Blame it on Russia

For John, BLUF:  It appeas that Russian interference in domestic politics is not going away and is not limited to the United States.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Not that Russia doesn't deserve a lot of criticism, but still, there are limits to the evil responsibilities of President V Putin.

Trudeau accuses Jordan Peterson and Tucker Carlson of being funded by Russia

From True North Wire, by Reporter Clayton DeMaine, 17 October 2024.

Here is the lede plus one:

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau accused Canadian author and psychologist Dr. Jordan Peterson, as well as American media personality Tucker Carlson, of being funded by Russia without providing any evidence to substantiate his claims.

While testifying at the ongoing foreign interference inquiry on Wednesday, Justin Trudeau accused the two conservative media personalities of being on the Russian payroll.

Prime Minister Trudeau was even asked if there was a connectino between Russia and the Freedom Convoy in 2022, durihng the COVID-19 outbreak.  There appears to be none, but I am sure the Prime Minister would like to be able to point to one, since it was a thorn in his side

I have not been a close follower of Canadian politics since Blogger Ed Morrissey switched from Captain's Cabin as his blog location, but I do think Prime Ministeer Trudeau fis may be in a bit of trouble, politically.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Our Lost Hope For a Western Oriented Russia

For John, BLUF:  We sent some talented people to help in the transition from the Soviet system, but they failed.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Russia’s Great Transformational Failure

Here is the sub-headline:

Hopes that post-Soviet Russia would join the ranks of prosperous liberal democracies have proven to be a chimera

From Tablet Magazine, by Postdoctoral Fellow Ms Maria Snegovaya, 28 September 2022.

Here is the lede plus one:

The collapse of the Soviet system led to a period of hope in Russia.  Throughout the 2000s, it was popular to describe Russia as a “normal country.”  The changes it went through during its transition from Soviet communism to a Westernized, market-based economy and parliamentary system were agreed to be irreversible, setting the stage for the country to eventually join the club of liberal democracies.

Thirty years later, however, it seems clear that Russia’s much-heralded modernization effort was a failure.

In the early 1990s, the political scientist Claus Offe explained the nature of the unique challenges faced by countries across the post-communist region, which he called the triple transformation:  the political transition from autocracy to democracy; the economic transition from planned to market economy; and a national transition from empire to nation-building.  While post-communist countries saw varying degrees of success, it is the failure to modernize along all three dimensions that distinguishes Russia.

As we look across the Globe we see Democracy, in various forms, the Communist Chinese approach of Social Credit and the Russian approach of authoritarianism.  To my surprise, and disappointment, the Russian model is gaining support in some areas.  However, notwithstanding the bleating from some in the US, authoritarianism does not appear to have a foothold here.

This is where a good foreign information program might be of value.  While I doubt such a program could overthrow the Social Credit syetem (it will have to undo itself by thwarting all aspects of freedom) it can help other nations cope with authoritarian aspects of thei government.  We have Madison Avenue.  We should be able to sell democracy and the freedom aspects of capitalism.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Peace for Ukraine

For John, BLUF:  This is a few days late, but the problem persists and the need is there.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

The growing chorus for peace in Ukraine

Here is the sub-headline:

There is an alternative.  We can and must resolve this conflict through peaceful diplomacy and negotiation, to end the killing and destruction and let the people of Ukraine live in peace.

From Nation of Change, by CODEPINK Members Medea Benjamin and Nicolas J. S. Davies, 31 October 2022.

Here is the lede plus three:

Ukraine has been wracked by shocking destruction and deadly violence since Russia invaded the country in February. Estimates of the death toll range from a confirmed minimum of 27,577 people, including 6,374 civilians, to over 150,000.  The slaughter can only get more horrific as long as all sides, including the United States and its NATO allies, remain committed to war.

In the first weeks of the war, the United States and NATO countries sent weapons to Ukraine to try to prevent Russia from quickly defeating Ukraine’s armed forces and conducting a U.S.-style “regime change” in Kyiv.  But since that goal was achieved, the only goals that President Zelenskyy and his Western allies have publicly proclaimed are to recover all of pre-2014 Ukraine and decisively defeat and weaken Russia.

