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

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?

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

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

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)

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)

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.

Anne Applebaum on Ukraine: One Year into the War - YouTube

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

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?

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.

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)

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)

1) It did not make sense for Ukraine to blow up the dam; 2) the Russians could have done it to deter an attack by Ukraine across the Dnipro River; 3) it was an accident caused by a mine blowing up as the Reservoir level became unsustainably high.

But, a) it is the Russians who have laid mines all along the Dnipro River, and b) the Russians who allowed the water levels in the Reservoir to rise. And c) the Russians really don't care who dies or what is destroyed. It might be the case that Putin thinks Ukraine does not exist, that it is part of Greater Russia, but if that means him in effect murdering 'his own people' he wouldn't care about that either. This is nihilism in politics taken to depths of despair, with short, medium and long term consequences that reach beyond Ukraine, Crimea and Russia and could affect food poverty in those countries in Africa that rely on imports from what is now a flood zone.

Devastation from Kakhovka dam collapse could take decades to heal | Ukraine | The Guardian

Reports from Russia indicate that 'the Kremilin' is moving against Prigozhin. Whether or not this has come from the military -specifically Shoigu and Gerasimov- and/or the FSB, rather than Putin is not known. On one level this suggests Putin has suddenly lost control, given that he promoted and protected Prigozhin. On the other hand, he may have decided Prigozhin's time is up and agreed to have him arrested.

What is not clear is how much support Prigozhin retains in the Wagner outfit, or the regular army, as some of his associates have denounced him, but probably to keep their jobs, and crucially -for them and the leeches in Moscow, the benefits of the Wagner people in Africa stealing as much of the continent's minerals as they can carry away, killing any and everyone who gets in their way. Given the shrinking opportunities to make loadsamoney in Russia, Wagner's access to wealth suggest to me that while it might be forced out of Ukraine, its African robbery machine will be held in place, though this does also suggest a further setback for Russian forces in Ukraine.

A wilder scenario has supporters of Prigozhin moving against Shoihu and Gerasimov, but this suggests the loudmouth has more support in the Kremlin than he probably has.

Either way, it is a further indication of the mess Putin has created with his ambition to be remembered as the 21st Century version of Peter the Great.

Russia-Ukraine war live: Russia investigates ‘mutiny’ as Wagner chief says ‘evil’ military leaders must be stopped (theguardian.com)

Letting another headstrong personality build his own private army - who would have thought that would lead to trouble? So much for Putin's reputation for cleverness.

Dude, Russians. Same shit generation after generation. Strong men and sheep.
Any questions?

Sergei Lavrov said yesterday Russian support for the Governments of Mali and the Central African Republic will continue, though it is not known how Wagner forces on the ground have reacted to their leader being sent into 'exile' in Belarus; nor is it clear why Russia would retain the services of a para-military group that was supposed to be integrated into the Russian Army. Because Wagner gave Russia 'plausible deniability' when Wagner was -and is- accused of summary executions, mineral theft and corruption -it needs a 'proxy' army in Africa but just as the FSB in Russia has dropped charges against Wagner as Putin said the perpetrators of the killings in Russia would be brought to justice, this is further proof that governance in Russia is an incoherent mess, or to put it another way: Putin hasn't got a clue what to do next.

This is a long article from the Brookings Institute in 2022 that gives a fair overview of Wagner/Russia's antics in sub-Saharan Africa-
Russia’s Wagner Group in Africa: Influence, commercial concessions, rights violations, and counterinsurgency failure | Brookings

Wagner and Russia are here to stay in Africa, says Kremlin’s top diplomat – POLITICO

The extraordinary bad luck of people who cross Putin continues.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...-russia-wagner

There's no phrase for backpedaling across the rubicon.

The man who fell to earth...

There's speculation that Prigozhin may not have been on the plane, but even if that was true his days are surely numbered. They will get him eventually.
https://www.theguardian.com/world/20...e-is-convinced

The obvious lesson, which he should have known, is that if you move against Putin you must follow it through to the end. There's no negotiated compromise with this guy.

