Deep Dive on Ukraine (part 4)

Okay. The Russians have (pretty much) carved off the chunk of the Donbas they wanted and now have nowhere else to go. The Ukrainians have vowed to fight back but--despite constant breathless Western media reports to the contrary--have not been effective at holding back Russian forces. We're clearly at a stalemate (or close enough to see the stalemate coming).

So....how does this end? Yeah, this is why I initially thought the idea of Russia invading Ukraine was so preposterous to begin with because it has no obvious conclusion. From here, I presume Russia will carve off the Donbas and the Ukrainians (w/NATO support) will continue to fire shells into that territory (which they were already doing) and there will be low level skirmishing for the next decade or so. As for Crimea, remember folks: Crimea never belonged to Kiev and is much too strategically valuable to Moscow to give up. (*)

Are the Russians going to take over Kiev? No. They've made (almost) no effort to do so, never made any overtures in that direction and don't have any motivation to do that now. Outside of the American media, I don't see that taking Kiev was ever an imperative for the Russians nor would it be. The recent firing on Kiev was aimed at imports of foreign weapons and there is likely to be similar attacks on future imports. Will the Russians refrain from killing NATO representatives along with the weapons? We are told that there are no Americans in country, but I doubt that's true and what will happen if American "advisors" are among the dead? Who will be responsible for that escalation?

Are the Ukrainians going to sue for peace? No. They had their chance to do so months ago and chose American weapons instead. Zelensky is determined to fight to the death--and NATO is determined to make sure his dream comes true.

Will the Russians continue on to Odessa? It kinda looks like that's what they're trying to do but without naval support, I don't see how they could take it or hold it. And I don't see what the purpose of taking or holding it would be anyway. And, though Putin's justifications have been hitherto ignored, he does have justifications for taking (dare I says "liberating"?) the Donbas, which he does not have for Odessa. Any attempt to take over the remaining Black Sea-adjacent territory would be strategically lucrative, but not in any way justified and would be extremely militarily difficult. Since the West has never cared for his justifications, does that embolden Putin to aim for more territory or does he stick to the script? 

Will NATO put boots on the ground? No, I don't think so. NATO doesn't give a shit about Ukrainian territory or the Ukrainian people. Inflicting heavy losses on Russian forces might be jolly good fun but it would vastly increase the chances of a larger war, so I doubt that NATO boots on the ground is coming soon. (Though don't forget about those "advisors" that could inadvertently suck NATO into something more than the proxy war they've enjoyed so far)

That said, I wouldn't surprised to see more American, French and/or British warships camping out in the Black Sea (a redux of the Crimean War).  Because taking Crimea from Russia is NATO's ultimate goal. Crimea is the main base for the Russian navy (and has been for as long as there has ever been a Russian navy). Basically Crimea is the one worthwhile piece of territory the Russians have and taking that from them has been NATO's aim since long before there was a NATO. 

Will Crimea be returned to Ukraine? Well, considering that Ukraine never controlled Crimea, I don't see how that's even possible. If NATO thinks they have enough justification and enough firepower to push the Russians out of Crimea, then eventually they will give that a try. But, I'd say we're a long way from that at this point. That would be WWIII but as long as the People of the Western world can be assured that they are righteous, then Crimea will be the hill on which we fight. Then again, if NATO does take Crimea from Russia, they won't be handing it over to Kiev any time soon anyway, so the question is moot.

Will the Donbas be returned to Ukraine? Not as long as there is enough popular support inside of Donbas for Moscow rather than Kiev, and/or enough Russian firepower to hold it. How strong is that popular support? I dunno, the American media has never bothered to suggest that support for Moscow exists, so the Truth is just never gonna be discovered, I guess. It may well be that the American media is correct but it has made no effort to discern the reality, so I have no idea if the people of the Donbas prefer Moscow or Kiev. The Americans reflexively suggest that taking back the Donbas should be up to the Ukrainian people--but does that include the Ukrainians living in the Donbas that support the Russian incursion? The Crimean people voted overwhelmingly to join Russia in 2014, (though the West has always found that referendum to be inconvenient), might the people of Luhansk and Donetsk make the same choice if offered? 

Will Ukraine secure the safe livelihood of the people of the Donbas if the Russians are expelled? I don't see why they would. The people of the Donbas are prisoners of either Moscow or Kiev, no matter how this turns out. I don't see how anyone living there will find any kind of prosperous future. 

Will the Russians invade other countries? I suppose Moldova (Transnistria) is still potentially in play, but I would suggest Russia never had any intention of invading any other countries. The idea that that's even on the table is just Western media paranoia. When you completely cut off Russia and the Russian people from communicating with the rest of the world, we think we are cutting them off, but we're just cutting ourselves off from finding out what they really think and feel. The censorship, sanctions and boycotting of our own doing just make it harder for us to determine what's going on. 

Will the Russians use nuclear weapons? This sort of discussion merely allows American minds to drift toward using that strategy for ourselves. The a priori hatred of Russia allows us to pretend we are victims, we are righteous and we are justified in whatever immorality it takes to defeat them. (**) 

Is Russia losing the war? Well, it looks to me like they've done just about everything they set out to do. The Ukrainians are said to be winning the war because they've kept the Russians out of Kiev, but since the Russians have never tried to invade Kiev and the Ukrainians have not stopped much of anything the Russians are doing in the Donbas, I don't see how anyone can say the Ukrainians are winning (and yet it feels like I'm the only one who is saying that). This rah-rah media bullshit is just to remind that we hate Russia and that massive aid to Ukraine (while Americans struggle to procure baby formula) is a good thing. 

What happens to Zelensky? Zelensky will eventually come to the USA, where he will be treated like a hero for the rest of his life. If he stays long enough for NATO weapons to make a difference, then he will be feted like a conqueror; if he fails to drive the Russians out, he will be feted like a martyr. Either way, he'll be coming to USA where the hero worship will be so much better than in Ukraine. As for Ukraine, it is but a stepping stone for that ambitious young man.

Hasn't the Russian economy collapsed? No but I don't have much faith in it going forward, especially if Russian consumers are more or less barred from Europe. I think Russia's economy will be fine but there will be little to do with any wealth accumulated, except to go to China and/or India. Russia is self-sustaining, though, and as much as we keep pretending that sanctions on Russian oil will cripple their economy, that was never true (and gets less true every day that American consumers subsidize that geopolitical choice at the gas pumps). 

Is the rest of the world on our side? No. This is strictly a NATO affair. It is telling to see who did not join the Western alliance: China, India, Israel, Brazil, South Africa, the Persian Gulf states, and even Mexico (***) were at the very least hesitant to condemn. And shocks to the global economy suggest Russia and Ukraine are perhaps more connected than we realized. Japan and Australia are being dragged into the NATO alliance whether they like it or not, though I don't see any upside for them as to how this war turns out. If Putin's naked aggression is so obvious, then why is it just USA and the Europeans banging this drum? Where is the grand worldwide coalition to stop this naked power grab? (Uh, no one agrees with us because they are not bombarded by manipulative American media the way we were)

We're telling ourselves that we are righteous, that the Ukrainians are brave, that Putin is a madman. But really the world is turning to Asia and this war may well be the hinge point that makes Europe and USA irrelevant for the rest of the century. Cutting Russia out of SWIFT just creates avenues of competition to that Anglo-American World Order that we keep talking about. I think the world in general has shown that it isn't falling in lockstep behind the Americans again any time soon. Biden had to beg the Saudis to answer his phone calls. Africa and the Arab world are no more wary of Russia than they are of Europe. Latin America is on the cusp of throwing in its lot with China right as American gov't spending is maxed out (a completely avoidable outcome that Americans have been courting for the last 200 years or so of our neglect of the rest of the Western hemisphere). 

Frankly the American alliance structure hasn't been this weak since before the McKinley administration. I know, I know: Trump and Putin. (****) Why solve problems when the easy scapegoats are so readily available?

Okay, let's do a quick recap of how we got here. In 2013, the EU dumped Yanukovich at the altar after three years of negotiations for Ukraine to join the EU. In the West we blame Yanukovych but that's just  not true. He desperately wanted to join the EU but needed economic inducements: "Yanukovich estimated that he needed $160 billion over three years to make up for the trade Ukraine stood to lose with Russia, and to help cushion the pain from reforms the EU was demanding. The EU refused to give such a sum, which it said was exaggerated and unjustified...The EU offered 610 million euros ($839 million) immediately. EU officials said increased trade, combined with various aid and financing programs, might go some way to providing Kiev with the investment it needed."

It's right there, folks: the EU, IMF and USA could've bought Ukraine in 2013 for $50b and they laughed in Yanukovych's face after three years of leading him on. Too high a price, you say? Well, after the country has been flattened and thousands of Ukrainians are dead, it took President Biden no time at all to cough $40b (on the eve of an American recession, no less). The message is clear: Ukraine is important enough for weapons, not important enough for European trade. 

From 2010-2013, you know what Putin did to stop Ukraine joining the EU? Nothing. Indeed, he even offered to mediate negotiations to make it easier (a request the EU rejected). Putin didn't stop it because he knew he didn't have to. He knew the Europeans were disingenuous from the start--though I suspect even he was caught off-guard by the western supported uprisings in Kiev that led to the overthrow of a democratically elected leader, all of which the West, of course, still blames on Putin (and...uh...how did Putin benefit from any of that...?). 

