The Way of the Democrat

For John, BLUF:  We are used to a fair amount of pussy-footing around with our politicians, except for Mr Donald Trump, and those responding to him.  It would be entertaihing if it wasn't so irritating.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Democrats Are Playing GOP's 'Enemy Identification Problem' in Ukraine to the Hilt

From PJ Media, by Mr Rick Moran, 26 February 2022, 9:34 AM ET.

Here is the lede plus four:

Vladimir Putin is a vicious, unprincipled thug whose goal is nothing less than the humbling of the United States by any means necessary.

He is not only the enemy of western civilization; he’s the enemy of human civilization. So why is Donald Trump cheering this gangster on?

He is “pretty smart,” Mr. Trump said on Wednesday at a Florida fund-raiser, assessing the impending invasion like a real estate deal.  “He’s taken over a country for $2 worth of sanctions,” he said, “taking over a country — really a vast, vast location, a great piece of land with a lot of people — and just walking right in.”

No doubt Trump has his own reasons to say nice things about Putin, and one of them is certainly that it’s causing the heads of his political enemies to explode. For his own amusement and that of his supporters, Trump frequently acts the contrarian — and the media and left fall right into his trap every time.

But most Republicans — including Trump supporters — have condemned the invasion and Vladimir Putin.

The words of Mr Trump are all true, plus there are a lot of tone-deaf people out there along the two coasts.

Mr Trump was just saying it the way it is.  President Putin is smart and cunning.  And Mr Putin is ruthless.  Those are just the facts.  On the other hand, if Mr Trump hopes to be President again there is no point in deeply offending those he may have to negotiate with at some future date.

But, he is Mr Donald J Trump, and he offended a lot of people by defeating Ms Hillary Rodham Clinton.  They seem unwilling to forget, and any handy slander will be employed.  It is childish, but it is the way of the Democrat.

Regards  —  Cliff

Root of the War in Ukraine

For John, BLUF:  For President Putin the War in Ukraine is about religion.  [The theory discussed may be total rubbish, or even Russian disinformation, but it is a theory and something to examine.  The obvious answer is not always the correct answer.]  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Putin’s Attack on Ukraine Is a Religious War

Here is the sub-headline:

Russia’s aggression against its neighbor isn’t just power politics and geostrategy, it’s about core issues of faith and identity

From Top Secret Umbra, by Mr John Schindler♠, 24 February 2022.

Counterintelligencer, cat herder, KuKservative, mystery-hunter, author about town. No Such Agency and all that. Feb 24. Here is the lede plus four:

It’s finally happened. Early today, after weeks of will-he-or-won’t-he speculation, Russian President Vladimir Putin declared war on his neighbor and launched a major, multi-pronged invasion into Southern, Eastern, and Northern Ukraine. This is just the first military phase of many to come, only a small amount of the vast forces that Moscow has marshalled on Ukraine’s frontiers have entered action yet. Any judgements about the progress of the war would be premature (though this newsletter will be providing regular assessments on this conflict, Europe’s most important war since 1945).

What needs to be established is why Putin has done this. Unleashing full-scale war here represents an enormous political gamble – failure in Ukraine could unravel his two-decade rule over Russia – from a leader who’s generally been tactically adventurous yet strategically cautious. Most Western “experts” got this wrong and many seem stunned that the Kremlin has really started a major war. As Top Secret Umbra previously noted, this represents a collective failure of the Western elite, which so misread Putin, despite his being plain about his contempt for the United States and NATO for 15 years, as well as his dismissive attitude towards Ukraine as more a “region” than a bona fide country:

Putin waged a hot war of aggression against Ukraine in 2014-15, starting with Russia’s theft of Crimea by GRU’s Little Green Men, followed by the seizure of a good-sized chunk of Ukraine’s southeast by the Russian military. That conflict has ever entirely faded out, and Moscow’s de facto holding on to pieces of Ukraine means that country will never be allowed to enter NATO. Given the recent past, and the not-entirely-frozen conflict in Donetsk and Luhansk, how on earth can anybody be surprised that Putin might attack Ukraine again?

Moscow told us, most of us just didn’t bother to listen. If Western elites listened at all, they dismissed Putin’s strange analysis as the ravings of a madman, or at least someone not operating in our Western unipolar reality. As this newsletter explained further:

To such elites, all of whom fall on the spectrum of Western Educated Industrialized Rich and Democratic, WEIRD for short, Putin represents an atavism whose motivations they cannot understand. The Kremlin strongman adheres to a distinctly throwback view of international relations where the use of force is normal, and countries protect their national interests unapologetically, with all the instruments of national power. Putin’s wholehearted embrace of religiously-infused nationalism, which boasts a venerable history in Russia, leaves WEIRDs befuddled yet has real resonance among average Russians. Western doubts that the former KGB man has “a personal relationship with Jesus Christ” miss the point, but then the West has never understood Russian Orthodoxy very well. No matter what Putin really believes, his public embrace of religiously-grounded national conservatism provides his regime with an ideological anchor, one which happens to view Ukraine’s subservience to Russia as a spiritual as well as geostrategic necessity.

I actually am attracted to the idea.  Not everyone in the world is a well educated agnostic progressive.  Some actually have strong religious views.  Further, a smaller faction actually believe that God has predicted an "End Times", which includes a global war, with Christians debating about what happens after and when Jesus will return for the faithful.♥

What are the implicatiohs of concluding that this is about religion?  One is that, for President Putin, the solution is Ukraine Orthodox followers acknowledging that they should not have a separate autocephalous church.  Ukraine rejecting membdership in NATO may be important, but would not be sufficient to molify President Putin.