These are aspirational goals at best, which require sacrificing hundreds of thousands, maybe millions, of Ukrainian lives, regardless of the outcome.  Even worse, if they should come close to succeeding, they are likely to trigger a nuclear war, making this the all-time epitome of a “no-win predicament.”  At the end of May, President Biden responded to probing questions about the contradictions in his Ukraine policy from the New York Times Editorial Board, replying that the United States was sending weapons so that Ukraine “can fight on the battlefield and be in the strongest possible position at the negotiating table.”

But when Biden wrote that, Ukraine had no position at any negotiating table, thanks mainly to the conditions that Biden and NATO leaders attached to their support.  In April, after Ukraine negotiated a15-point peace plan for a ceasefire, a Russian withdrawal and a peaceful future as a neutral country, the United States and United Kingdom refused to provide Ukraine with the security guarantees that were a critical part of the agreement.

Regarding the headline, I don't hear this growing cry.  Yes, on Democracy Now and some parts of the GOP, but not across the Democratic Party or the Nation as a whole.  Should we be striving for peace?  Absolutely.  For the People of Ukraine, and for the rest of us, who suffer the knock on effects of war, such as grain and oil shortages.

As Mr Fred Iklé says, Every War must end.  What we creatively need is a peace proposal that does not back one party or another into a corner, from which they will fight for survival.  While there are issues of justice to be considered, they should not overwhelm the political issues.  For example, while I might think that President Putin deserves punishment for starting the latest military phase of this war, that is not as important to me as finding an exit ramp that would allow Mr Putin to pull back without plunging Russia into a coup or revolution, which would be a reason for Mr Putin to not go there.  There is no King Solomon here.  We have to work it out ourselves.

Don't count on the United Nations to solve this.  The various nations are going to have to agree to treaty boundaries and reparations and other nations are going to have to offer up guarantees, which means enforcement against violations.  Which we would hope would work this time, unlike the Budapest Memoorandum of 1994.

Regards  —  Cliff

Peace for Ukraine

For John, BLUF:  As discussed previously, there has been precious little talk of peace in Ukraine.  It is nice to see the President's own Party take a step forward.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

""A group of 30 House liberals is urging President Biden to dramatically shift his strategy on the Ukraine war and pursue direct negotiations with Russia..."

From the Althouse Blog, by Law Professor Ann Althouse, 24 Octoner 2022, 3:47 PM.

Here is the rest of the excerpt:

"... the first time prominent members of his own party have pushed him to change his approach to Ukraine....The Democrats are specifically concerned that the United States is not engaging in regular dialogue with Russia as part of its effort to end a protracted war.... The Biden administration has been adamant that it is up to Kyiv whether and when to negotiate with Russia, arguing that Ukrainians as a free people should decide their fate. But some Russia experts say Moscow will only negotiate with the United States, a fellow superpower. The lawmakers say that opening must be seized given the war’s spreading devastation.... The letter was signed by some of the best-known and most outspoken liberal Democrats in Congress, including Reps. Jamie Raskin (Md.), Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (N.Y.), Cori Bush (Mo.), Ro Khanna (Calif.) and Ilhan Omar (Minn.)."

There are three very good reasons to look at a peace effort.  First is the danger of escalation to nuclear warfare.  The second is the cost to Ukraine in terms of lines and treasure.  The third is the cost, this Winter, to the People of Europe in terms of energy, food and economic sustainment.  There is a fourth, the cost of the war to the Russian People.

I am not optomistic about this effort.  That said, peace efforts have to start at some place, at some time.

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Regards  —  Cliff

Where Have All the Peaceniks Gone

For John, BLUF:  Yes, the absence of the Peace Demonstrations are strange.  What have they bewen doing these last six months.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Known Knowns, Known Unknowns, Et Cetera

From Chicago Boyz, by Sgt. Mom, 19 October 2022.

Here is the lede plus foour:

So last week’s post regarding the paucity of lefty anti-war protesters regarding the Ukrainian war is still going strong with comments, reminding me once again of the great sage, Donald Rumsfeld, regarding what we know, and what we know that we don’t know … and what we really don’t know that we don’t know.