The EU dumped Ukraine in 2013 because they didn't want to finance Ukraine's entry to the EU. But in 2022 the EU seems eager to pour money into cleaning up the wreckage of an invasion that woul've been avoided if the EU followed through on its negotiations. Although, don't be surprised if they leave Ukraine hanging again--that NATO curtain of defense is going up to the west of Ukraine, not the east. 

USA, EU, NATO and the IMF used the Ukrainian people as cannon fodder. Zelensky gets to act like a hero when in fact he did everything he could to encourage the destruction of his own homeland. If the world really cared about ending the violence in Ukraine, we would've been encouraging Zelensky to have peace talks. Instead, we gave him billions of dollars of guns (a real bold step for peace), while his people suffered. 

I've never been a big fan of our post-Cold War treatment of Russia. It gives too much power to our defense industry at the expense of developing useful heavy industry (like expanding high speed internet or preparing for space travel) and allows our politicians to wave a lazy hand at an age old enemy instead of dealing with reality. Booting Russia out of Swift is a really dumb idea, but it is precisely in keeping with how the West has treated Russia for decades. The whole point of a system like Swift is to keep all the countries of the world on the same standard. If you start pushing nations out, it is unnecessarily cruel to Human populations and leads to competition in the long run. The Asian Development Bank is up and running and if backed with Russian oil and gold, seems like we should be fighting to keep Russia in Swift rather than out. 

It was Covid-19 that wildly overstretched gov't spending and interrupted the global supply chain of goods (particularly food) all over the world. People all over the world are vulnerable to shortages in grain from Ukraine and fertilizer from Russia--if you thought it was American missiles that kept you safe at night, you were mistaken. It was the well-functioning supply of goods and the necessary banking infrastructure to keep it all going. By invading Ukraine, Putin has shown how little power USA and Europe actually possess to finance or stabilize anything. 

USA is in a precarious financial predicament right now. Fed Chairman Jerome Powell desperately needs to do two things: 1) he absolutely must raise interest rates to keep inflation from overheating and 2) he absolutely must lower interest rates to keep the consumer economy from stalling. Hmmmmm....do you see the pickle we're in right now? If global supply shortages of food and oil continue on, it is the American economy that has the most to lose. And printing more money--right as we're shutting Russia out--is not the solution to the problem. 

The end is in sight...but from here I can't tell whose end it is. 

 

(*) Ask yourself: Was the Crimean War a war with Ukraine?

(**) When the American economy finally shatters and the society is plunged into anarchy, that is when the danger of nuclear war will be greatest. When we no longer have market dominance, then military dominance will be all we have left. And that military dominance truly takes the form of overwhelming cruise missile capacity. When we no longer have the ability to outspend our enemies, then we will be forced to empty our stockpile of missiles. I was always hoping that American financial dominance would last at least through my lifetime--and at the moment, I still believe it will--but Americans flinging missiles at its creditors will be how this whole nuclear war thing comes about despite what you've been told your whole life. 

I just point this out as a reminder that Putin has said on numerous occasions that the great tragedy of his lifetime--of the entire 20th century--was the fall of the Soviet Union. I have no doubt that he would relish pushing USA to its demise, especially since we have scorned his every attempt to join us and have used our dominance to bully Russia even after its threat has vastly diminished. 

USA is a giant cow waiting to be tipped over and Putin is just the shitkicker to do it. If China's productivity combine with Russia's gold and oil exports and taps into Arab dissatisfaction with the West in general and Africa and Latin America's inherent distrust of USA and Europe, then the world becomes a whole new place. And given America's profligate spending, which it clearly has no interest in correcting, our debts could become crushing and severely hampers USA's ability to stride the world like the colossus we've long tried to be. China's steady naval development and the even playing field offered up by cyber-warfare make USA extremely vulnerable to our own bad habits. Just as the Soviet Union collapsed because it could not keep up with USA's productivity, USA may well fall prey to China's productivity. Are you ready for the Sino World Order?  

(***) The BRICS countries have announced they're ready to expand their membership. If I were them, the first country on my wish list would be Mexico. A rising manufacturing and exporting power with a large sophisticated population currently underserved by American markets, Mexico is exactly the sort of country that would be next up for the BRICS, no?

Wouldn't it be hilarious--just a thought experiment--if after luring in Mexico (a country that is not currently engaged in a trade war with China), the Chinese were able to convince Mexico to import Chinese defense technologies? I mean, Mexico isn't a member of NATO, after all, and war with the USA is not at all impossible, Mexico might feel the need to defend itself against Yankee aggression and its tactics of undermining sovereign gov'ts. And, then wouldn't it be funny--just follow me here--if Mexico's new allies reminded Mexico that they never actually ratified the treaty that gave Texas independence? And, of course, given the sizable population in Texas of Mexican heritage, wouldn't it be a hoot--obviously could never happen!--if Russian and/or Chinese weapons suddenly flooded in to liberate Texas from the evil USA? I'm just saying....obviously this is absurd...no way this could ever happen...right? 

Clearly a bizarre fantasy...but take a second now and re-examine how the EU and the IMF and USA have treated Ukraine over the years. Is it sinking in yet? Or has the rah-rah American media completely taken over your brain? Do you consider Texas to be part of your ancestral territory and worth fighting for?

(****) Ahhh, remember 2005?

April 4, 2005 (C-Span)

George W. Bush: "I've oftentimes told our fellow citizens that the world is changing, freedom is spreading, and I use the Ukraine as an example, along with Afghanistan and Iraq, about a changing world -- a world, by the way, changing for the better, because we believe free societies will be peaceful societies....we'll work with your government to join the WTO, as well as to lift the Jackson- Vanik trade restrictions that were created in a different era....I want to thank you for your -- being an active partner in the war on terror. Our statement reflects our common desire to cooperate on law enforcement matters, our desire to have export controls to prevent the spread of dangerous weapons technology, including nuclear materials, MANPADS and ballistic missiles...the first time I met the president was at NATO during my latest trip to Europe. And my conversation with him there was the same as I had here, and that is there is a way forward to -- in order to become a partner of the United States and other nations in NATO, and it's a path, and we want to help Ukraine get on that path as quickly as possible. It is not a given. In other words, there are things that the Ukrainian government must do in order to satisfy the requirements of -- to be considered for NATO. And we want to help -- the whole purpose of this meeting and the purpose of the previous meeting was to help the Ukrainian government understand that which is necessary to do in order to become more likely accepted into NATO. And that's what we want to do. We want to help in this process. And I think it's -- I'm a supporter of the idea of Ukraine becoming a member of NATO. I think it's important..."

Viktor Yushchenko: "We're talking about the country where the number one problem remains to be corruption. We're talking about the country where the huge problem remains the problem of poverty....our accession to WTO by the end of 2005, the lifting of the trade sanctions on Ukrainian exported goods, Ukraine's accession to European and Euro-Atlantic security alliances......."

A Great Replacement Theory

According to (recent) American media (*) there are no Nazis in Ukraine. Check out this Newsweek article: Fact Check: Buffalo Shooting Suspect Misleadingly Linked to Ukraine 'Nazis'. 

"Photos shared on social media show Gendron and a Ukrainian soldier, both of which featured a controversial Nazi-associated symbol known as the Black Sun. A deeply racist "manifesto" he is said to have written, and shared online, included the same symbol."

Just to be clear: Newsweek isn't denying that the Buffalo shooter is wearing the same Nazi symbol worn by some Ukrainian soldiers. The symbol they share has not been 'debunked'. 

"These social media posts imply that Ukrainian forces and Payton Gendron are ideologically linked. The symbol, known in German as "Schwarze Sonne" or "Sonnenrad," has its origins in ancient Norse pagan pictographics, but was widely adopted in Nazi occultism. It has been used by far-right elements across the globe, including in Ukraine, where it has featured on the official logo of the National Guard's Azov Regiment."

Just to be clear: Newsweek is reporting that this Nazi symbol has in fact been the official logo of the Azov Regiment. That some Ukrainian soldiers wear Nazi symbology has not been 'debunked'.

"The purported link between Gendron and the Ukrainian forces appears to be based on the Black Sun alone. Yet what evidence is available appears to contradict any meaningful association between the two. Gendron felt contempt for Ukraine, not admiration...on social media app Discord, where he described the country as a "corrupt s*** hole."

The Azov Battalion is not the nation of Ukraine. Indeed, the Azov Battalion may well agree that the Kiev gov't is or has been corrupt. 

"There is no known link between Payton Gendron and pro-Ukrainian forces. Some of Azov's relatively small group of fighters are on the extreme right and have used the same Nazi symbolism, as the alleged Buffalo shooter, specifically the Black Sun. But this single aesthetic link is as far as any substantive connection between the two goes."

So the Buffalo shooter wears the same Nazi symbol as the Azov Battalion but there's no reason to think there's a connection. He didn't specifically name check Azov and seems to think Ukraine is corrupt (he's not the only one, apparently). But the fact that both wear the same Nazi symbol is not a "substantive connection"?  Hmmmmmmmmmm.....okay. 

Now check out this NPR transcribed interview titled: What the shooting in Buffalo has to do with Fox News host Tucker Carlson. Kinda sounds like NPR is trying to say there's a connection between Carlson and the shooter. Here's the very first question and answer of the interview: 

KELLY: David, you start. And let's start there with Tucker Carlson, who - just to be clear, he is not mentioned in this 180-page screed that authorities say the alleged gunman posted online. Right?
FOLKENFLIK: Yeah. He's not anywhere in there, not at all. 

From then on the Buffalo shooter  is never mentioned again! Indeed, the whole conversation is mostly about Trump running for president in 2024, though they do mention a little about Tucker Carlson's babble about the Great Replacement Theory, which the Buffalo shooter also cited. 