The advantage of this view is that it is somewhaat selflimiting.  However, it isn't justification for President Putin's actions.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The author was in the US Intelligence Community (IC), doing counter-intelligence.  He had time with the National Security Agency (aja Bi Such Agency).
♥  It was just over 50 years ago that the End Times book, The Late Great Planet Earth was a best seller in the United States.

It Is War

For John, BLUF:  I was wrong.  President Putin has stumbled into war.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Russia's Putin announces military operation in Ukraine

From The Associated Press, 23 February 2022.

Here is the lede plus six:

Russian President Vladimir Putin on Thursday announced a military operation in Ukraine, claiming it's intended to protect civilians.

In a televised address, Putin said the action comes in response to threats coming from Ukraine.  He added that Russia doesn't have a goal to occupy Ukraine. Putin said the responsibility for bloodshed lies with the Ukrainian "regime."

Putin warned other countries that any attempt to interfere with the Russian action would lead to "consequences they have never seen."

He accused the U.S. and its allies of ignoring Russia's demand to prevent Ukraine from joining NATO and offer Moscow security guarantees.

He said the Russian military operation aims to ensure a "demilitarization" of Ukraine.  Putin said that all Ukrainian servicemen who lay down arms will be able to safely leave the zone of combat.

There was no immediate reaction from the White House to Putin's remarks, but U.S. officials have repeatedly pledged to place overwhelming sanctions on the Russian economy and Putin allies in retaliation for a further invasion of Ukraine.

THIS IS A BREAKING NEWS UPDATE.

This is looking, so far, like the Coalition air attack on Baghdad as a prelude to the ground attack into Iraq in 1991.

I believe President Putin has stumbled here, but suffering will be widespread.

No, I do not believe this is the fullfilment of the promises in the Book of Revelation.  But, I have been wrong before, but not on tht scale.

Regards  —  Cliff

Russia Has Options

For John, BLUF:  There aare a lot of different opinions out there about Russia and Ukraine, but Ukraine may not be the issue.  It may be NATO or it may be the US presence in Europe.  And President Putin has a number of different option, depending on what his deep itch is.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Outlier: What if Putin’s Real Target isn’t Ukraine?

From The Cipher Brief, by Mr Tim Willasey-Wilsey,♠ 4 February 2022.

Here is the lede plus four:

We have a long history of misreading Russian intentions.  The classic example was the judgement by the British Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) that Russia would not invade Czechoslovakia in 1968; based on a westernised view that it would not be in Moscow’s interests.  Similar misjudgements were made in the prelude to Putin’s annexation of the Crimea in 2014.

Vladimir Putin calculated this winter as the ideal time to confront the West over those parts of the former Soviet Union which he believes should still be in Moscow’s sphere of influence.  Winter inevitably puts Europe’s energy market under stress.  Meanwhile NATO has just made a humiliating and chaotic exit from Afghanistan led by a United States president who is struggling in the polls.

Having identified the best moment Putin followed up by mobilising an army of some 130,000 troops in midwinter, distributed in pockets along Ukraine’s borders with Russia and Belarus.  Putin never places great belief in diplomacy but he is willing to go through the motions because he does set store by assembling retrospective justification for any future action.  In the unlikely event of a major Western concession, he would be willing to stand down the army but the strong probability is that he will use it to facilitate a tangible political and military result.

The assumption of everyone in the West is that Ukraine is the target for either an invasion or an incursion. However, none of the options looks particularly good.  Yes, Russian troops could probably dash the 240 miles from Belarus to Kiev and seize the capital.  But they would be unable to subjugate the whole of Ukraine, especially west of Kiev, and the invasion could lead to a long and costly insurgency.  Alternatively, Putin could try and capture Ukraine’s coast and the port of Odessa but it would leave a long strip of land to defend against future Ukrainian counter-attacks.

The other problem with attacking Ukraine is that it lets NATO and the West off too lightly.  President Biden made it very clear at an early stage of this crisis that NATO would not fight to defend Ukraine. Instead, all the talk has been of economic and financial sanctions.  This approach has made it easier for Western countries to show a reasonably united front against Putin, although differences exist over supplying weapons to Ukraine and the exact nature of the sanctions. So, the focus on Ukraine has not worked for Putin.  Although some of the responses have been divisive the overall tendency has been to unite Western leaders.  It has also enabled them to undertake some showboating with Macron engaging directly with Putin in diplomatic talks and others making high-profile trips to Kiev. But Ukraine may not be Putin’s main target. Putin’s beef is with NATO which, he believes, has made more inroads into central and eastern Europe than was ever agreed following the collapse of the Soviet Union.  In fact the two draft treaties which Russia published on 17th December last year demanded that NATO withdraw its forces and weapons from any country which joined NATO since 1997.  That would include Hungary, Poland, Romania, the Czech Republic, Slovakia, Bulgaria, Croatia, Montenegro and North Macedonia.  It also embraces the three Baltic States (Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia) whose secession from the old Soviet Union particularly rankles with Putin.

To see what alternatives President Putin might pick, read the rest of the short article.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Author Tim Willasey-Wilsey served for over 27 years in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is now Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College, London.

President Putin's Options

For John, BLUF:  Some political leaders achieve success by not doing what is expected, rather by doing what is not expected.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The Outlier: What if Putin’s Real Target isn’t Ukraine?

