since disappeared behind their pay wall, which is a pity as it was a good one.

Matthews argues the root of the conflict lies in 1991 and the break-up of the USSR and Ukraine's independence, which seems to be a nonsense to Putin but also a means of weakening Russia that Yeltsin ought to have resisted. It also stresses the complete contempt which Putin and his advisers have for Ukraine to the extent that they literally care nothing for the people who live there, and also promote the argument that because Russians are used to hardship, they can endure whatever sanctions and poverty the 'West' condemns them to. None of which offers the basis for a diplomatic resolution to this war in the near future

A good example of Matthews' writing is in this link which offers a more exacting analysis of the impact of sanctions on Russia, something of a corrective to the 'sanctions don't work' brigades.

Sanctions are working – whatever Putin says | The Spectator

The book is listed here-
Overreach: The Inside Story of Putin and Russia’s War Against Ukraine eBook : Matthews, Owen: Amazon.co.uk: Books

[Stavros]

The ignorant prick from Leningrad has delivered his annual speech of lies and not disappointed. Russia will withdraw from the Nuclear negotiations treaty but it hasn't had much to do with them in recent times anyway. As for his war against the Neo-Nazis of Ukraine....well...for someone who blames the 'West' for enabling Hitler in the 1930s there was of course, no mention of the Nazi-Soviet Pact of 1939 that not only divided Poland into Russian and Nazi territories, but which led directly to the massacres in Poland by both Nazis and 'Soviet' armed forces. As usual, politicians select those pieces of history which suit them, and not the ones that don't.

Does he really think the people of the Ukraine want to be 'liberated' from their hostage takers? No mention of the people taken hostage he has killed in air strikes, or the millions who have fled Ukraine -or the Russians who have fled Russia.

Two links offer good overviews, though I take issue with Sean O'Grady in the second link where he claims-
"The opportunity for a real partnership envisaged by Mikhail Gorbachev was hardly explored in the chaotic Yeltsin years, and to that extent, the West let Russia down – and damaged its own long-term interests and those of world peace."
-But just in the case of the petroleum industry there was a partnership between Russian based firms and Shell, Exxon and BP who spent billions of dollars modernizing a clapped out industry and opening up new resources in Siberia and on Sakhalin, so he is wrong about that.

But on this he may have a point-
"The uncomfortable truth is that Putin’s preoccupation with his country’s diminished status in the world, his nostalgia for the order and respect the old USSR commanded, and a deference towards even older Orthodox Christian traditional beliefs, is shared by many of his own citizens."

-But my guess is around 30% of the American public have also given up on Democracy and would prefer a white Dictatorship, not so far from MTG's silly remark that it is time for the 'Red' and 'Blue' States to divorce.

As for a 'Gender neutral God' -so God is a man? If so, who was his daddy?

Putin speech: Eight key claims from Russian leader – and the reality (yahoo.com)

Voices: The real surprise of 2023? That Putin is still standing (yahoo.com)

[Stavros]

The link below is to an article that first appeared behind the pay wall in the Telegraph, an interesting speculation on the demographic consequences of Putin's war.

Russia stares into population abyss as Putin sends its young men to die (yahoo.com)

[Stavros]

If you can stay the course at just under an hour, this conversation between Bill Kristol and Anne Applebaum is most interesting. Applebaum does a good job at the start in explaining how Zelensky has captured the mood of the country, but also underlined that Ukraine was both more prepared for war than Russia, but that a form of local democracy has emerged in Ukraine that Putin sees as one of the biggest threats to his way of life. She underlines too how far the Russians have waged war against the People in the Ukraine not just through the demolition of their homes and businesses and hospitals and schools, but through rape, torture, child abduction and in effect, the same tactics of absolute punishment that Stalin's 'Red Army' practised in Ukraine through to Germany in the late 1940s as it consolidated the Soviet Empire, one which Putin firmly believes it is his right to recreate. Thus Applebaum points out that a Russian presence on the border of Poland is as logical to Putin as the Russian presence was in Dresden when he worked there for the KGB.

The later part concerns the US with much support for Biden, and the fear that while Americans support Ukraine when its winning, it might not when it loses. Applebaum also points out the folly of any negotiated settlement that does not push Russia out of Ukraine, but notes that until elites in Russia force changes there, the war will continue.

Lastly one notes that Bill Kristol, once Conservative 'Royalty' in the US, sidelined, if not made irrelevant by Trump, now sounds more like a Liberal.

[filghy2]

Lastly one notes that Bill Kristol, once Conservative 'Royalty' in the US, sidelined, if not made irrelevant by Trump, now sounds more like a Liberal.

There's nothing specifically 'liberal' about helping Ukraine to defend itself against Russia. That's really a comment on how far the Republican Party has moved.

What the Putin appeasers cannot explain is why is why he would be interested in negotiating a genuine settlement if he thinks that Western support will weaken over time. The only way to change his mind is to make clear that support will continue as long as it takes.

Also, I suspect many of the Republicans claiming that the US has no interest in defending Ukraine would take a different view if China tried to invade Taiwan. What's the difference, other than that Russia is white and (supposedly) Christian?

[Stavros]

What I meant by the use of the term, was the position Kristol now takes is one that is opposite to the one he advocated on Iraq and Afghanistan where it was 'boots on the ground, bombs in the air' -he has not suggested the US put troops into Ukraine, let alone go for the 'regime change' in Russia that he called for in Iraq. On this basis, he has I think compromised with the 'Liberal' President Biden (and Kamala Harris) whom he voted for.