Is it even worth pointing out that any rational reading of the major thrust of Great Replacement thinking would have nothing to do with killing random strangers at a grocery store? Especially African-Americans, who would theoretically be among those being replaced by the Tucker Carlson interpretation.

The "Great Replacement" will either happen over time or it won't. Time is the only thing that will determine whether this replacement comes to pass or not. The idea that any variation of the theory (and there are many) suggests anything actionable here and now is just not paying attention to the centuries that will have to pass before we will see if anyone has been greatly replaced--which is why Carlson's discussion of it is so pointless (and/or cynical) to begin with! 

Whether it is inspiring you to lead a voter registration drive or kill random strangers, you clearly didn't understand that this theory will play out over numerous generations and is not encompassed in any single act (positive or negative). And citing a great replacement in regards to any particular action just shows that you didn't understand it.

While Newsweek wants you to believe that not mentioning the Azov Battalion, though shrouding himself in the exact same imagery, does not link the white supremacist shooter in Buffalo with white supremacists in Ukraine, NPR wants you to believe that because the Buffalo shooter refers to a similar sort of theory as Tucker Carlson (though he doesn't seem to share the same interpretation) is an obvious connection between the two, though he never mentions Carlson either.

If you think Tucker Carlson is responsible for the shooting in Buffalo, then you must repudiate the $40billion that the Congress has pledged to known white supremacists in Ukraine. 

To wrap up, let's do a little thought experiment here: 

If I wear a Led Zeppelin t-shirt and some dude I never met in Japan wears a Led Zeppelin t-shirt, one could easily say that we have something of a cultural connection even if neither of us knows anything about each other. 

On the other hand, if I read, say, Catch-22 and that same guy in Japan read Catch-22. we may have nothing in common in our reactions. He may have hated it while I admired it or he may have loved it for a thousand different reasons that have nothing to do with what I loved about it. 

A book or a deeper concept is built to be interpreted in any number of different ways by the wide masses of people who come into contact with it. A t-shirt, on the other hand, or a single symbol, is meant to be basic, to be a quick identifier that people can recognize across oceans. 

Christians all over the world, for example, wear crosses to signify a love of Jesus--indeed, the signification for others is the whole point of wearing the cross--when, in fact, their actual worship techniques may be wildly different. Like a Southern Baptist at a St. Patrick's Day parade, there are a multitude of varieties of Christian experience. But the cross is universal to all of them. 

I'm not saying that kid in Buffalo was a member of the Azov Battalion (in fact, I suspect he wasn't), but whatever drove him to flash that symbol is surely the same thing that drove the Azov to don it on their gear. On the other hand, if this kid's concept of "Great Replacement" came from 4Chan (yeah, I'm not linking to that, you can find that shit on your own), then there is no reason at all to think that has anything to do with Tucker Carlson, even when he uses similar language. (**)

If Tucker Carlson can be said to have anything "to do with" the Buffalo shooter, then it isn't "misleading" to say that there are Nazis in the Azov Battalion. But, then again, I don't work in the American media, I'm just stuck reading it. 

The only thing getting replaced in America is logic. It used to come in handy but that phase seems to have moved on. 

(*) Though reporting on Nazis in Ukraine used to be pretty ordinary before the great misinformation crisis of the Biden years: BBC in 2014 (twice) and 2015. And The Guardian in 2017. Then the BBC again in 2018. And Time Magazine in 2019. 

(**) Also, just for fun, I'll go ahead and point out something that obviously neither Democrats nor Republicans have realized yet: Hispanics coming into the USA from the South (presumably the folks Carlson sees as the great replacers) are much more likely to vote Republican than Democrat. To grossly generalize, these people (if/when they arrive) are going to want to make money, dress their children modestly but nice, and on the weekends they're gonna go to church and watch sports. 

Democrats are deluded if they think they're getting those votes (do you think they're coming here to get abortions?) and Republicans are just being stupid for castigating these people rather than recruiting them (they're coming to this country to save us from ourselves, you morons!). God, I hope these 'replacers' bring a respect for real journalism with them! 

Gun Control

Gunman kills 19 children and 2 teachers in an elementary school (three more children and one more teacher in the hospital). Schools are State property, State responsibility, how did armed agents of the State protect these in loco parentis children?

"Uvalde school police officer was first to engage shooter"

Governor Abbott: officers "saved lives". "....A brave consolidated resource officer that approached him, engaged him at that time...the subject was able to make it into the school." 

"Law enforcement's response to the Uvalde school shooting"

"The subject was able to engage with and get past three police officers...a border patrol unit ended up responding and killing the subject."

"Uvalde Council Member Says Police Arrived At School Faster Than Reported"

"We had to control the people from going in there. That's why you saw...the Police pushing the people back."

"Man who confronted Uvalde gunman moments before school shooting"

"If I would've had (my pistol), I could've laid him down."

If, though, this man had "laid him down", he would not have been credited with averting a tragedy because no one knew what the gunman was capable of. Indeed, this man may well have found himself in serious trouble--not with the Law, which I think would've been on his side--but who knows how social media would've reacted to this man's actions? When cops kill people--or in this case, stand around while children get murdered--they are considered brave. But if this citizen had stopped this tragedy from occurring, he likely would not have been celebrated and may well have been vilified. 

This is what "gun control" looks like:

It is armed agents of the State refusing to allow people to defend themselves. 

So much easier to blame a weapon or call it all "misinformation" than to notice that this act was perpetrated on State property protected by State law enforcement that did nothing to stop a guy carrying an AR-15. While carrying an AR-15 in the middle of a riot, Kyle Rittenhouse was attacked over and over again--by private citizens!--while this guy with an assault rifle openly walked into a school past multiple armed agents of the State. 

I have never in my life advocated for more armed agents of the State--and I sure as fuck ain't starting now! This is why people buy guns. 

And who finally subdued the shooter? The border patrol. Is the border patrol the "hero" you want to look up to? 

The "majority" wants to be heard, too: "They wrote it for everybody!"

Once again for my mantra: the gov't was here when you born, it will be here when you die, it doesn't know how to help you live your life and couldn't even if it wanted to. Relying on the State will be the death of us all. 

(EDIT)

Mea culpa. I was incorrect in saying that the gunman interacted with a security officer before entering the school building. In this video, a representative from the Texas Department of Public Safety gives a comprehensive explanation of what happened as the gunman was wandering around the school campus. He specifically mentions (around 9:30) that the gunman did not interact with any safety officers prior to entering the building (though he did fire at least two shots at the school before entering). 

In my defense, I was reacting to what had been reported by CBS, NBC, ABC and Fox News (and, of course, You Tube), among others. And, also: New York Times ("entered despite being confronted"), Reuters ("managed to evade a school police officer who approached him before running inside."), BBC ("A police officer who works at the school was also in the vicinity although there are conflicting accounts over whether Ramos and the officer exchanged fire."), USA Today ("At the school, the shooter first encountered school resource officers but made it inside the school through a back door, officials said."), Associated Press "Officials say he “encountered” a school district security officer outside the school, though there were conflicting reports from authorities on whether the men exchanged gunfire. "

I'm sure these purveyors of misinformation will be properly punished by the proper authorities.

Roe v Wade

Too early to tell, actually, but a leaked report suggests that the Supreme Court is about to overturn Roe v Wade and/or Planned Parenthood v Casey. I almost wrote a post last summer suggesting that I was ready for Roe v Wade to go, but it didn't feel necessary. Okay, well, now it is.

This is a good thing because, in the long run, abortion will actually be a legal regulated perfectly ordinary consumer good rather than just a political football for the Partisans to manipulate. Indeed, getting rid of Roe v Wade should be the final nail in the coffin of our current two-party system. 

The reason modern Democrats are what they are is because of Roe v Wade; to a lesser extent, the reason the Republican Party is what it is is because of the political target that abortion offers. For both parties abortion is the cornerstone of their identity, their rhetoric and (most importantly) their fund-raising. Kicking abortion back to the States will create a bunch of places where abortion becomes legal so quickly that it no longer remains a partisan issue. And other places where it is such a losing fight that the political will will necessarily move on to other topics. In short, abortion will no longer be the cornerstone for either the Republicans or the Democrats (*). 

For example, will Republicans fight legalized abortion in California? Not for long. Why would they bother? It is guaranteed to be a losing issue and unlike the Democrats, the Republicans aren't going to spend their time on that level of pointless political theater. The Republicans used to rage against Social Security but by 1950 or so, they gave up. No one on the Right complains about Social Security any more (**) and abortion, too, may play as a down home talking point in a handful of places but it'll never be mentioned in others. 

On the other other hand, will the Democrats fight illegal abortion in, say, Idaho? Yes, because they live for losing issues and because, for now, there's so much essence built up on the Left around abortion (and Leftists are addicted to Identity). Over time, even those states will allow abortion because eventually it won't make much sense to not allow the same services that other states provide. End result: abortion will be legal in every state and no one will even think about it or care. Now that might take 100 years but even those places will lose their resolve to fight modernity. As it becomes less of a cultural flashpoint, no one will remember what they love/hate about abortion and it will just become another storefront in the strip mall. 

Abortion is absolutely and completely the province of the Partisans, not the People. By striking down Roe v Wade the Supreme Court has removed the duct tape holding this issue together and each of the 50 states will have to come to their own conclusions. The Blue states will legalize it and never look back; the Red states will criminalize it but over time will eventually catch up to the other states. The only way to make abortion perfectly legal is to get rid of Roe v Wade.  