From The Cipher Briefby Mr Tim Willsey-Wiley,♠ 4 Febrruary 2022.

Here is the lede plus three:

We have a long history of misreading Russian intentions.  The classic example was the judgement by the British Joint Intelligence Committee (JIC) that Russia would not invade Czechoslovakia in 1968; based on a westernised view that it would not be in Moscow’s interests.  Similar misjudgements were made in the prelude to Putin’s annexation of the Crimea in 2014.

Vladimir Putin calculated this winter as the ideal time to confront the West over those parts of the former Soviet Union which he believes should still be in Moscow’s sphere of influence.  Winter inevitably puts Europe’s energy market under stress.  Meanwhile NATO has just made a humiliating and chaotic exit from Afghanistan led by a United States president who is struggling in the polls.

Having identified the best moment Putin followed up by mobilising an army of some 130,000 troops in midwinter, distributed in pockets along Ukraine’s borders with Russia and Belarus.  Putin never places great belief in diplomacy but he is willing to go through the motions because he does set store by assembling retrospective justification for any future action.  In the unlikely event of a major Western concession, he would be willing to stand down the army but the strong probability is that he will use it to facilitate a tangible political and military result.

The assumption of everyone in the West is that Ukraine is the target for either an invasion or an incursion. However, none of the options looks particularly good.  Yes, Russian troops could probably dash the 240 miles from Belarus to Kiev and seize the capital.x  But they would be unable to subjugate the whole of Ukraine, especially west of Kiev, and the invasion could lead to a long and costly insurgency.  Alternatively, Putin could try and capture Ukraine’s coast and the port of Odessa but it would leave a long strip of land to defend against future Ukrainian counter-attacks.

It is a short article and I save the two options the author suggests for your reading.

They are a couple of interesting options.

One wonders if he attended some course somewhere that taught about Australian Author Edward de Bono's Lateral Thinking.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Tim Willasey-Wilsey served for over 27 years in the British Foreign and Commonwealth Office. He is now Visiting Professor of War Studies at King's College, London.

Ukraine Heating Up

For John, BLUF:  Things are again heating up in the Ukraine, a former part of the Sovirt Uniom, Southwest of Russia.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Ukraine:  Russia Massing Troops on Border; US Warns Moscow

From Voice of American, based on reports from Agence France-Presse, 1 April 2021, 07:08 PM.

Here is the lede plus four:

KYIV, UKRAINE - Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on Thursday accused Moscow of building up troops on his country's border as the United States warned Russia against "intimidating" Ukraine.

Kyiv has been locked in a conflict with Russian-backed separatists since 2014, and this week Ukrainian officials reported Russian troop movement in annexed Crimea and on the border, near territories controlled by Moscow-backed separatists.

On Thursday, Zelensky's ministers discussed the escalating security situation with Western allies, including U.S. Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin.

Zelensky said in a statement that "military exercises and possible provocations along the border are traditional Russian games." He accused Moscow of seeking to create "a threatening atmosphere" as Kyiv hopes to resume a cease-fire brokered last year.

The U.S. State Department said it was "absolutely concerned by recent escalations of Russian aggressive and provocative actions in eastern Ukraine."

Further on in the story we seem to have a US commitment to the defense of Ukraine.

On Thursday, U.S. defense chief Austin called his Ukrainian counterpart, Andriy Taran, Ukraine's defense ministry said.

Austin said during the call that Washington would "not leave Ukraine alone in the event of escalating Russian aggression," the ministry said.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba, for his part, discussed the "aggravation by the Russian Federation of the security situation" on the front line with his Canadian counterpart, Marc Garneau.

This is not some minor side-show.  It is possible Russia, wishing to regain control of its former territory, might test the new Biden Administration, launching new territorial grabs under the guise of an exercise.

If the Biden Administration is not prepared to react quickly, it could be faced with a fait accompli in some land grad, further weakening Ukraine.  This should be concerning.

Regards  —  Cliff

Old Themes

For John, BLUF:  This, of course, refers back to the Election in 2016.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Scott Adams Tweets

Here is the tweet:

Scott Adams
@ScottAdamsSays

· 6h
Did Biden get the most votes because Putin did such a bad job with Facebook memes this election or because China did an unusually good job interfering this time?

It is a good question.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Putin Has Polling Problems

For John, BLUF:  President Putin may look, to US Democrats, like he is riding high, but he has some popularity problems at home.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Russia’s Pension-System ‘Reform’ Is Deeply Controversial

Here is the sub-headline:

It reveals that the country needs Perestroika 2.0.

From The Nation, by Ms Nadezhda Azhgikhina, 1 February 2019.

Here is the lede plus one:

The Edelman Trust Barometer Global Report placed Russia at the very end of the list in population trust.  In commenting on the news, the popular newspaper MK noted sarcastically that “the new national idea for Russia is now general distrust,” a reference to the fruitless attempts to formulate a “national idea” in the Yeltsin years.

Russian sociologists also write about the lack of trust in state and public institutions.  The most recent poll by the independent Levada Center found that more than half of the respondents (53 percent) feel that the government is not executing its responsibilities to its citizens and should resign. In late 2018, according to the Levada Center, 45 percent thought the country was on the wrong track, 11 percent did not have an opinion, and 44 percent supported the nation’s current course.  The number of people ready to join protests against the plunging living standard was at 30 percent.  The president’s popularity started falling in mid-2018.  In January, the Russian Public Opinion Research Center (VTsIOM) reported that Vladimir Putin’s approval rating was down three points in December, to 33.4 percent (the Foundation for Public Opinion says it is 46 percent; and Levada Center, 66 percent).  The head of VTsIOM said this was the lowest indicator in the last 15 years.  The president’s annual New Year’s address got a record number of dislikes online.  Citizens are starting to lay the blame for the country’s problems not only the government and officials, as they had in the past, but also on the president.  Obviously, the contract between public and regime, which had seemed inviolate for many years, has been undermined.