Autocracy, Orthodoxy, Nationalism -these were the pillars of Tsarist Russia under the Romanov. Leonard Schapiro argued that the Bolshevik Revolution against the Romanov's ended up replicating what it had replaced: the Autocracy of the Tsar became the Autocracy of the Communist Party. The Orthodoxy of the Church became the Orthodoxy of Marxism-Leninism; Nationalism remained what it was before and after.

I see no change since Putin came to power. The Autocracy is just more crude but just as violent; the Orthodoxy a vacuous assembly of accusations that Russia's enemies are 'Neo-Nazis' and 'Degenerate'; while the Nationalism remains what it has always been.

Ukraine: Is Europe starting to change its strategy?

https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-is-eur...egy/a-68188384

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MrFanti

Ukraine: Is Europe starting to change its strategy?

https://www.dw.com/en/ukraine-is-eur...egy/a-68188384

---

Here in the UK it has been pointed out that defence spending has been cut from around 5% to 2% of GDP. If there is an incoming Labour Govt or Coalition later this year, I would expect defence spending to rise, as Labour since the 1960s was seen as weak on defence, albeit of a nuclear aspect during the Cold War. Recruitment into the armed forces is down, but the other problem is that those having joined up don't stay to make it a life long career, so it may be that in the defence budget provisions are made for more perks for armed forces with regard to low cost accommodation.

But part of this is a manufactured fear by those supporting the broader arms business, given that the Ukraine project has exposed a critical weakness in Russia's armed forces which may be attempting to rebuild but is draining financial resources, much as it did under Brezhnev in the 1970s until it was laid waste in Afghanistan and led to regime change, mostly though death, in the Kremlin.

As NATO expands, so one assumes pressure will rise to meet the staple budget contribution, but in realistic terms, if Russia were to meddle in Finland, the Baltics or even Poland, it would be out of desperation. That doesn't mean we should not be too worried about Russian aggression, but place it in a context where at the moment, Russia is failing on every front.

Tucker Carlson's special pleading merely shows how out of touch he is. Putin has never been shy about declaring what his aims are in Ukraine, the speeches he has made are all widely available on the internet. The same goes for Americans who want to know what it happening in the Ukraine, the only caveat being that by now there is a lot of stuff to get through.

What Carlson seems to me to be doing is trying to create the same alternative narrative that he has been doing on domestic politics in the US. Or is he going to visit Bucha or Mariupol and ask the people there, or any survivors, what happened and who did it? Are the armed forces of Ukraine Saints? I doubt it, but if Carlson is really interested in the truth, he needs to do more than bend the knee to a man like Putin.

Tucker Carlson interviews Putin in Moscow after years of anti-Ukraine vitriol | The Independent

Latest outrageous statement from Trump
Former President Donald Trump on Saturday said he would encourage Russia to do “whatever the hell they want” to any NATO member country that doesn’t meet spending guidelines on defense in a stunning admission he would not abide by the collective-defense clause at the heart of the alliance if reelected.
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...n-t-pay-enough

Classic Trump:

"“One of the presidents of a big country stood up and said, ‘Well sir, if we don’t pay and we’re attacked by Russia, will you protect us?’ I said, ‘You didn’t pay? You’re delinquent?’ He said, ‘Yes, let’s say that happened.’ No, I would not protect you. In fact, I would encourage them to do whatever the hell they want,” Trump said.“You gotta pay. You gotta pay your bills,” he added."
Trump Says He Might 'Encourage' Russia To Attack NATO Allies (yahoo.com)

From a man who never pays his bills but gets other people to do it for him.

Who laundered money for the Russian mafia in his New Jersey Casinos, and formed a business relationship with convicted racketeer and Russian Mafioso, Felix Sater?

Is the Republican Party now an adjunct of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union -which is Putin's Russia in all but name?