Oh, well, the next 2-4 years or so will be an absolute political mosh pit as both the parties dig in to fight 50 fights rather than pretending to fight one (this also coincides with the continuing decay of the mainstream media and the steady decline of the Baby Boomers). But once the dust clears, abortion will be legal and we'll never have to talk about it again. And both the parties will be transformed, if not completely destroyed. 

I really never thought the Supreme Court had the balls or the wisdom to make this move. I thought the Court (especially under Roberts) would go along to get along and keep the accepted practice rather than actually force our political system to clean up the mess the Partisans have made. The Partisans have feasted for decades on this 50/50 issue and now that is going away. What will be the new talking points? What will be the cornerstone of the fund raisers? It'll be abortion more than ever for the next few years but after that....who knows?

The People will finally get to decide what they want. The Blue State People will undoubtedly choose legal abortion right away; the Red State People will take longer, but they will choose legal abortion, too, over time. In the end, abortion will be legal and we'll look back on the Roe v Wade period as the decades when the political parties held the nation hostage. 

The Supreme Court has done the right thing here: they have allowed abortion to be legal rather than just a tool for the Partisans to manipulate the People. I'm kinda shocked they had the good sense to do this. knowing full well that in the short term it will lead to chaos. USA is a place of permanent chaos, we should not be worried--hell, we were going to obsess over something stupid for the next 2-4 years anyway, might as well get this abortion thing over with. Finally, the People have the ability to rise up and reject the Democrats and the Republicans and we can create a new world of political coalition for the 21st century--the 19th century is finally over! (***)

I've thought (for 20 years at least) that the only thing in the political mainstream that would look exactly the same for the rest of my lifetime would be abortion. Why? Because under Roe v Wade it was exactly where both parties wanted it to be: legal but precarious, available but something you needed to worry about, something you have but something you could lose (or take away), a coinflip forever suspended in the air (the greatest hypnotic device available to the Partisans). The Supreme Court has removed that now, which will force both parties to become something new. And abortion will be just another consumer good rather than a weapon of worry. 

Politicians for years have been warning against "forever wars". Well, thanks to the Supreme Court the greatest American "forever war" of all is heading into the final showdown. And we have nothing to lose but our partisan chains. 

(*) Don't get me wrong: this will take a while. The next 2 years or so will be as hyperbolic as American politics has even been--yipes! But it will subside and as it does, I would love to think the People will recognize that political parties don't do anything they need done anymore. 

(**) Though that could come back. Social Security makes rich people richer and poor people poorer. It punishes people for being dumb enough to get a job. Rather than creating savings, it robs the working class of savings and gives the gov't virtually unlimited ill-begotten spending on the backs of American productivity. It is the worst thing that has ever happened to the working class of America since slavery. The only reason Republicans gave up fighting it is they finally realized that they were all wealthier because of Social Security--and it was Democrat voters that lost out the most. Democrats have been raping the American worker's paycheck for decades now and telling him that the money is being saved just for him...smh....unbelievable how the Liberals honestly see themselves as kindly and helpful when they've been perpetuating fraud like this on the most vulnerable people in our society. And getting away with it! Getting rewarded for it!

We'll see, though, how the theft mechanism of Social Security meshes with the digital world, where people--even working people that have hitherto been hypnotized by Democrat bullshit--can instantly see how much money they've made, lost and had taken from them. When the People finally take control of their lives--and their capital! Their labor!--they'll realize the Democrats are a bunch of shakedown artists and that the Republicans are their hapless dupes. 

(***) I would contend that the modern political parties go back to the election of 1896 (McKinley over Williams Jennings Bryan). From 1897 to 1933, the Republicans held the White House for all but 8 years (1913-1921). From 1933 to 1969 the Democrats held the White House for all but 8 years (1953-1961). From 1969 to 2009 the Republicans held the White House for all but 12 years (1977-1981, 1993-2001). Woodrow Wilson (Dem), Dwight Eisenhower (Rep), Bill Clinton (Dem) were uniquely popular personalities whose proteges could not win election; Jimmy Carter (Dem) is an example of how badly Watergate shattered the Republicans and how unattractive the job of the Presidency was in 1976--Carter was a fluke who was merely biding time for Ronald Reagan to regain the necessary support. 

Obama (the likable) and Trump (the unlikable) showed the system was out of touch with our new media structure. All we can accommodate now is beloved media stars (would you be shocked if the 2028 election is btw Tucker Carlson and Rachel Maddow?) because "controlling the narrative" is a 24/7 job that no on can do effectively and while the Media effortlessly gives us new stars, it is harder than ever to be popular enough to create the kind of coalition needed to be POTUS. For better or worse, we have finally severed the connection between the Parties and the Media--though it will still spark off something awful for the rest of the decade. Do you think either Party is capable of dominating the White House for several decades any more? I don't. The parties are collapsing because Roe v Wade was the last thing making either party relevant. 

Now we can create anew. The Parties are dead. Ideally the Age of the Individual is finally here with the necessary technology capable of ensuring that all people have the best access to education, information, finance and professional opportunity without having to kowtow to pointless social conventions, bogus financial management or gov't interference. It is the social conventions that are shattering, the chrysalis is opening....are we gonna be a butterfly or just a dead caterpillar?

Deep Dive on Ukraine (Part 3)

It has taken me so long to collect my thoughts on the current crisis in Ukraine because 1) I never could understand what Putin is trying to accomplish and 2) I don't trust any of the news coming across my various feeds.

For weeks President Biden babbled about the imminent invasion of Ukraine but I never understood why Putin would invade, so I figured it was just an example of a POTUS trying to change the subject (*). The military maneuvers along the Ukrainian border that Biden continually cited are operations that tend to be planned months (if not years) in advance, so it still seemed to me like POTUS was just blowing a relatively ordinary occurrence out of proportion to deflect attention. And when Putin gave a rambling speech (which was filled with talking points that he's been saying for years, not exactly something new) about the territorial history of Russia, it seemed designed to inflame Western pundits rather than a preamble of what was to come, so I still didn't buy that an invasion was coming. 

So when the invasion actually did occur, I was blindsided because, well, I've spent much of my life doubting what I see on TV. 

Initially, it looked like the Russian forces methodically loaded into the eastern territories of Ukraine and simultaneously seized the Kiev airport. But, when Ukrainian forces took the airport back, social media was inundated with news that the Russians were losing and the mighty Ukrainians were on the rise. But, day after day, it felt like the Russians were still slowly but surely accumulating territory. 

One thing I think I can confidently say is that Putin wants to get rid of the pro-Western influence in the Ukrainian intelligentsia. How this invasion is meant to accomplish that...well....I dunno. I don't see how loading in tanks is supposed to change the minds of the resolute pro-Western, anti-Moscow fancy pants set in Kiev. If that crowd escaped to Poland and Romania, wouldn't that be right up Putin's alley? We think of refugees as poor huddled masses and that's true over time; but the first batch of refugees tend to be the rich people, the educated, influential moneyed classes that know when its time to get the heck out of Dodge. Aren't those the people Putin is trying to get rid of? He needn't kill them, seems like escorting them to the Polish and Romanian frontiers would be much easier than trying to militarily subdue the entire nation. 

The peace talks that have sporadically popped up over the last few weeks seem to be really starting in earnest now, seems like this is all winding down. So what did Putin accomplish?

The eastern territories of Donetsk and Luhansk seem to be pretty well out of Kiev's grasp now. And the southern territory along the Sea of Azov seems to be locked down by Russian armaments. The "land bridge" to Crimea seems pretty well intact. And that's really about it. Seems like Putin would've wanted to take all of the Black Sea-adjacent territory to keep that "land bridge" going all the way to Moldova--and perhaps that is still the plan--but for now it doesn't seem like Putin wants to reach past Crimea. From here, I would suggest any other territorial gains will be given back as the Russians recede. 

Okay. So what does Putin get out of that? He has liberated the chunks of Ukraine that were the most pro-Moscow....but doesn't that just make the rest of Ukraine more solidly anti-Moscow? How is that an improvement for Putin? Seems like an awful lot of effort to take what he more or less already had, while further inflaming the parts he didn't have. Furthermore, Zelensky is now in line to give away the districts that didn't vote for him, so hasn't this military action just strengthened Zelensky's hold on the rest of Ukraine?

Was the point to threaten Europe? I don't see how this would accomplish that or why he would want to do that anyway. The most excitable pundits thought that Poland was the next stop on Putin's tour but, dude, he never even came close to Poland. And considering how well the Ukrainians fought back without NATO involvement, how on earth can you think that Poland is in any way threatened by this advance? 

Was the point to completely annex Ukraine? I don't see why he would need to do that or how a column of tanks would get that done. If Putin was under the impression that just loading in some soldiers would cause Ukraine to collapse, well, that didn't work (and since I never thought that would work, I have trouble believing that's what Putin thought). And h's already got a pretty good grip on Ukraine's trade, seems like politically cultivating the pro-Moscow elements in Kiev (there must be some) would be infinitely more valuable more than a full-on invasion (dude, they have bribery in Kiev just like everywhere else, so much cheaper than an invasion). 

Was the point to keep Ukraine out of the EU? I don't think so. When Yanukovych was negotiating for EU acceptance between 2010 and 2013, Ukraine's parliament passed numerous pieces of legislation to appease the Europeans and Putin never did anything to stop it. Indeed, in 2013, Putin was willing to be a part of the negotiations--it was the EU that balked at that suggestion. I don't see that Putin ever did anything to stop Ukraine's admittance to the EU and, again, a column of tanks doesn't really keep that from happening anyway.