This does not bode well.  President Putin needs some more bare chested horse ride videos.

Regards  —  Cliff

Occupied

For John, BLUF:  If you want to look at the Russia approach, follow the TV Series Okkupert (Occupied).  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

AN ORTHODOX FRACTURE WITH SERIOUS CONSEQUENCES

Here is the sub-headline:

Should a reunited Ukrainian Orthodoxy be recognized by Constantinople as "autocephalous" and therefore not subordinate to Russian Orthodoxy, Moscow's claim to be the "third Rome" would be gravely imperiled.

From The Boston Pilot, by Mr George Weigel, 26 September 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

While Catholicism has been embroiled in a crisis of sexual abuse and episcopal malfeasance reaching to the highest levels of the Church, Eastern Orthodoxy may be on the verge of an epic crack-up with major ecumenical and geopolitical consequences.

There are three competing Orthodox jurisdictions in Ukraine today.  The Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Moscow Patriarchate is in full communion with, and subordinate to, the Russian Orthodox Patriarchate of Moscow.  Then there are two breakaways from Moscow:  the Ukrainian Orthodox Church-Kyivan Patriarchate and the Ukrainian Autocephalous Orthodox Church.  This tripartite fracture is a scandal, an obstacle to re-evangelizing a broken culture, and an impediment to ecumenism.

There are two reasons this might be of interest to folks in the Greater Lowell area.  The First is the large Orthodox population in our area.  I expect each of us knows someone tied to the Eastern Church.

The second reason is that part of the Ukraine is still under Russian occupation, as Ukraine President Poroshenko pointed out to the UN General Assembly yesterday.

The action in the area of religion detracts from President Putin's view of a vast Russian People.

Regards  —  Cliff

Advice From Down Under

For John, BLUF:  Some of us are getting overly excited.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Keep calm and carry on: a message to Trump critics

Here is the sub-headline:

From The Interpreter, The Lowry Institute, Mr Sam Roggeveen, Director of the Lowy Institute’s International Security Program, 18 July 2018.

Here is the start:

There are still two-and-a-half years to go in US President Donald Trump’s first term, and I’m concerned about his critics.  They need to pace themselves.  This level of outrage just cannot be maintained.

When it comes to the instantly infamous press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin in Helsinki, they also need to turn off the Twitter outrage machine so they can get themselves some fresh air and a little perspective, although Wednesday’s muddled “clarification” from Trump is sending them back to their keyboards and into another frenzy.

Those arguing Trump is in Putin’s pocket need to cite some examples of what Trump actually surrendered in Helsinki, other than his dignity.

Granted, it is unusual in the extreme for a US president to openly criticise their own intelligence community, but emphasis on the “openly”.  It’s not unusual for presidents to question what their spies are telling them, and in fact the world could use a bit more scepticism from US presidents when it comes to their daily intelligence briefing.  If one of Trump’s predecessors had been a bit less credulous about the intelligence assessments crossing his desk, Trump wouldn’t be president today.

Yes, Trump performed poorly in Helsinki, but treason?  “In the pocket of Putin”?

Treason is a word, if not offered in a hyperbolic sense, which demands action.  It demands action now.  It means people like Mssers Comey, Brennan and Mueller are phonies, because almost eighteen months after inauguration, President Trump is still in office.

On the other hand, I think the Treason talk is just hot air and poor taste.

Regards  —  Cliff

Where Do Things Go Now Regarding the Special Counsel?

For John, BLUF:  If Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein released the twelve indictments of Russian GRU Officers on Friday last without coordinating with the President and Foggy Bottom then he is a Dim Bulb.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Uncomfortable Questions in the Wake of Russia Indictment 2.0 and Trump’s Press Conference With Putin

From Lawfare Blog, by Mr Jack Goldsmith, 16 July 2018.

Here is the lede plus five:

Special Counsel Robert Mueller and his Justice Department/FBI team deserve congratulations for doing their job of figuring out in concrete detail what the Russians did in the 2016 election campaign and telling the American people about it—now in an indictment and perhaps later, and in more detail, in a report.  Last week’s indictment might also portend, as the Lawfare crew implied, a tightening of the criminal-conspiracy noose to include Americans, perhaps some with connections to the Trump campaign.

The indictment also represents an extraordinary assertion of Justice Department power and independence.  President Trump never stops complaining about the DOJ “witch hunt,” but his subordinates in the Potemkin unitary executive branch keep proving him wrong.  The president didn’t even have the de facto authority to delay Rod Rosenstein’s announcement from the maximum embarrassment it caused him on the dawn of his summit with Vladimir Putin.  With each new concrete revelation contrary to the president’s wishes and representations, Rosenstein’s and Mueller’s effective power grows vis-a-vis the president.

But behind the indictment, and the congratulatory reaction to it, lie some uncomfortable unanswered questions about blowback toward U.S. officials, reciprocal interference by the United States in other nations' political affairs, the lack of preparation for renewed electoral interference in this country, and U.S. journalists’ publication of stolen U.S. government information.  These questions have heightened significance and more difficult answers in light of President Trump’s astounding performance Monday in Helsinki.