Echoing credulous leftist visitors to the old Soviet Union, Putin's useful idiot Tucker Carlson has concluded that Russians are much better off than Americans, based on a visit to a ritzy grocery store and subway station in central Moscow.
https://www.msn.com/en-au/news/other...ayal-of-russia

If he believes this, why doesn't he emigrate?

Your link is dead, but this one should work

Tucker Carlson Says Trip to Russian Grocery Store Has 'Radicalized' Him Against US Leaders: 'Legitimately Angry' - TheWrap

The man is an idiot. How much does he think Russians get paid? Not the same as Americans. I even wonder if he has ever gone grocery shopping in his own country.
If Carlson did move to Russia, either he would be a protected species with a nice apartment, a cleaner, a chauffeur and crucially the amusement of the Govt-or, if he lived like a local, would be on the next plane out of there.

According to this source the average income in Russia, adjusted for purchasing power, is only one-third of the average income in the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dispos..._capita_income

His comment about crime was also clueless. Russia has an even higher murder rate than the USA.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_o..._homicide_rate

The other thing I meant to say is that Carlson estimated the bill for his groceries in the US would be around $400 and that this was to him the average weekly spend -but is it? I could not see precisely what he was buying -there was a loaf of bread, some cooked meats and what looked like packets of vegetables and so on, so I don't know.

This site says the average US family spends $270 a week, with children $331-
How much do Americans spend on groceries each week? See chart (usatoday.com)

But note that these figures vary depending on the location, eg the State as some States are more expensive than others, but it is still much less than $400 a week.

This site claims the average weekly spend for a family of 3 in the UK is £102-
Average UK Household Cost of Food 2023 | NimbleFins

Again this must vary, and, for example, does it include alcohol, takeaways and so on?

I'm sure Carlson lives in an upscale neighbourhood and, if he does his own shopping at all it would be at an expensive local shop.

According to this site, the average cost of living in the USA is 2.5 times the cost in Russia, and the cost of groceries is about 2.9 times. As anyone who has travelled should know, costs are lowest in the poorest countries.
https://worldpopulationreview.com/co...ing-by-country

Anyway, there are more important things than the cost of living. I wonder what Carlson and the other Putin apologists will have to say about Navalny's death.
https://edition.cnn.com/2024/02/16/e...ntl/index.html

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

Anyway, there are more important things than the cost of living. I wonder what Carlson and the other Putin apologists will have to say about Navalny's death.

---

Here is your answer, straight out of the Henry Kissinger book of Real Life is a Shit Sandwich. One wonders how many people did Nehru kill when he was Prime Minister of India, or how many people did Nelson Mandela kill when he was President of South Africa. I know not all of Canada's Prime Ministers have been saints, but what does the roster of killings look like in that country?

So I assume Carlson has a simple view: Strong Leaders Kill People, Get Over it.

Tucker Carlson criticised for praising Putin before Navalny death: ‘Leadership requires killing people’ (msn.com)

He did say this, though without naming Putin:
"it's horrifying what happened to Navalny. The whole thing is barbaric and awful. No decent person would defend it."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ia/ar-BB1ipl67

The other Putin fan who is actually running for President seems to have said nothing on the subject.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by filghy2

He did say this, though without naming Putin:
"it's horrifying what happened to Navalny. The whole thing is barbaric and awful. No decent person would defend it."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/polit...ia/ar-BB1ipl67

The other Putin fan who is actually running for President seems to have said nothing on the subject.

---

Carlson is a worthless hypocrite, cherry-picking his way through the corpses stacked up by his favourite dictators to condemn some while remaining silent on others.

He has interviewed Viktor Orbán on the grounds he shares the same 'family values' as he and the Republicans claim to share, and the importance of Christianity, and of course, The Nation as the foundations of a decent society. Only it now emerges that Orbán and his Fidesz colleagues are far from decent, and have had their grubby hypocrisy exposed, though we don't yet know if this will force Orbán out of office. He has another boyfriend in the US, Sebastian Gorka, a permanently hysterical bag-carrier for Bannon.