Was the point to destabilize NATO and/or the EU? Maybe, but I'm not sure how any of these military moves get that done. And, in fact, seemingly the opposite has happened, since even Finland and Switzerland expressed newfound interest in NATO and the rest of Europe (re: Germany) actually pledged to increase their defense spending (which they have mostly pledged to do in the past, so....maybe not really that big of a deal). (**)

Was Putin defeated? Well, not exactly. He did carve off a hunk of pro-Russian territory that he won't likely give back in negotiations and strengthened his position vis-à-vis Crimea, which won't be going back in any kind of peace agreement. So, Ukraine seems likely to concede territory here. 

Was Putin victorious? Well, not exactly. Again, he carved off some territory for further Russian control, but since those people were already (largely) on Moscow's side, seems like this just weakens his position in the rest of Ukraine. All of that territory was theoretically more valuable to Putin as part of Ukraine (an internal fifth column) rather than as part of Russia. So what was gained? 

Authoritarians fall prey to demanding so much subservience from their People that they never really know what's going on. Mao discovered that in the 1950s: he kept demanding specific targets from the party apparatchiks and meting out such brutal punishments when they failed, that all of his underlings just kept lying to him to save their own hides. (Happens to capitalists, too: all General Electric shareholders will remember the disastrous rule of CEO Jeff Immelt, a dude that just didn't like hearing bad news, so no one bothered to tell him his company was crumbling) If you've got no taste for the Truth, then everyone will gladly lie to you. (***) 

Did Putin simply fall prey to the surrounding himself with toadies? Maybe. On the other hand, this last month may have been a house cleaning (for example, these tales of generals killed in battle...how many of them were shot in the back?) and Putin may have a clearer sense of his military power than ever before. Perhaps the less effective parts of his military machine where sacrificed to make the rest of the machine more ready. (Ehhh, ideally, we'll never find out)

I never thought the invasion was gonna happen. I was mystified when it did happen. I never understood why it was happening. And now that it seems to be winding down, I can't really see what the point of any of it was. 

I think I'll keep going with these Ukraine posts but I have the sneaking suspicion I'm never going to grasp why any of this happened. And the coming posts on this topic will likely be a continuation of my confusion. We'll see, perhaps a clear picture will emerge, but I doubt it. 

(*) Oh, hey, good news: Coronavirus is over! Yeah...Covid-19 is finally the footnote it always deserved to be. 

(**) Yeah, actually that part of it could still be working in Putin's favor: the rhetoric ginned up by Putin's advance will likely turn back the other way (re: even more American involvement in Europe), when the Europeans realize (or tell themselves) that Putin is weak and incapable of being much of a real threat. NATO may well end up weaker rather than stronger by their newfound confidence. Not that any of that was really Putin's doing, but the backward effect of now seeing Russia as even less of a threat could mean even more of a retreat for NATO.

(***) That message was to you, Media-loving Americans: News is not Truth, it is Entertainment. Indulge at your own peril.

Deep Dive on Ukraine (Part 2)

Vlog Brothers, March 4, 2014

This is an excellent quick primer on the situation in Ukraine as of 2014, just two weeks before Putin annexed Crimea, an event this video suggests is imminent. 

Let me throw in one bit of deep history that he doesn't get to (and perhaps this is my own personal prejudice--you decide): speaking of "Russia" and "Ukraine" are misnomers; what we mean are "Moscow" and "Kiev". Kiev is an ancient city, been there for as long as anyone can remember, whereas Moscow is not quite a thousand years old. Throughout the 13th and 14th centuries both cities were besotted with the Golden Horde, the eastern European branch of the Mongol Empire. When the Mongols finally receded around 1450, it was Moscow that rose to prominence, first and foremost by luring the Orthodox Church to headquarter there. With this cultural muscle behind it, the Muscovites set out to solidify the long stretch of territory between the Black Sea and the Baltic Sea that had long been home to the Rus people (and then eventually the long stretch to the East known as Siberia). 

Imagine the relationship between Moscow and Kiev, then, as that of the upstart little brother trying to assert its dominance over the big brother that it admires/loathes. (Okay back to the video)  

While decrying the then recent invasion of Crimea by Putin, he points out that Crimea is naturally a part of Ukraine, as its electricity and water comes from the Ukrainian mainland. I'll add a detail he left out: the reason for Putin's invasion was because the Ukrainian gov't (an unelected de facto gov't at that time) cut off the water supply to Crimea, leading to massive crop failure in 2014. I point this out because while he mentioned the "disastrous" results of Putin cutting off oil supplies to Ukraine in 2015, he neglects to mention the Ukrainians doing the same thing (same thing? Even worse thing, no?) to Crimea the year before.

And why did the West uniformly decry Putin's annexation of Crimea? In the video he refers to this as "a big f'n deal", but why? Check out the Wikipedia entry on Crimea....where is the point where Crimea ever belonged to Kiev? Ever? 

In BC times, it was a Greek colony and then a Persian outpost. In Christian times it was territory controlled by the Byzantines, then the Ottomans. It was first annexed by Moscow in 1783. During the Soviet period, Josef Stalin (as he notes in the video), removed the ethnic Tartars and packed in ethnic Russians. In 1954, Crimea was made part of Ukraine in a drunken ramble by Nikita Khrushchev of which even the West "doubts...the legitimacy". And even then it was an autonomous region still realistically controlled by Moscow. And that autonomous status was reaffirmed in 1991 after the dissolution of the USSR.

The Wikipedia entry (a well known bastion of Putin-esque misinformation?) goes back 3000 years and never at any point was Crimea ever part of Kiev. Even in that brief period of time (1954-1991) when it was ostensibly Ukrainian territory, it was autonomous and even then, as the home base of the Russian Navy, it was never out of Moscow's orbit. Crimea has never belonged to Kiev. 

Personally, I never had any problem with the 2014 annexation of Crimea and I think Western outcry is, it best, misplaced--and, at worst, totally ignores that Putin was actually trying to save the lives of those people imperiled by the (unelected) Ukrainian parliament. And how do we correct this "big f'n deal"? By putting Crimea under the sway of the Ukrainian gov't? How does that solve anything? In 3000 years Crimea has never belonged to Kiev nor has the population ever been made up of native Ukrainians. Why are we under the illusion that Crimea belongs to Ukraine? Indeed, wasn't it Kiev trying annex Crimea by starving it 2014?

New York Times, March 11, 2014  ("Ukraine 2014: Ukraine-Russia Ties Explained") 

Check out this next video (from those pro-Putin puppets at the New York Times). 

"Ukraine, like every other non-Russian Republic in the Soviet Union was the creation of of the Russian--or if you prefer, the Soviet--leadership in the 1920s and 1930s. These boundaries are drawn and the attempt was to bring together within certain administrative units individuals that could be identified in terms of language, culture, and so on." When the NYT says it, you believe it, right? It's only "disinformation" when Putin says it. 

"Crimea was, is and will be an integral part of Ukraine." -- Arseniy Yatsenyuk ("Yats" to his Western allies), the interim (unelected) prime minister of Ukraine in 2014. 

Tell me: is this "disinformation"? Show me when Kiev ever ruled over Crimea? If you find something prior to 1000BC, I'd love to see it, because at no time since then was any kind of ruling power in Kiev ever in control of Crimea. 

Given the brief history of Crimea above, doesn't Yatsenyuk's language sound much more ominous and bellicose than Putin? (Reminder this quote from the unelected Ukrainian gov't was shortly before they would go on to cut off water supplies leading to crop failure...sounds kinda Stalin-y, doesn't it?) 

Stephen F. Cohen on The Charlie Rose Show, March 19, 2014

"...(M)any advocate moving NATO troops to the Polish-Russian border....aircraft is already there and NATO is moving troops around. If that happens, Putin almost certainly moves 150,000 troops...into South and eastern Ukraine...that would be the Cuban Missile Crisis..."

In 2014, the danger was already firmly in place. If this video seems repetitive its because everything Cohen is saying in 2014 is all the same stuff Cohen has been saying since at least 2006. He was right in 2006, he was still right in 2014 and even though Cohen has since passed away, he's still right in 2022.

"Demonization of Putin is not a policy but an excuse for not having a policy." -- Henry Kissinger 

Jack Matlock on Democracy Now!, March 20, 2014

Final word: "They're better off without Crimea."

Matlock is not as media savvy as most of the other featured talkers in this post. And he's an old timey Cold War soldier. But he brings an interesting perspective and is properly guarded in his commentary. He was a career ambassador meaning he was trained to say blandly non-committal pleasantries without belying any confrontation (or information). Worth checking out, though, in the context of these other videos and articles. 

Ukraine Crisis Media Centre, June 24, 2014

This is a long press conference of the UK's Ambassador to Ukraine in 2014. It is mostly just self-serving double talk, which is frankly all ambassadors are equipped to do. I'll refrain from any other observations because....well, I don't have any, there's not much else to say. Just thought I'd add it here in case you want to see what British stuffed shirts sounded like in 2014. (Though now might be a good time to recall that the during first impeachment of Trump, the testimony came almost exclusively from ambassadors....who know virtually nothing about how the White House works or even how foreign policy is developed and implemented, meaning the trial to evict the President was led by the absolute lowest people on the totem pole--hell, ambassadors aren't even on totem pole!)