Yes, the subtle implication of the third paragraph, expanded upon in following paragraphs, is that the Special Counsel and the DOJ as a whole haven't really thought out where this is heading.  For example, are we going to now suggest international norms about interfering in the elections of other nations?  And, if so, are we going to apologize for all the times we have interfered in the elections of other nations?

Between the President, his DOJ and the Democrats on Capitol Hill, and the Republicans in the same location, we need to have some common understanding of what happened in 2016, so we can better deal with 2018 and 2020.  I dislike putting its in these terms, but we need a young J Edgar Hoover, who we all trust, to clean up this mess.

But, for an exit question, what if one of the Russian GRU officers shows up to be tried?  What if his lawyer asks for discovery, for the Bradey material?  I think it would be interesting.  This has already happened with Concord Management, indicted in February.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Dare Call It Treason

For John, BLUF:  We are in the middle of a national meltdown.  I hope we come to our senses, before we do something stupid.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Is Donald Trump committing treason?

From , by Professor John Shattuck,♠ 16 July 2018.

Here are the first two paragraphs:

Following the 2016 presidential election, a specter of treason was hovering over Donald Trump because of his response to the mounting evidence that the Russians had intervened to help elect him.

As the president-elect entered the White House, he summarily rejected the conclusion of US intelligence agencies that Russia had engaged in cyberwarfare against the US elections.  He worked to block investigations into Russia’s actions.  Trump advisers and associates had extensive political and business dealings with the Russian government before and during the 2016 presidential campaign.  While there has not been any direct evidence that the president-elect was involved in the Russian government’s actions, circumstances suggested that individuals or groups close to the president could have aided or known about the Russian meddling.

So which is it?  Is there direct evidence or is there not?  Professor Shattuck quibbles with "has not been any direct evidence … circumstances suggest that individuals or groups close to the President."  Is he talking Vice President Henry Wallace♥ close to the President?

In the end, mostly by innuendo, Professor Shattuck says the President is guilty of treason.

Which raises the question of what Special Counsel Robert Mueller has been doing all this time?

There are two broad options here.  One is that President Trump is guilty of treason, in which case Mr Mueller has dilly-dallied for a year and produced nothing regarding the President, suggesting he is in the President's pocket.  The alternative theory is he is in President Putin's pocket.

The other option is that the President is not guilty of treason, but Mr Mueller is dragging this out because he needs the extra money each month, either for expenses or to add to his retirement.  The alternative is that Mr Mueller is engaged in counting coup.

Then there is the possibility that Mr Mueller is just withholding everything until October, when any disclosure would damage Republicans up and down the ticket.

In the men time, one has to ask about the Editors at The Globe?  Is beating down Mr Donald Trump so important that the Editors are willing to sacrifice all their scruples?

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  John Shattuck, a former US assistant secretary for democracy, human rights and labor, is professor of practice in diplomacy at the Fletcher School of Law and Diplomacy and senior fellow at the Harvard Kennedy School’s Carr Center for Human Rights Policy.
♥  Not that Mr Wallace was all bad ideas.  For instance, he wanted to abolish segregation.

Who Will Arrest the Russians?

For John, BLUF:  It would be nice if we could let the President be President.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Why Mueller Indicting 12 Russians is Meaningless Theatre

Here is the sub-headline:

Does anybody seriously think Vladimir Putin will ship a dozen of his intelligence service's top digital spies to America to face trial?

From , by Mr Mark Tapscott, 14 July 2018.

Here is the lede plus four:

Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein made a huge splash Friday by announcing that special counsel Robert Mueller has issued an indictment of 12 Russian military intelligence operatives for hacking the computer systems of two top Democratic campaign committees.

What Rosenstein didn’t say in making that announcement suggests the indictment was made public as a public relations play intended to manipulate voters rather than a public information service provided to help American citizens understand what their government is doing.

One word Rosenstein did utter during his news conference tells the story — “apprehension.” As when the deputy attorney general who appointed Mueller said: “The special counsel’s investigation is ongoing and there will be no comments by the special counsel at this time … we intend to transition responsibility for this indictment to the Justice Department’s National Security Division (NSD) while we await the apprehension of the defendants.”

Congressional Democrats quickly seized on the indictment to demand that President Donald Trump either cancel his meeting Monday in Helsinki with Russian President Vladimir Putin or challenge Putin to agree to extradite the indicted intelligence officers.

And that’s why Rosenstein’s Friday news conference was meaningless except as attempted manipulation of public perception of the special counsel investigation of allegations aides to Trump’s 2016 campaign colluded with Russian interests.

I don't think I agree with Mr Tapscott.  If the machinery of government is functioning properly then this announcement, and its timing, are part of Government's overall foreign policy.  After all, Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein met with President Trump before the President departed for Europe and briefed him on this issue.

Over at the PopeHat, "VeryStableHat" tweeted out in response to Mr Julian Sanchez, who latched onto the coincidence of Candidate Trump asking President Putin for Candidate Clinton's EMails the same day Russia tried to hack into the DNC.

Mr Sanchez thinks that this indictment from the Special Prosecutor is just the further closing of the ring around a "traitorous" President Trump.

One wag responded with this tweet:

I'm confused.  Do the adults all get that Mr Trump was joking, or is it that Mr Mueller is on to something but can't bring it to a conclusion in 18 months.  In France in 1945 (Happy Bastille Day) they did Petain in 3 or 4 months.