Can we hope this year sees the tide turn against these nauseating hypocrites who champion the very kind of politics that in other countries would land them in the Gulag?

This is the super-scandal that should bring down Viktor Orbán – and it’s far from over | Katalin Cseh | The Guardian

Now the poor man is effectively defending Putin on the grounds that he would not have ordered the murder of Navalny when the Munich Security Conference was taking place, indeed anyone who says so is an 'idiot'-

"People who say Putin killed him are idiots,' Carlson said."
Tucker Carlson jumps to Putin's defense again after Navalny's death (msn.com)

Historians now argue it was at the Munich Conference in 2007 that Putin indicated his patience with 'the West' was over and he was planning an expansion of his new Empire, so it actually made more sense to murder Navalny when the Conference was taking place to remind the delegates there he calls the shots in Russia. Whether or not he personally ordered the murder is not relevant, as the system he has created knows how to deal with any opponent of the regime.

The idiots are those who defend Putin -ask yourself, would they want in the US what the Russians have? Maybe that is a chilling thought.

Two years on, and the question might not be can Ukraine win, but can Russia be defeated? I doubt the latter, though on BBC Radio 4's World This Weekend (Sunday 25th) it was pointed out that a war economy can survive in the near future but stores long term problems for Russian economy and society. Production of weapons and the upgrading of old stock is giving people jobs, but it is a 'Kalashnikov economy', and the current weakness is on the Ukraine side with war fatigue and the prospect of it losing financial and military assistance from NATO and the US.

The real anxiety now has shifted to Moldova and the fake Russian Republc of Transnistria, as the Russians there will be seeking the formal integration into Russia, probably in the week ahead-

"Pro-Russia rebels in a separatist part of Moldova are preparing to ask Vladimir Putin to annex their region amid warnings that an emboldened Kremlin is trying to destabilise Europe."
Moldovan separatists to ask Putin to annexe their region (yahoo.com)

It would be another way that Putin does what he wants without regard for the consequences as long as it benefits him and undermines whatever 'the West' thinks it can do. When it comes to suffering, most people I think agree that Putin doesn't care about that. We shall see.

As expected-

Breakaway Moldovan region asks Russia for 'protection' (yahoo.com)

Tucker Carlson out of his depth and bewildered by the philosophical ideas of Aleksandr Dugin, described as 'Putin' Brain', but a man who conjures up out of the 'Anglo-Saxon World' (!) a new Liberalism in which the minority rules the majority, where sex is optional, and the end state is the liberation from humanity into a singularity. When did this start? When the 'Anglo-Saxon World' broke away from the Catholic Church and began to emphasize individual rights over collective rights and identity, thus throwing some kind of temporary panic in Carlson's brain as he struggles to define individualism, and so on.

Spare a thought for the Normans who transformed Britain, indeed, became an Imperial power stretching from Ireland in the west to Sicily in the Mediterranean. As for the growth of Capitalism, class, the industrial revolution or the ideas of Hobbes, Locke and Mill....well I guess that is for another day.

And no discussion of what 'Putin's Brain' thinks is good for Russia, which spares us the recitation of the glories of Autocracy, Orthodoxy and Nationalism.

The interview is in this article

Tucker Carlson Posts Deranged Interview With ‘Putin’s Brain’ (yahoo.com)

So much turmoil everywhere, one hopes people have not forgotten a most dangerous corner of the world, where

"The Convention on the Prevention and Punishment of the Crime of Genocide defines genocide as acts committed “with intent to destroy, in whole or in part” a specific group.The destruction need not be accomplished physically – actions taken to destroy a group’s identity without killing all members of the group also constitute genocide. The Russian genocidal project includes horrific acts of violence, to be sure, including summary executions, sexual assaults, arbitrary detentions, and torture. It includes the forcible deportation of children from Ukraine to Russia, which the Genocide Convention explicitly specifies also constitutes genocide."
If Putin wins, expect the worst genocide since the Holocaust (yahoo.com)

Identity politics, not from the Left. But what in the long term does Putin think this will achieve? Hard to see how a blasted country with a demoralized population is going to be productive, whatever language they speak, or are forced to speak.