New York Times, June 27, 2014 (pay wall)

(Well, I read this a few days ago but when I went back to take notes, I was paywall-ed out. So, whatever it was the NYT had to say, it seemed important to me earlier in the week but the NYT has decided it doesn't want me to see it again. So, I'll just leave the link in case you want to see the NYT's version of Ukraine's trade pact with the EU in the summer of 2014)

Brookings Institution, June 27, 2014 ("Poroshenko Signs EU-Ukraine Association Agreement")

"It is difficult to escape the conclusion that Moscow's actions since late February have aimed to destabilize the gov't in Kiev and slow its path to the European Union."

Really? By late February 2014 the gov't in Kiev was already very de-stabilized thanks to the bogus negotiations of the EU in the fall of 2013. In fact, Kiev was pretty stable until they began talking to the EU. 

"Russia can use that influence and leverage to promote a ceasefire and a settlement, if it wants to."

So could the Americans. So could the Europeans. But why would the Western powers want that? They wanted a Ukrainian president that would sign the deal to anger Russia and, after years of fraudulent negotiations and a coup d'état, they finally found their man in Poroshenko. (Oh, fun fact: Petro Poroshenko, who won the election of June 2014 to be Ukraine's president (where he served until 2019), was the owner of Ukraine's two largest news channels, Pryiami and 5 Kanal, all through his presidency. Do you suppose the Ukrainian people were well informed by their Media?)

Politicos have been crafting whatever narrative suits them at the moment and in 2014 the narrative was "Putin is the problem, not us" and that played very well to American and European audiences. But the idea that Russians are crazy for thinking of Ukraine as part of their own land that has been "invaded" by Western infidels is not as far fetched as, say, the Brookings Institution would have you believe. 

The Minsk Protocols, September 5, 2014

There were negotiations between Russia, Ukraine and the OSCE and a handful of separatist factions from Luhansk and Donetsk. The idea was to create a ceasefire in the restive Eastern Ukrainian areas but this collapsed almost immediately. This was followed by Minsk II in February 2015 but this, too, was a non-starter in reality. (Think about it: in all that's gone on in the past 6-8 weeks, has anyone ever bothered to bring up the Minsk Protocols?)

The only notable part of this negotiation is it suggests that Luhansk and Donetsk are potentially independent territories...why would the Kiev gov't or the OSCE even entertain the idea in 2014? 

The Obama White House, November 26, 2014

Here's some utterly harmless video of then Vice President Joe Biden making some bland pleasantries with Poroshenko near the end of 2014. "I want to congratulate all Ukrainians on last month's successful parliamentary elections, overwhelming endorsed by Ukrainians and the entire int'l community as being fair and free."

"Fair and free" is a phrase that recurs again and again in relation to Ukraine. I think Orwell would've suggested this is the beginning of the movement to ensure that the words "fair" and "free" will never be useful to the Ukrainian people ever again. 

Though I must concede that the slow erosion of independent thought through the warping of language is preferable to columns of tanks on city streets, I can't help but see that over time the two things have a lot in common. 

Noam Chomsky on Democracy Now!, March 2, 2015

Noam Chomsky on "Diaper-ology" and John Mearsheimer. Pretty much the same as all the other links in this post (though he veers numerous times into Cold War tales of near nuclear war). 

He raises an excellent point that I haven't noticed anyone else saying: why not encourage Ukraine to take a neutral position? It wouldn't join NATO, nor would it militarily align with Russia. What's wrong with that? Ukraine gets to maintain trade with Russia and with Europe without militarily antagonizing anyone. Seems like a pretty elegant solution at this point. 

Vox, March 25, 2015 ("What Most People Miss About the War in Ukraine") 

This is a short video on where Ukraine stood in the spring of 2015, roughly a year after the fall of Yanukovych. The sociological overview of Ukraine is pretty basic and uncontroversial. But it isn't much of a "deeper" look.

"When (Yanukovych) abandoned (a deal with the EU) and took a bailout from Russia instead that was perceived as turning away from the West...and it was controversial and prompted protests largely in the western part of the country..."

This video is trying to get beyond the conventional wisdom and yet it totally absorbs and regurgitates that official line while pretending to go deeper. Notice how effortlessly it describes Tymoshenko as "Pro-Europe" and Yanukovych as "Pro-Russia". That's not really fair at all to Yanukovych (nor to Tymoshenko, who had her own agenda), who was desperately pro-Europe. But that just highlights the convenience of using Yanukovych as the scapegoat, the punching bag, allowing him to take all the blame when I'd say he was seduced and abandoned by the EU and left to the mercies of Moscow. He took the "bailout" from Moscow, because Ukraine needed a bailout and he wasn't going to get it from the EU or the IMF, despite feigned overtures from the West.

But that story is complicated, nuanced, and not the one American audiences want to hear. This is ultimately an examination of how "news" is just entertainment and "journalists" are just telling the story that the audience wants to buy (everyone on TV is just an entertainer). I blame the audience not the newscasters, they're just doing their job, which is to entertain rather than inform. But even in "deeper looks" like this video, the conventional wisdom is a tar pit that engulfs the Left and the Right, when it comes to Russia. 

The Obama White House, June 5, 2015

Nothing to see here. It is as deep and informative as what you'd expect from a White House press release (which is to say not at all). But it does suggest that Putin is in violation of the Minsk Protocols (of which USA was not a signatory). 

Max Blumenthal on Real News, February 4, 2018

Max Blumenthal and Aaron Mate on Americans arming neo-Nazis in Ukraine. 

Obviously, this is a nonsense disinformation story--I mean Ukraine has a Jewish president! How can they possibly have Nazi citizens? Preposterous! (**)

Vice News, February 18, 2018 ("Why Ukraine is Trapped in Endless Conflict") 

"Conflict began in 2013, when the Ukrainian gov't rejected an association with the European Union in order to build stronger ties with Russia."

Five years later the Western narrative is perfectly ensconced. It isn't that the EU negotiated in bad faith with Yanukovych for the purpose of encouraging a pro-Western uprising. It is that Kiev needed to strengthen ties with Moscow--as if those ties weren't already centuries old! 

"The pro-Moscow move led to massive protests in the capital of Kiev....Russia took advantage of the chaos and sent its military in to annex Crimea."

But, again: Yanukovych's turn wasn't a pro-Moscow move but a realization that the EU was jerking him around with an impossible offer that solved none of Ukraine's problems (because the EU was motivated exclusively by antagonizing Russia). The Ukrainian People are pawns in the game of Western buzzards trying to pick clean the Russian carcass. And--really?--it was Russia that took advantage of the ensuing chaos? How did the chaotic decline of Yanukovych benefit Russia in any way? 

Then the video falls into thinking that Minsk and Minsk II were actually of any use. But then reminds that the various militia groups highlighted by the Media (and "disinformation-ed" by Putin) are from all over the country, represent a wide swath of political views and are funded by a variety of sources. If you seen one militia group, you most certainly have not seen them all. 

I'm all for the Ukrainian People living freer, richer and smarter lives, but the overtures from the EU were disingenuous to say the least and led only to Ukraine falling into chaos. But the Western media--even the independent-minded Vice News--falls lock step over time with the conventional wisdom, frankly because they're just lazy. 

Stephen F. Cohen and Aaaron Mate on The Grey Zone, November 13, 2019

Cohen and Mate revisiting the Ukraine crisis during the time of Trump's first impeachment. (Oh, and what were the Bidens doing in Ukraine again?) And for good measure, a reminder of what Noam Chomsky thought about Trump around the time of the release of the Mueller Report. There's no discussion of Ukraine but Ukraine has been playing a large role in American politics ever since. 

"What's bad for Russia is what's good for us."

A good talk, well worth your time if you want to learn more about what led to the current Ukraine crisis. But, yes, basically a recycling of all the same warnings Cohen has been giving for decades. 

(*) And look how deep does this "disinformation" goes: here's the BBC in 2014 (twice) and 2015. And The Guardian in 2017. Then the BBC again in 2018. And Time Magazine in 2019. Just remember: it's only "disinformation" when Putin says it. 

(**) Hat tip to Spondulix99 from whom I cannibalized a good deal of this deep dive.

Deep Dive on Ukraine (Part 1)

AP, April 16, 1997

Mikhail Gorbachev, Former Soviet Leader says, "I believe it's a mistake, it is a bad mistake and I am not persuaded by the assurances I hear that Russia has nothing to worry about...You can not, you may not humiliate a nation, a people and think that it will have no consequences. So my question is, is this a new strategy?"

Well, no, it was the same strategy as always, going back at least to the Crimean War, where the point was to keep the Russians bottled up in the Black Sea. The Brits were always wary of the Russians and after World War II, the Americans picked up that paranoia and ran with it. Why? Having a powerful (-ish) adversary is good for stoking the weapons industry back home and the American economy is, all these decades later, still pretty much built on materiel manufacture (*). If Russia stops being our preferred adversary, where will our high tech export manufacturing go? Well, we have China to shake our big stick at, but China is not the same (re: they're not gonna fall for that "missile gap" nonsense that the Soviets bought hook, line and sinker). China's military interests are not based on USA or Europe (or won't be for much longer) and don't offer the proper counterpoint to our wasteful gov't spending.  

USA needs Russia to be the Russia it has always been: isolated, weird, paranoid and vaguely bent on world domination just like us. If we remove Russia as an enemy, American spycraft would turn inward, American politicians would have no easy targets, and our weapons industry would inevitably diminish. America would be a different country, a different place, a different economy and our political structure would be forced to deal with reality instead of the preferred daydreams the American electorate has been bred to enjoy. And, of course, without a common enemy, Europe may well collapse entirely. 