And, the person is exactly correct.  Either Mr Rosenstein was working with the President to further US policy or he is a clueless and disruptive patriot, who should, with a sense of honor, resign.  As for Special Council Mueller, either he is holding the answers close to his chest, while he runs up his coup count or he is incompetent.  If, and I emphasize "if", Mr Mueller believes President Trump is a traitor—and that would be the word for it—then everything else is rubbish and should be ignored, so that Mr Mueller can deliver the goods to the House of Representatives as quickly as possible.  But, it isn't happening.  So, one can only conclude that President Trump is innocent of all these fabricated charges or Deputy Attorney General Rosenstein needs to replace Mr Mueller immediately.♠

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  The third option is that Mr Mueller is in President Trump's pocket.

Helping the Enemy

For John, BLUF:  The thing is, as long as Congress is tied up worrying about President Trump they aren't legislating, and that is a good thing.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Ex-CIA Chief Brennan’s Broadsides Against Trump Only Help Putin

From The Cipher Brief, by Mr Daniel Hoffman, Former CIA Chief of Station, dated 5 April 2018.

Yes, this is a month old, but The Cipher Brief tends to have stories that hold up over time and this discussion is still timely.

Here are the first five paragraphs from Mr Hoffman:

Russian President Vladimir Putin has directed most of Russia’s military and intelligence resources against Russia’s “Main Enemy,” the United States, since he became prime minister in 1999.  As a former KGB officer and director of its successor, the FSB, Putin’s weapons of choice for this covert campaign are espionage, and influence operations that target our political differences to weaken and divide us.

That’s why I was particularly upset when former CIA Director John Brennan delivered cringe worthy tweets excoriating President Donald Trump’s character and then “speculating” on MSNBC that Trump has not said anything negative about Putin because Trump “has something to serious to fear.”  He insinuated Putin was in a position to blackmail the president.  Brennan later explained to The New York Times that he was speculating, but damage was done. He played right into the hands of an adversary trying to widen the partisan divide.

As a trained intelligence officer who knows what makes our society tick, Putin understands the best way to soil our democratic process is to link it with a touch of conspiracy, i.e. to the Kremlin.  He is acutely aware of the value to Russia of exacerbating the political tension that grips our country.  Putin’s goal is to weaken our democratic institutions, including intelligence community agencies, which are responsible for countering Russia’s espionage onslaught on our country.

Putin purposely left a trail of breadcrumbs to the Kremlin in a series of discoverable influence operations: the three high-profile Russians with links to the Kremlin who attended the June 2016 Trump Tower meeting; and the St. Petersburg-based Internet Research Agency that directed the election-related hacking carried a Kremlin return address.

From the Kremlin’s optic, these discoverable influence operations were more successful because they had the side benefit of transforming our intelligence community into partisan fodder.  Putin can certainly take some credit for helping spark both the firings of the FBI director and deputy director, as well as increasingly intense partisan bickering in Congress.  Having released dueling memos about the FBI’s surveillance of a Trump campaign official, the House Committee on Intelligence is deeply divided and risking collateral damage to its oversight mission and public trust.

Does the Kremlin have "the photos", as they say, that would compromise the US President?♠  I am doubtful.  That said, after the 2016 Election, and subsequent inauguration, those who were devastated by Mrs Clinton's loss eventually joined with the remaining Never Trumpers to form a movement to remove the President.

The result is that those opposed to President Trump, at a visceral level, rather than just a political level, are actually helping (the recently sworn in for another six year term) President Vladimir Putin of Russia.  Mr Putin is conducting political warfare, or "Active Measures".  There is a long tradition of this sort of thing.  Anything he (Mr Putin) can do to impede US President Trump is seen in Moscow as providing an edge in the game of world chess.

So, the Democrats and the Never Trumpers worry about Kompromat.♥  Based on this they seem intent upon removing President Trump at almost any price.  Such commitment to removal seems over the top, and is alienating a number of voters.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  My judgement is that there is very little, especially in the way of sexual antics, that would be embarrassing to Mr Trump.
♥  It isn't like Mr Trump is like former EU President and Italian Prime Minister Romano Prodi, speculated to be a KGB Agent.

Sino-Russian Complications

For John, BLUF:  In case you thought everything was rosy in Russia, this items suggests not so fast.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Russia’s Unhappy Energy Marriage with China

Here is the sub-headline:

With all the quiet chaos beneath the surface in Moscow, Beijing seems poised to benefit.

From the Blog The Diplomat, by Mr Nicholas Trickett, 30 March 2018.

Here is the lede plus one:

As Putin has become the longest-serving Russian leader since Stalin, the country’s economic and political stagnation is drawing more and more comparisons to the Leonid Brezhnev era.  Putin’s political system cannot survive the stresses imposed by major reforms needed to improve the economy, creating a deepening dependency on foreign policy in all its forms to secure legitimacy and, more importantly, money.  By all appearances, his Chinese counterpart, Xi Jinping, is tightening his control of the state and policy.  This dynamic poses problems for the Kremlin’s most important relationship with a non-Western power.

Talk of Putin and Xi’s close personal relationship is largely a matter of PR messaging at a time when Russia needs China.  Positive pronouncements do little to hide the difficulty both sides have in reaching real economic agreements in particular.  Recent developments in the two countries’ energy ties and shifting personal power among those in and close to the Kremlin suggest that relations with China will continue to be warmer than ever on the surface, but ever more difficult to manage as the domestic political divergence between the two grows.