You might say that existing divisions in the Republican Party were taken to their extremes by Trump, yet Kristol would have supported in principle the tax cuts and de-regulation of the Trump Presidency because they were policies he advocated when he was in the Nixon and subsequently latter Republican White House administrations. He has a personal hostility to Trump which might be laudable, given that Trump was never fit for public office because of his known association with criminals, but what has been striking about the way American 'Conservatism' has evolved since the emergence of the TEA Party, is how obsessed they are with so-called 'Cultural' issues which for them define what the US is as a country.

For this reason, the incoherence in American Conservatism is laid bare -those who think in terms of the USA's Global Role as the champion of Freedom and Democracy, thereby taking direct or indirect action to limit the success and spread of Dictatorship; and those who see in Putin their own battles, as Pat Buchanan wrote in 2013-

“In the culture war for mankind’s future, is he one of us?” Mr. Buchanan wrote, quickly answering his own question. “He is seeking to redefine the ‘Us vs. Them’ world conflict of the future as one in which conservatives, traditionalists and nationalists of all continents and countries stand up against the cultural and ideological imperialism of what he sees as a decadent West.”
Reverence for Putin on the Right Buys Trump Cover - The New York Times (nytimes.com)

We have seen in the UK how Brexit has opened a gulf within Conservatism that existed before, as the Party was always divided over the UK's membership of the EU in its various forms, but what it has also done, with the 'culture wars', has made it hard to say what precisely it means to be a Conservative these days. One could level the same charge at Socialists, but Socialism has always been a mixed bag though one might argue the dividing line is over the extent of the State's presence in our daily lives.

So no support in the US for regime change in Russia, even though most commentators believe it is the only way to end the war, other than a military victory for Ukraine.

[Stavros]

One wonders what China's motivation is at the moment. As far as I can make out, China is doing well in its investment strategy in Central Asia, but is not in a position to replace Russia as a dominant force. Many Central Asian people work in Russia and send money back -few if any work in China. China at the moment need only maintain is 'Belt and Road' strategy, investing in railways, oil and gas pipelines, and allow Russia to exhaust itself in Ukraine. Moreover, Xi must be quietly laughing at the desperation of Russia which, having lost its European energy markets, is selling oil and gas to China at knockdown prices.

China has the problem that it has always insisted Sovereignty is non-negotiable in international law/relations, and for this reason did not specify in its 'peace proposals' that territory legally part of Ukraine but occupied by Russia be returned as part of the process. I suspect Xi and China now realize that Russia is no longer a major power in International Relations, that the global 'order' insofar as there is one, is dominated by the US and China, economically, while there are doubts about the USA's commitment other than with materiel. The anniversary of the Iraq war and the fall-out from Afghanistan appear to rule out American 'boots on the ground' and this suits Xi, though it is not clear if this means he will go ahead with his stated ambition to 're-unite' Taiwan with China.

A curious but telling optic: Xi is taller than Putin, and that handshake did appear to be one between a superior and his inferior. Putin won't like that, and a lot of Russians won't either, but under Putin Russia has declined, and they have to deal with that. China will not do anything to upset the status quo in Russia, the Central Asian republics are loyal to Russia with no sign of revolutionary change there.

But, and this is crucial -China after the trauma of 1989 compromised in order to insert itself into the global economy, to develop its position in global supply chains, to insert itself into the African economy, and to develop a robust domestic economy capable of withstanding any shocks to the global economy, as indeed happened in 2008. But Xi is an activist Premier, a man who wants to change things and go down in history as a 'Great Leader', though he will not be fazed by Putin's failure, and can look across the border at Narendra Modi's long-term campaign to rid India of its Muslims and be satisfied that so far Modi has been able to achieve with sustained violence what in other countries would be condemned.

But can China claim to be a world leader if it does not compromise on global issues, and thus it remains to be seen if its support for Russia is going to materialize in weapons, or just vocal support -for otherwise, why should anyone trust China if it only delivers for itself?

Some links-

The Central Asian 'Stans' and China-
China’s Dominance in Central Asia: Myth or Reality? | Royal United Services Institute (rusi.org)

The US and Central Asia-
The Superpower and the “Stans”: Why Central Asia is Not “Central” to the United States - The SAIS Review of International Affairs (jhu.edu)

At a high-stakes meeting in Moscow, China has to decide whether Putin's failure in Ukraine means it's time to cross a red line (yahoo.com)

Why Xi can't solve Putin's Ukraine problem (yahoo.com)

[Stavros]

Some background on the arrest of Wall St Journal reporter Evan Gershkovich.

"The Journal piece, written by Gershkovich and Georgi Kantchev, catalogued Russia’s economic woes and its diminution into a kind of junior partner for China, whose economic assistance it depends on. The story described how sanctions prevent Russian airlines from obtaining spare parts and finance firms from updating software. New-car sales have plunged by 62% year-over-year. Investment in Russian oil and gas exploration is down 42%, which could lead to a long-term decline in Russia’s energy output.

That wasn’t the first story on Russia’s economic problems, but it was comprehensive and may have arrived just as Putin is feeling the rising heat of a failing war and a flatlining economy. Snatching Gershkovich on bogus charges probably reveals increasing desperation for Putin, yet it’s consistent with the bullying behavior of a dictator who has badly erred and blames the messengers. It won’t be the last of Putin’s aberrant behavior."
Putin’s getting nervous about Russia’s sinking economy (yahoo.com)