Hatred of Russia--and the defense industry it inspires--is part of America's DNA at this point. Terrorism is a diplomatic (rather than military) threat and China is a productivity (rather than military) threat. We cling to our animosity with Russia like a blankie. The ensuing militarism is precisely what keeps the globe potentially destabilized and how USA keeps its grip on global infrastructure. We're just not ready to tackle a world of equals after all this time of preparing for a world of savages. It is not that the world is challenging us, it is that the challenge itself is melting away and as the tide rolls out, we'll be wildly overdressed. Though for the moment, Russia still lives in the same daydream we do. 

Stephen F. Cohen on the Charlie Rose Show, June 28, 2006 (**)

Cohen: "...The Cold War didn't end in 1991..."

Not for us, anyway. USA's strategy after the fall of the Berlin Wall became to treat Russia as a "junior partner" rather than seeing Russia as a still powerful giant. Remember: mutually assured destruction didn't end when the Soviet Union collapsed. We still have great respect for their ICBM's, long range bombers and nuclear-tipped submarines, but otherwise the Americans have never even acknowledged that there is a Russian culture or People. 

Cohen: "We've treated Russia like a defeated nation....there was no attempt to cooperate with Russia..."

USA used our antagonism with Russia through the Cold War to justify all kinds of military buildup around the world and grew wealthy and dominant on Russia's inability to keep pace. When the Berlin Wall came down, USA never stopped living off potential Russian aggression, though we'd already had five decades of watching Russia get weaker. We just assumed that Russia was out of the game and we called that a "peace dividend". Rather than seeing Russia as a rehabilitated member of the int'l order, USA and Europe continued to see Russia as the same threat as always because bullying the Russians was so god damn profitable. 

Russia, on the other hand, has seen its territorial reach steadily decrease since May 8, 1945 (VE Day). Then Moscow controlled half of Germany and everything east of that, laid claim to oil fields in Syria and Iran and Stalin had his eye on Manchuria and a seat at the table for the carving up of Japan--all of which was given/promised by FDR and much of which was immediately rescinded by Truman. Make no mistake: Truman's insistence on using atomic bombs in Japan was precisely timed to keep Russia out of the Pacific theater of the war. What FDR promised Stalin, Truman took away. 

I'm not suggesting that Russian deserved those territorial claims, merely that that was the basis of Western antagonism to Russia. And after 9/11 when Putin made great efforts to secure alliance with USA, Bush started to give in but then backtracked and isolated Putin further. Putin tried to come to the table but Western politicians needed an enemy and Putin was it. And the plan to encircle Russia never stopped, rather it intensified as Russia got weaker. 

Cohen: "...(We must assure that) Russia's weapons of mass destruction and vast energy resources are not used against the West...we drove them in the direction (of using their resources as leverage)..." This could have been easily done by allowing Russia to become a modern nation like all the other modern nations and if they were defeated in the boardroom so be it. Using Russian resources as a sign of potential danger is a completely manufactured paranoia when the whole basis of the int'l order (right?) is fair development of natural resources to benefit the worldwide Human population (and let me make this clear: Western capitalism does that so much more efficiently and effectively than Eastern communism, so I am in no way rooting for Russian victory in anything). To bully Russia in this way is to cut off the Human population from our shared Earthly resources for shortsighted local political gains, which is the shameful by-product of the Western obsession with Democracy built on an us-vs-them dichotomy.

Cohen (in 2006, you will recall): "Ukraine in NATO is already announced policy...if we do that then it's over...." We can look to Putin's weird rambling speech back in February 2022 as an out of the blue example of his iron fisted tyrant nature....or we can acknowledge that we knew (long before 2006!) that Ukraine was sacred ground to the Russians. USA's only interest in Ukraine is to antagonize Russia (and if the Ukrainians themselves ever thought otherwise, well, god help them). 

Foreign Affairs, May/June 2007 ("Containing Russia" by Yulia Tymoshenko) (pay wall)

"After the USSR's collapse, the West made the mistake of assuming that Russia's reduced status meant it was unnecessary to accord the Kremlin any special diplomatic consideration--that Russia neither deserved nor should be offered a major role in world affairs. Accordingly, instead of drawing Russia into a network of dialogue and cooperation when it was weak--and thereby helping it form habits that would carry on when Russia regained strength--the West ignored Russia. This indifference caused Russia to regard the West's attempts to reassure eastern European countries about their security and place in the West as unfriendly acts, leading to today's problems. Had Russia been handled better in the 1990s--had its sense of insecurity not been aggravated--the country's tendency toward expansionism might well have been moderated."

Who is Yulia Tymoshenko, you ask? Another one of these fly-by night Putin apologists coming out of the woodwork to justify Russian crimes and blame the White House in some right wing knee jerk fashion? No. She was the prime minister of Ukraine, hardly a Russian asset. And is still active in Ukrainian politics, even after losing to Zelensky and Poroshenko in the last two elections. 

And it is no accident that she opens her op-ed by citing George Kennan's infamous telegram that became the architecture of the Truman Doctrine and the Cold War until....well, it is still the Western strategy. The encirclement of Russia is meant to limit Russian opportunities for trade and diplomacy in the Mediterranean and the Pacific specifically and itself is more or less based on the traditional Russian desire to surround itself with "buffer states" to ward off invaders. (Gotta admit: I never understood the Russian need for buffer state--it's a thousand miles to anywhere once you get inside Russia and six months of the year that thousand miles would be mostly mud, so what is Russia afraid of, exactly?) This has kept Russia isolated, and outside of gold and oil (and occasionally, timber) exports, Russia has never otherwise had any basis for interaction with the rest of the world. (This is, incidentally, also how we treat North Korea--and what has that gotten us?)

In 2007, Tymoshenko was clamoring for Ukraine to join the European Union "to confront instability and insecurity with a lasting structure of peace and prosperity in which all of Europe's nations and neighbors have a stake." The desire to break from Russia and move westward is not unpopular in Ukraine and has been in the air since the 1990s. But, first, she advocates that the EU "(must) negotiate a new EU-Russia treaty to replace the one written at the nadir of Russia's power....Angela Merkel must...forge a lasting and mutually beneficial relationship" with Russia. This is tough to do considering that "Germany will depend on Russia for 80% of its gas imports", which is why Germany during the Merkel years developed an utterly unique relationship with Russia, rather than a Euro-centric one where everyone has an equal stake. 

Tymoshenko here has already undone her belief in the European Union: the countries aren't equal or on the same page and adding Ukraine in 2007 would not have changed that. And without first coming to some understanding with Russia, adding Ukraine to EU would have been catastrophic (well, at least for Ukraine).  And she acknowledges that the Western belief that "peaceful evolution can be insured by democracy and...developing (Russia's) market economy" is not really appropriate, so what exactly does Tymoshenko think the EU was going to do for Ukraine? If there isn't  really equal protection in the Union and the Western view of Russian adventurism is misguided, then what does the West really have to offer Ukraine? And if, as she says, "Russia will change from within or not at all", then how does Ukraine jutting ever westward benefit the Ukrainian People?

Then she spends two pages complaining about Gazprom and we are reminded of the dog Tymoshenko has in this fight: she made her fortune through the oil/gas industry and while she speaks as a knowledgeable industry insider, she is not without her own personal motivations. Then the essay closes with some bland pabulum about "serious offers to participate on an equal basis", though I'm not sure what she's referring to since she's already acknowledged that those offers never came from the West. 

So while Tymoshenko was an early vocal advocate for Ukraine joining the EU, she is clear that the West needs to re-establish its ties to Russia first. And since this re-establishing of ties never came...how was the Ukraine supposed to join the EU? Even in Ukraine the idea of moving westward is not really a credible belief. They may wish for European "equality" but do Europeans even believe that really exists? And though she never really mentions NATO, though that is really more likely the "equality" she's dreaming of, or the IMF, clearly these organizations aren't really available to Ukraine until they work out some kind of realistic relationship with Moscow. 

The desire is there but the conditions are not realistic in 2008. And, frankly, that has nothing to do with Moscow but with the West. 

Radio Free Europe. September 8, 2009 ("Fears Rise Obama's 'Reset' May Run Aground in Former Soviet Bloc") 

"...Russia's biggest trump in Moldova is its support for breakaway region Transdniester, which split after a brutal war in 1992."

I highlight this merely to point out that I think that Moldova is Putin's next objective. Located along the southwestern edge of Ukraine, it is not yet a NATO country and Putin is eager to gobble it up before it can fully break away.

Why does Putin want to keep hold of all the former Soviet republics? Because those states have been getting invited into NATO and/or the EU for the purposes of isolating Russia. As Russia melts, the West has been luring away all of its traditional allies--but not Russia itself! Where is Russia's invitation to the EU? 

Boris Yeltsin once brought up the idea of joining NATO, which he was eager to entertain; no one in the West entertained this idea because the West needs an adversary to justify its military spending and Russia is that adversary. China is too far away and its military development will be of a different nature (***) and the West just doesn't have the same historical relation to it. We love hating Russia like we love hating Brussel sprouts. 

Russia is the enemy and no matter how hard they strive for inclusion, it ain't coming. We need an enemy to justify our own bad habits and that enemy is Russia. The encirclement will continue on into the future simply by inertia. That means that eventually the West must gouge away Ukraine no matter how devastating it is for the people living there. 