The Madness of Antony Blinken
The Madness of Antony Blinken (consortiumnews.com)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ben

The Madness of Antony Blinken
The Madness of Antony Blinken (consortiumnews.com)

---

I don't know who Joe Lauria is, but I think he might do better if he were to read a few books on Russia, or acquaint himself with Putin's version of PNAC, Project for a New Russian Century.

Putin on the one hand has weakened Russia, compared to where it was at the end of the 1990s. On the other hand, he has successfully used the fact of Russia's geography, its nuclear arsenal and most of all its alliances with China and India (fragile though these can be) to do what he wants and dare 'the West' -ie the US and the EU- to do something about it.

Putin can wage war against Ukraine for the next 50 years if his successor(s) decides to, much as the insurgent armies in Myanmar have been waging war with the various regimes in power since the late 1940s Low level most of the time, it makes resolution all but impossible, while creating a reservoir of bitterness and resentment as deep as any created by the Israel-Palestine conflict.

The dilemma for Biden and Blinken, is that the aggressive application of PNAC, crucially in Iraq and Afghanistan, has not just failed, but undermined the moral argument of the US as world leader at the very moment when it was needed to counter the Nationalist aggression of Putin, Netanyahu and Xi's ambition to 're-unite' Taiwan with the People's Republic. If there is a gap between Blinken on one side, and Biden and the US military on the other, it is because the US has not been able to sustain the Neo-Con strategy as a military project, while the rise of Nationalism as an antidote to Globalization enables someone like JD Vance to declare 'I don't care about Ukraine', which is why some people see the 2020s as a re-run of the 1930s.

Trump by contrast has at least replaced the National Interest of the USA with his financial interest- his deals with Xi were all based on China giving him the access to markets in China he was denied before he became President, it is not clear what China got in return.

The so-called 'Abraham Accords' were just a business deal that consolidated the Kushner/Trump family business/financial interests in Israel and the illegally-occupied West Bank with the promise that bringing the Gulf states into the relationship would release handsome volumes of capital investment (but not for Palestinians of course) and thus make Kushner and Trump even richer than they were before.

One of Bibi's inducements was to re-name the 'Golan Heights' (Jabal al-Jawlan if you prefer) 'Trump Heights'. That Israel acquired this part of Syria through force, as blatant a violation of international law as can be found in history, is apparently of no interest or importance, whereas Russia invading and annexing Ukraine has sent the world into meltdown.

Trump will fold when it is Putin he is dealing with, it is that simple. The Russian mafia laundered money through Trump's New Jersey casinos -he knew it, the IRS knew it, and it was one element of their collapse. Trump then formed a business relationship with another Russian Mafia link, Felix Sater, and then there is the notorious moment in July 2016 when Trump publicly called on Russia to help him attack the American candidate in the election. Given that the Trump campaign knew the Russians were attacking the US through their election interference, Trump siding with the Russians against the US makes him a Traitor, which may be why once he was President he launched investigations into several people after 2016 calling all of them 'Traitors' to deflect from his own treachery. And you can be sure that this cheap, vindictive little man will, if re-elected spend as much time having his 'enemies' investigated as he did before, and if it fails to prove anything but costs them hundreds of thousands or even a million dollars, that is also a form of 'job done' -to make them worse off than they were before defying His Imperial Majesty.

At some point perhaps someone might call Putin's bluff, or maybe he will do the same and either invade or attack NATO countries such as the Baltic states or Poland -what will NATO/US do then? Or this time next year, who knows next week, Putin will no longer be in power.

Don't ask Mr Lauria, he hasn't got a clue.