What do I know for sure about the war? I know that both sides are … parsimonious with the truth about everything that is happening in the zone of conflict, to the point where a truckload of salt is necessary when reading the headlines, no matter if it’s the established print media, or blogs.  What to believe?  Practically nothing, save that yes, indeed, there is a war and a pretty hot one, too.

I am pretty certain that Ukraine served basically as the Biden family’s ATM.  Corrupt government – yeah, that I do believe.  But as corrupt than Russia itself, Nigeria, Pakistan, Belarus, South Sudan, Somalia, Burundi, Venezuela, and other frequent fliers on ‘most corrupt evah!’ list?

I do believe that Putin’s Russia apparently went into the Ukraine believing that it would be a one-two punch and settled to the advantage of Russia within a fortnight.  That the war has been going on without a resolution since February of this year argues that Putin and his generals did indeed bite off more than they could chew, seriously overestimating their own capabilities and the Ukrainian will to resist.

The modern Ukrainians are descended from the Cossacks, in culture if not in blood, who had for centuries a tradition of making war … enthusiastically.  They also, if I read my history right, still hold a grudge for being subjected to the Holodomor, the mass starvation under Stalin’s harsh rule in the 1930s.  And that has to cast a very long shadow, among survivors of that state-instituted horror and their descendants.

There is no doubt that Russia has gone back on its signature on the Budapest 1994 Memorandum.  There is no doubt that the United States signed on to iplement and ghuarantee the Budapest 1994 JMemorandum.  zthere is also no douobt thsat there is the danger the Russians could use nuclear weapons in this conflict.  That would not be fun.

What is not obvious is how we back out of this situstion, without Ukraine losing its independence and without falling into a World War I type debacle.  I would like to see a little more explortion of the Unknowns.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Dead Reckoning

For John, BLUF:  Sometimes the news is a little off and sometimes it might lead us to wrong conclusions.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Downed Russian fighter jets are being found with basic GPS 'taped to the dashboards,' UK defense minister says

From Business Insider, by Reporter Bill Bostock, 10 May 2022, 5:40 AM.

Here is the lede:

Wrecked Russian fighter jets are being found with rudimentary GPS receivers "taped to the dashboards" in Ukraine because their inbuilt navigation systems are so bad, the UK's defense secretary, Ben Wallace, said.

I am willing to grant that Russian fighter aircraft may not have high quality aids to navigation and that they may not be well maintained♠  but, I wonder about the ability of Russian pilots to do basic dead reckoning navigation.  Deadreckoning is fundamental to navigation.  When your Dead Reckoning position and the electronic position differ, don't automatically go with the answer from your electronic aids to navigation.

This appears to be a possible indictment of Russian Air Force training.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff
♠  It reminds me of my days as an F-4 Back Seater.  If was a rare sortie that I didn't have a "Write Up" on the air-to-air radar or the navigation systems.

Is A Food Shortage Coming?

For John, BLUF:  Even the Chinese Agriculture Minister is concerned and has said so publically.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

20 Facts About the Emerging Global Food Shortage That Should Chill You to the Core

From Uncanceled, by Author Michael Snyder, 3 April 2022.

Here is the lede:

A very alarming global food shortage has already begun, and it is only going to get worse in the months ahead.  I realize that this is not good news, but I would encourage you to share the information in this article with everyone that you can.  People deserve to understand what is happening, and they deserve an opportunity to get prepared.  The pace at which things are changing around the globe right now is absolutely breathtaking, but most people assume that life will just continue to carry on as it normally does.  Unfortunately, the truth is that a very real planetary emergency is developing right in front of our eyes.  The following are 20 facts about the emerging global food shortage that should chill you to the core…

Then follows 20 examples of problems noted in various nations.

It isn't just the loss of wheat production due to Putin's War (e.g,, half of Africa's wheat comes from Russia and Ukraine), but includes other issues, like bird flu infecting chicken production in Iowa.

I hope Joaephy has taalked to President Biden about this issue of years of famine.

Regards  —  Cliff

Putin's War and Nuclear Weapons

For John, BLUF:  There is a conceptual distinction between strategic (intercontinental) nuclear weapons and tactical (or theater) nuclear weapons.  This distinction breaks down when they are being used on your nation.  In the case of Putin's War, for Russia the use may be tactical, but for Ukraine it is "strategic".  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Would Russia Use a Tactical Nuclear Weapon in Ukraine?