President Putin is facing some headwinds and all is not smooth sailing for him, as this author points out.

Regards  —  Cliff

Licensed to Kill

For John, BLUF:  So, James Bond lives, but he is a Russian.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Putin Gang Stunned by Theresa May’s Resolve

This is an Opinion Piece by Mr John R. Schindler, in The Observer (UK), 14 March 2018.

Here is the lede plus two:

For the past dozen years, Russian President Vladimir Putin has employed his spies as assassins in the West, beginning with the murder of the defector Aleksandr Litvinenko in London in late 2006.  Kremlin killers have left a trail of bodies in several Western countries, but above all the United Kingdom.  Although Russian spies have made only modest efforts to cover their tracks in these crimes, the consequences for Moscow have been distinctly limited.  No Western country has been willing to stand up to Putin and his increasingly gangster regime—until now.

In response to the attempted murder of Sergei Skripal, a 66-year-old former Russian military intelligence colonel, who, along with his 33-year-old daughter Yulia, received a near-lethal dose of a nerve agent on March 4 in Salisbury, England, the British government is finally showing resolve in confronting outrageous Russian crimes perpetrated on their soil.  As I explained a week ago, there is no serious doubt that the Kremlin stands behind the would-be hit on the Skripals:

Vladimir Putin has resumed wetwork in a fashion not witnessed in the Kremlin since the days of Joseph Stalin.  Putin’s assassinations abroad over the last 15 years have been more aggressive than anything done during the Russian president’s KGB career.  Moreover, his views on turncoats are well known:  “Traitors always end badly,” he famously explained.  In 2010, the year Skripal was swapped to Britain, Putin chillingly stated, “Traitors will kick the bucket.  Trust me.  These people betrayed their friends, their brothers-in-arms.  Whatever they got in exchange for it, those 30 pieces silver they were given, they will choke on them.”

It is obvious that Mr Putin wants what he wants.  One has the sense that he thinks that he is not going to let some woman, like British Prime Minister Theresa May, push him around.

This may not end well.

Regards  —  Cliff

Hope Springs Eternal

TRIGGER WARNINGS:  In which I suggest that Professors at Harvard often speak through their hat.

For John, BLUF:  The Left, the Clintonistas, just cannot let go of the defeat of Mrs Clinton by Mr Trump.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

HOW HILLARY CLINTON STILL CAN, AND SHOULD, BECOME PRESIDENT AFTER THE TRUMP-RUSSIA INVESTIGATION

From Newsweek, by Ms Julia Glum, on 16 October 2017.

From the third paragraph:

Harvard University professor Lawrence Lessig offered a Clinton path to the presidency on Medium, putting forward a series of "if/then" scenarios that lead to House Speaker Paul Ryan handing the White House keys to Clinton.

Here is the Professor's proposed path:

If number 1:  If Trump is definitively found to have colluded directly with Russia, he would be forced to resign or be impeached.

If number 2:  If Trump is removed, Vice President Mike Pence would become president.

If number 3:  If Pence becomes president, he should resign too, given that he benefited from the same help from Mother Russia.

If number 4:  If Pence resigns before appointing a vice president, Ryan would become president.

If number 5:  If Ryan becomes president, he should do the right thing and choose Clinton for vice president. Then he should resign.

"The answer seems unavoidable: He should nominate the person defeated by the treason of his own party, and then step aside and let her become the president," Lessig writes. "Without doubt, if Ryan did the right thing, that would be the most extraordinary event in the history of America since the Confederate Army fired on Fort Sumter. But unlike that, this event would build the union, not divide it."

But, the first "IF" is the hard one, although "IF" Number 3 is also a huge leap.  The reason I say the first "IF" is the hard one is because it isn't clear there is a connection between the Trump Campaign and Putin and Putin's Russia.  The use of "Should" in the headline is a leap that probably won't reach the other side.  Oops.

Perhaps more important is the question of if Mrs Clinton and the Clinton Campaign had greater "ties" to the Russians than the putative Trump Campaign ties.

And, if all of Professor Lessig's scenario comes to fruition we would be stuck with Mrs Clinton as President.  The Government Official who, through her Libya Policy, gave us Benghazi, and then tried to cover it up.  Keep that in the back of your mind when you think about nKorea.

UPDATE:  Here is the Blog Post by Law Professor Ann Althouse.

UPDATE:  Professor Lessig just said, on The Tucker Carlson show that it hasn't been proven that Russian interference was connected to Mr Trump.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Forget Putin, Juncker is the Threat

For John, BLUF:  What did he expect?  They are our political and economic cousins.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

EU could BREAK UP the US: Juncker in jaw-dropping threat to Trump over support for Brexit

Here is the sub-headline:

EUROPEAN Union boss Jean-Claude Juncker this afternoon issued a jaw-dropping threat to the United States, saying he could campaign to break up the country in revenge for Donald Trump’s supportive comments about Brexit.

How could the Democrats, Senator Schumer, Minority Leader Pelosi, gadfly Senator Warren not have seen this coming?  Is Rep Seth Moulton outraged?  What about Rep Niki Tsongas and our junior Senator, whatever his name is?♠

I am looking forward to reading Reporter Joshua Miller's "Political Happy Hour" report for tonight, to hear if any of our local politicians have grasped the seriousness of this situation, the threat to our democracy and to our unity.♥

Forget Russian President Vladimir Putin.  European Union Commission President Jean-Claude Juncker is the real threat, and he is no friend of President Trump.