Center for Eastern Studies, November 27, 2013 ("Ukraine Withdraws from Signing the Association Agreement in Vilnius: Motives and Implications") 

But even then, Ukraine must come the way the West wants it to. So in 2013, when the offer to join the EU was first on the table for Ukraine, the president at the time, Viktor Yanukovych, had to back away because the deal would have been ruinously expensive in the short term and would've negatively impacted their trading alliance with Russia. "At the same time, Kyiv suggested the creation of a tripartite commission of Ukraine, Russia and the EU, which would work to remove barriers in mutual economic cooperation and trade liberalization." This tripartite suggestion is later referred to as supported by Putin, so it was the EU that refused to countenance the notion of a Ukraine that was still even somewhat connected to Russia--a full 6 years after Tymoshenko was already warning that a new understanding with Russia was a necessary first step. 

Though Yanukovych had jumped through numerous hoops since 2010 ("...the Ukrainian Parliament began to rapidly pass the so-called 'European laws' which Brussels' condition for signing the agreement" and "45% of citizens favored moving closer to the EU"), it is the next sentence that I suspect tells the real story: "However, despite efforts and pressure from EU member states...the problem of Yulia Tymoshenko remain unresolved." From Wikipedia: On 2 October 2013, the Parliamentary Assembly of the Council of Europe (PACE) adopted a resolution calling for the immediate release of Tymoshenko and, two days later, Pat Cox and Aleksander Kwaśniewski, representatives of the European Parliament mission, handed president Yanukovych a petition to pardon Tymoshenko.^[389][390]

Tymoshenko (author of the Foreign Affairs article cited above) is Yanukovych's political arch-rival and in 2013 was in jail as a convicted criminal. But she's the one the EU and the Americans wanted to deal with, not Yanukovych. So even when the West does reach out to Ukraine, it is picking and choosing who it will favor.

Putin responds by cutting off Ukrainian exports to Russia, reminding them Russia is still at least 1/3 of the Ukrainian economy, a figure not likely to be matched by the EU. Yanukovych realizes he can't move forward with the EU in a manner that cuts off a third of his exports. The EU isn't interested in ponying up the dough necessary to make the transition viable. The Agreement is a non-starter.

Later the article, with an amazing lack of sources says: "...Kyiv hoped the EU itself would decide to block the signing of the document in connection with the failure to resolve the Tymoshenko issue. However among the member states, voices favouring consent to...adopting the Agreement began to predominate...(W)hen it became impossible to blame the EU...for any failure...the Ukrainian gov't began to publicly highlight the negative consequences that would arise from implementing the agreement and to demand financial compensation from Brussels..."  

This is just positioning the facts for a Western audience. The idea that Yanukovych hoped the EU would "block the signing" comes off as little more than a convenient excuse for the author and the rising "voices" in Europe to sign the deal is a signal that they knew they had Yanukovych over a barrel and wanted him to cut his own throat. The fact that Yanukovych needed extra economic inducements to join the EU should have been obvious the whole time meaning the EU was negotiating in bad faith from the first meeting. This article is an attempt to put all the blame on Yanukovych, when it seems like the EU was trying to squeeze political concessions (re: Tymoshenko, Yanukovych's arch enemy), knowing full well that Ukraine could not leave the Russian economic sphere. The Europeans are playing with Ukraine the way a cat plays with a dead mouse and letting Yanukovych take all the blame, when actually Yanukovych was going pretty far out on a limb to make even considering this move to the EU possible. 

The article is sympathetic to the idea that Ukraine's economy at the time could not afford to join the EU, though they still couch this in terms of "the ruling elite", who "fear that the difficult reforms that the Agreement requires would lead to a further decline in support for the gov't and destabilize the economy." So the fact that Ukraine's entry to the EU would tank the economy and prove fatal to the rulers (democratically elected rulers, incidentally) is presented as a short-sighted blunder when compared to "the positive effects of joining the EU (which) would only be felt in the long term." And, of course, there's no guarantee of any positive effects! If Yanukovych had signed this Agreement in November 2013, it would have been guaranteed to tank the economy and destabilize the nation with absolutely no guarantee that EU membership would actually provide any stability. Where is the political leader that would sign on to that? (Presumably Western darling Tymoshenko....?)

Indeed, the Ukrainian economy already needed help: "Negotiations with the IMF have been under way since last year. Kyiv may have been hoping signing the Agreement would positively influence the IMF's decision...but the IMF's demand that the price of gas be increased by 40%...and the need for painful budget cuts....(make it) highly unlikely that Ukraine will reach any agreement with the IMF this year..." So Ukraine needed economic relief from the IMF, but without the Agreement with the EU all they got was the immediate austerity. The Agreement with the EU would not come with any offsetting funds to minimize Russian trade so....Ukraine joining the EU never had a chance. And nor did getting a workable deal from the IMF.

Yanukovych got dragged through a negotiation with the EU that would have damaged his domestic stranding, crushed his economy, and pissed off his largest trade partner with no hope of immediate gain and nothing but crippling debt to the IMF. All because, it would seem, he refused to pardon his main political rival that (for better or worse) had been duly convicted in court. If we don't trust Ukraine's court system to properly prosecute its own citizens, then why does the EU even want to extend to membership? Oh yeah: it pisses off Russia. 

But not signing the deal, which would've been ruinous, pissed off his own population and from there Yanukovych's downfall was already underway. Yankukovych is still the scapegoat for Ukraine not joining the EU, when in fact there was never a glimmer of a fuckin' chance that the conditions would be favorable for Ukraine--which the EU and the IMF (and NATO) knew the whole time. 

As for the Agreement: "The Ukrainian gov't's statements clearly indicate that it has lost interesting in signing the Agreement with the EU, which they see as a threat to economic situation and the country's relation to Russia....in addition, the economy is in crisis which would make it difficult for (Yanukovych) to win fair elections....the decision to opt out of the Agreement has paradoxically weakened Ukraine's negotiating position with Russia...." 

Conclusion: "....Ukraine has entered a period of political instability...." Notice that it's not that Ukraine will enter but "has entered". The whole point of the 2013 negotiation was to destabilize Ukraine and Yanukovych was the sucker that took the bait (and the blame). 

And there we have it: the EU and the IMF knew from the get-go that there was no credible chance of Ukraine getting any worthwhile agreement with them and that even entering into the negotiation was political suicide for Yanukovych, the guy the Europeans wanted to get rid of. This was a coldly calculated assassination from day one. Yanukovych's fatal mistake was thinking that the EU would actually accept Ukraine and help them detach from Russia. The West concocted his downfall by taking advantage of his actual desire to join the EU--all of which made Ukraine even more dependent on Russia. 

Seems like the EU got what it wanted, right? It gave Yanukovych just enough rope and that guy got hung. 

Reuters, December 19, 2013 ("Special Report: Why Ukraine Spurned the EU and Embraced Russia") 

A few weeks later this Reuters report gives another look at what Yanukovych was going through. In September he was eager--screamingly eager!--to move Ukraine away from Russian influence. But by November it's plainly obvious that the Europeans are just leading him on ("...the unwillingness of the EU and IMF to be flexible in their demands....(made) them less attractive partners"). 

The EU was not willing to even come close to covering Ukraine's short term needs. 

And again, it seems to hinge on Tymoshenko. Clearly the Europeans were willing (possibly) to fight for her but not for Yanukovych, who soon fled to Russia.

Meanwhile, here's then Assistant Secretary of State Victoria Nuland handing out cookies to Ukrainian police in December 2013. 

Notice that photographers are as prominent in this picture as the cops. Seems like Nuland knows how to orchestrate a photo op. It is the American State Department celebrating a job well done.

Stephen F. Cohen on Democracy Now!, February 20, 2014

Cohen is more or less reiterating what he said to Charlie Rose 6 years earlier. But as the violence on the streets of Ukraine is ramping up, he is clearly more impassioned. 

Also, check out the clips of President Obama's statement on the subject, about which Cohen is absolutely correct: how can we be promoting democracy and uprisings in the street at the same time? The whole nature of democracy is that there's another election around the corner where the citizenry is able to make its desires clear without resorting to street violence. (His thought experiment of an uprising in the US Capitol feels a bit creepy in hindsight, don't it?) Is it because USA cares about Ukrainian stability? Or the true spread of democracy?

Furthermore, Yanukovych was no threat to elections--indeed, he even moved up the elections as per outside demands. All so that it would look like it was an election that got him out of office rather than protests in the street (though technically Yanukovych abdicated and an interim gov't was in place before the next election).

Robert Perry on Real News, March 3, 2014

Journalist Robert Perry reminds us that Yanukovych was an elected leader who made every effort to convene a new election--one he was likely to lose!--when militia groups took over the capitol and forced him into exile. Just a reminder that this was never about "Democracy" since Ukraine's elections were never in danger and it wasn't until Yanukovych called for police to stand down that the (American-backed?) militias rose up.  

(*) And salty snacks and sugary beverages, an observation I'll expand on if I ever get back to Covid-19, which I probably won't.

(**) Wow, remember Charlie Rose? Now seems like a fine time to admit that I always thought Rose was a useless fuckin' idiot but he had good guests--that he would pepper with repetitive dumb questions. The only people Rose was really good at interviewing were journalists, which actually made him a sneaky good deep dive news guy back in the day, but an incredibly overrated cultural interlocuter. 

(***) China will want a massive Navy and all the cyber-capabilities it can muster but will likely eschew for the most part all those Cold War armaments. China doesn't care about ICBMs or long range bombers. China is pursuing outward protection for potential trade, not for potential territorial conquest. 

(****) Hat tip to Spondulix99 from whom I cannibalized a good deal of this deep dive.