From the Modern War Institute, US Military Academy, by Researcher Al Mauroni♠, 16 March 2022.

Here is the lede plus three:

Recent nuclear saber rattling by Russian President Vladimir Putin is forcing the West to confront a question that even many national security professionals have been able to ignore for decades:  Would Putin actually use tactical nuclear weapons?  More specifically, would he order a tactical nuclear strike on Ukrainian military forces out of frustration that his military forces have failed to achieve their objectives?  Assessing that possibility requires a reevaluation of certain assumptions that is long overdue. Russian Nuclear Weapons, in Context

In the current context, Putin could view nuclear weapons use as necessary to ensure Russian national security interests are not derailed by overt Western military support to Ukrainian efforts—which would be in line with stated Russian doctrine.  One course of action could be a so-called demonstration strike with a single low-yield nuclear detonation in Ukraine or over the Black Sea to serve as a dramatic warning that resistance to Russia’s military campaign must be ended, backed by the compellent threat of further tactical nuclear attacks.  There is no question that Putin has already signaled the use of nuclear weapons as an option, and he has stated his (alleged) concern about nuclear weapons being stationed in Ukraine for use against Russia.

Aside from the question of whether a Russian nuclear strike is credible as an aspect of future military operations in Ukraine, there are ample reasons that prudent policy must consider the threat of Russian nuclear weapons use as credible.  First, Russia does not have a “no first use” policy and has doctrine to use nuclear weapons in the event that it was losing a conventional conflict with NATO forces.  A nuclear attack against Ukraine would be intended to allow Russia to conclude a regional conflict on terms acceptable to its leadership.  Second, Russia under Putin has made significant investments in nuclear weapons modernization and has frequently exercised its nuclear forces.  Third, Putin has stated his concern over Ukraine developing a nuclear “dirty bomb” as well as the “aggressive statements” of NATO powers.  These false statements could be intended as establishing a casus belli to use a tactical nuclear weapon.  On the other hand, this might be merely a case of nuclear brinksmanship that will not play out in Russia’s favor.

At the article there are embedded links, if you care.

My view is that if President Putin uses one or two nuclear weapons for demonstration/coercion shots, there is no reason for us to respond in kind.  If he uses them it will be because he is losing.  If we ignore him, and the Ukrainians ignore him and he does not escalate, then the war is over.  I guess he could gas the whole nation, but he may not have enough chemical weapons to kill 40,000,000 people, or even 20,000,000..

Most of us can do little more than pray.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Al Mauroni is the director of the US Air Force Center for Strategic Deterrence Studies and author of the book, Countering Weapons of Mass Destruction: Assessing the U.S. Government’s Policy.

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.

Russian Population Bust

For John, BLUF:  Russia is not the only nation losing population.  China, South Korea Japan♠ have all lost total population.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Russia loses a million people in historic population fall

From France 24, 28 January 2022, 22:02.

Here is the lede plus four:

Russia's population declined by more than one million people in 2021, the statistics agency Rosstat reported Friday, a historic drop not seen since the collapse of the Soviet Union.

Ongoing demographic woes have been exacerbated by the pandemic with Rosstat figures showing more than 660,000 had died with coronavirus since health officials recorded the first case in the country.

The new figures continue a downward trend from the previous year when Russia's population fell by more than half a million.

The Covid-related fatalities figures published monthly by Rosstat are far higher than death figures released by a separate government website, which is dedicated to tracking the pandemic in the country.

Those government website figures only take into account fatalities where the virus was established as the primary cause of death after an autopsy and shows just 329,443 total fatalities.

This does not mean that Russia is about to collapse.  Far from it.  Russia is still a nuclear armed Regional Power.  Long Term, there are problems, but President V Putin will be in a nursing home before they impact Russia's foreign policy.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

♠  Japan’s persistent inability to reverse falling birth number includes a 2020 birth rate of 1.34 children per woman (2.1 needed to sustain a population), with just 840,000 babies born in Japan that year.  Thus, population peaked in 2008 at almost 128m, but last year dropped to 126m.