The linked article appeared in the Daily Express, out of London.  The Reporter, their Brussels Correspondent, is Mr Nick Gutteridge.  The dateline is today.

Here is the lede plus one:

In an extraordinary speech the EU Commission president said he would push for Ohio and Texas to split from the rest of America if the Republican president does not change his tune and become more supportive of the EU.

The remarks are diplomatic dynamite at a time when relations between Washington and Brussels are already strained over Europe’s meagre contributions to NATO and the US leader’s open preference for dealing with national governments.

On the other hand, maybe our Congressional Delegation doesn't care about Ohio and Texas.

Hat tip to the Drudge Report.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  I looked it up.  Senator Ed Markey.
♥  You too can subscribe to Josh's daily insights.  Send them an EMail

Professor Krugman's Mind Adrift

TRIGGER WARNING:  In which I talk about how deranged some people are about Mr Trump appearing to have won the election.

For John, BLUF:  Boy, the Democrats are poor losers.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Useful Idiots Galore

Fair Warning.  It is Nobel Laureate and New York Times columnist Paul Krugman.  He is off on a rant and taking up the old Communist meme about "useful idiots".

The lede:

On Wednesday an editorial in The Times described Donald Trump as a “useful idiot” serving Russian interests.  That may not be exactly right.  After all, useful idiots are supposed to be unaware of how they’re being used, but Mr. Trump probably knows very well how much he owes to Vladimir Putin.  Remember, he once openly appealed to the Russians to hack Hillary Clinton’s emails.

So, Paul Krugman as much as says that Mr Trump is in the tank for Russian President Vladimir Putin.  That is to say, he believes, but is unwilling to come out and say so, Mr Trump is a traitor.

And, to the second point of Professor Krugman, about Mr Trump's comments about Mrs Clinton's EMails, I was able to take it the way it was intended—Mrs Clinton had left her server open to being hacked and maybe it had been and maybe the Russians had the EMails.  That the Russians would release any EMails they had, except if it was useful to them, is risible.  Mr Trump was commenting on the carelessness of Mrs Clinton and the possible consequences of that carelessness.  He was pointing out that Mrs Clinton's carelessness could have adverse consequences.  People who have handled and respected classified information tend to get that point.

Then Professor Krugman says:

Still, the general picture of a president-elect who owes his position in part to intervention by a foreign power, and shows every sign of being prepared to use U.S. policy to reward that power, is accurate.

No it isn't.  It isn't like Mr Trump has hired the 1930s editorial policy of The New York Times.  Mr Trump is looking across the globe and trying to judge what is good for America.  He has the example of President Obama, who, four years ago, ridiculed Governor Mitt Romney's idea that Russia was a threat to the US.  Four years and a couple of months ago.  What has changed?  Has President Putin changed?  I am doubtful.  Professor Krugman is just out there blowing in the breeze.

Professor Krugman also attacks, in the same column, FBI Director James Comey.  The Professor writes:

…the dramatic, totally unjustified last-minute intervention by the F.B.I., which appears to have become a highly partisan institution, with distinct alt-right sympathies.

There it is, the "alt-right".  Maybe worse than "fascists".

We are talking conspiracy theories here.

The real problem is that after making his case that Mr Trump is a traitor and Director Comey is a co-conspirator, Professor Krugman fails to offer up a remedy.  He fails to tell us what to do.  Well, not those of us, the "deplorables", who voted for Mr Trump, but those who didn't.  Should they just stay home and pet their kitten or puppy and eat ice cream or should they take to the streets?  Is Professor Krugman calling for a putsch, like that famous one in Munich, 8-9 November 1923?  I hope not.  But he is not clear.  Things are terrible, and there is treason out there amongst the Republicans and the "alt-right", but . . ..

So, Professor Krugman is convinced that Mrs Clinton would have won if not for the intervention of the Russians.  The idea that she alienated a large segment of voters seems to have never entered his mind.  The only answer to why Mrs Clinton lost the Electoral College vote is because evil forces conspired with traitorous politicians to deceive the voters.  There you have it.  "We were pure and they were bad."

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

PS:  It isn't clear to me that Professor Krugman differentiates between computer hacking and the use of the term "hacking" to describe political warfare.

IC Refuses to Brief Congress♠

TRIGGER WARNING:  Wherein I talk about Mrs Clinton losing the Presidential race.
For John, BLUF:  The Intel Community is politicized.  The goal is to minimize that politicization.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Intelligence officials refuse to brief House panel on Russian hacking

This would be a requested Thursday, 15 December briefing by the DNI, FBI and CIA Directors (respectively Mr James Clapper, Mr James Comey and Mr John Brennan).

The article appears in USA Today, written by Ms Erin Kelly.

So, while House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi's Daughter, Christine Pelosi, an Elector from San Francisco, California, is calling for a "Day Pass" so the 538 Electors can be briefed on the latest intelligence, the Administration itself is not willing to update the US Congress.

I hope this is just great theater.  I hope it doesn't lead to the further politicalization of intelligence, a topic touched on by Prof Joshua Rovner at War on the Rocks.♥

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  IC would be Intelligence Community.  The 16 separate intelligence agencies, united.  They even have their own official seal.  There are several Department of Defense Agencies, plus CIA, and several cabinet departments, such as State, Justice, Treasury, Energy and Homeland Security.
♥  Regarding previous acts of politicalization, I do think it has existed for quite a while.  As a bonus, the US Intelligence Community has messed with the elections of other nations, including Italy.