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

Confusion in the IC

For John, BLUF:  There was apparently a minority opinion in the Intelligence Community regarding outside influence in our 2020 Elections.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

US National Intelligence Officer Argues China Meddled in 2020 Election to Damage Trump

Wait!  What?  We were told, yesterday, that:

Putin targeted people close to Trump in bid to influence 2020 election, U.S. intelligence says

Washington Post Reporter Ellen Nakashima (17 March 2021, at 6:51 a.m. EDT) told us:

Evanina also said that "China prefers that President Trump — whom Beijing sees as unpredictable — does not win reelection."  He said that China was expanding its "influence efforts" ahead of the November election to "shape the policy environment" and "pressure political figures" it viewed as opposed to its interests.

So China was not directly meddling in our 2020 Election, per Ms Nakashima.

But, back to today's Epoch Times article, there is revealed a descenting opinion.

From The Epoch Times, by Reporter Jack Phhillips, 18 March 2021.

Here is the lede plus one:

A report from the U.S. intelligence community suggests that a minority of intelligence officials believed that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) did, in fact, attempt to hinder former President Donald Trump’s chances in the 2020 election, while reporting that the CCP did not “deploy interference efforts.”

A report from the National Intelligence Council (pdf) released March 10 stated that Russia sought to denigrate President Joe Biden and boost Trump during the 2020 election, and that China “did not deploy interference efforts and considered but did not deploy influence efforts intended to change the outcome of the U.S. presidential election,” adding:  “We have high confidence in this judgment.”

So, which is it?  Did they or didn't they?  I am thinking our assumption, and our defensive actions should be based on the idea that they did.

We have election system problems and the Bill coming out of Congress will not fix those problems.  If anything, it will make things worse.  For sure, the confidence of the voters is important.  I do not believe we have a high level of confidence.

Regards  —  Cliff

Another Russian Hoax

For John, BLUF:  I wonder about tthe motive for the leak, or if the Woke Reporters just invented it.  Assuming it was a real tip, was the reason to get a date or was it campaign dirty tricks.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Here's Why the 'Russian Bounties' Story Is the New 'Russian Collusion' Hoax

From PJ Media, by Mr Matt Margolils, 30 June 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

Last week, the New York Times published a report claiming that “a Russian military intelligence unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces in Afghanistan — including targeting American troops,” and that President Trump has done nothing about it despite being briefed on it in March.

Democrats, true to form, expressed more outrage at Trump for allegedly ignoring the intel than they did at Russia, but that’s par for the course.  Since the report has come out it has become apparent that the New York Times’ claims are likely not true and Democrats jumped the gun by attacking Trump.

For starters, John Ratcliffe, the Director of National Intelligence, quickly debunked the story.  “I have confirmed that neither the President nor the Vice President were ever briefed on any intelligence alleged by the New York Times in its reporting yesterday,” he tweeted.  “The White House statement addressing this issue earlier today, which denied such a briefing occurred, was accurate.  The New York Times reporting, and all other subsequent news reports about such an alleged briefing are inaccurate.”

So where did this go?

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff

Russian Payback

For John, BLUF:  Wouldn't you expect the Russians to return any mililtary "favors", to undermine our efforts in lands where we previouisly undermined their's?  I would, and I likely wouldn't be dissappointed.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Lawmakers want answers from Trump Administration on reports Russia paid Taliban to attack US troops

Here is the sub-headline:

White House denies that President Trump was briefed on the alleged Russian bounty intelligence.

From Fox News, by Reporter Marisa Schultz, 27 June 2020.

Here is the lede plus three:

The bombshell New York Times report says the financial bounties offered to Taliban-linked fighters have been around for several months; Mark Meredith reports.

Lawmakers on both sides the aisle in Washington want answers on new explosive reporting that a Russian spy unit paid the Taliban to attack U.S. troops stationed in Afghanistan.

The New York Times first reported that American intelligence officials have determined a Russian military unit secretly offered bounties to Taliban-linked militants for killing coalition forces, including targeting American troops.  The Wall Street Journal and Washington Post also reported on the Kremlin's effort to orchestrate attacks on Western troops.

Sen. Bob Menendez, D-N.J., called for the Senate to vote on new sanctions against Russia.

Frankly, this looks like a leak designed to force an action by the Administration or to provide campaign fodder for Vice President Joe Biden.  I find neither very admirable.  On the other hand, I can see how the media might enjoy publishing this news.

Publishing this news muddies up the President and doesn't risk actual war with Russia.  In fact, we were doing a version of this back when most reporters were in diapers.  See Charlie Wilson's War for an example.

Then there is this:

"Lack of a response by [Trump] suggests he may be beholden to Putin," Rep. Ted Lieu, D-Calif., tweeted.  "[Trump] is putting US troops’ lives at risk by doing nothing.  Having served on active duty, I find this behavior by our Commander in Chief to be unacceptable."

What exactly does Rep Ted Lieu have in mind?.  I am assuming he doesn't wish to go to nuclear war.  Would he wish us to target Russian soldiers in Syria or the Wagner Group people in Libya?

Frankly, I don't think Rep Ted Lieu has a clue.  He is just prattling on, because Orange Man Bad.  What if, however, the President took some action, some overt action?  Would Rep Ted Lieu then applaud the President?  I am very doubtful.

Regards  —  Cliff

The Russians Are Coming

For John, BLUF:  The word out on the street is that President Trump is unhappy with an Intelligence Community report, given to the House Intelligence Oversight Committee, that Russia is working to reelect President Trump.  Russian interference in a US Election wouldn't surprise me.  Why should 2020 be difference from other Presidential elections back to when Lenin walked the earth?  But, why should this be different from other products from the IC, subject to varying interpretations?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

Putin Can’t Be Rooting For Trump.  Why Russia Needs A Democrat Win

From Forbes, by Energy Historian Ellen R. Wald, 21 February 2020.

Here is the lede plus two:

The latest reports may insist that Russian president Vladimir Putin wants President Trump to win the 2020 election, but that’s just not logical.  Practically, Putin needs a Democrat to win.  The same goes for Saudi Arabia’s King Salman and his son Mohammed.  In fact, all of the countries that depend on oil production to power their economies desperately need a Democrat to win in November.

OPEC, Russia and their other partners have failed. Prices remain persistently low, and this is largely because the United States is producing record amounts of oil (and gas).  The US now produces more than 12 million barrels per day.  More than 10 percent of global oil production comes from the US and projections from the U.S. Energy Information Administration (EIA) forecast that production will grow to 14 million barrels per day by 2022.

But, if a Democratic candidate becomes president next year, this could all change.  Various Democratic candidates have pledged to ban hydraulic fracturing, end offshore oil production, ban drilling on federal lands, institute carbon taxes and even prosecute oil executives.  Practically speaking, Democratic candidates have said they would put up one obstacle after another to impede and halt U.S. oil production.

This makes sense.  While President Trump may be President Putin's puppet, nothing he actually does supports this idea. 

Cui bono?  The Latin for "who benefits".  It doesn't look like anyone except America benefits from the actions of President Trump.

One wonders if this "Russian involvement" is an invention of the Hillary Clinton Campaign and is still virulent four years later.

Regards  —  Cliff

Blog Page Views By Nation

For John, BLUF:  Who is doing what out there on the Internet?  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

My Page Views for the period indicated

Nov 25, 2019 9:00 PM – Dec 2, 2019 8:00 PM

Here are my Blog Statistics for the period indicated.

SERIAL	NATION	PAGE VIEWS
1	Ukraine	733
2	Russia	216
3	United States	207
4	Italy	83
5	France	11
6	Germany	10
7	Unknown Region	8
8	Indonesia	7
9	South Korea	7
10	Thailand	7

It is interesting that the number of page views from Ukraine is over three times as many as from Russia.  Ukraine vs Russia?  I find this interesting.

Regards  —  Cliff

Confused Over Ukraine

For John, BLUF:  Yes, Virginia, there is a DeepState, and it is trying to thwart the American People by thwarting their elected President.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

'Assistance was essential' — Pentagon leaders advised Trump against freezing aid to Ukraine, senior official testifies

From Task and Purpose, by New York Daily News Reporter Chris Sommerfeldt, 12 November 2019.

Here is the lede plus two:

A senior Pentagon official told impeachment investigators that President Donald Trump's freeze on nearly $400 million in military aid to Ukraine posed a strategic nightmare for the Defense Department and put the American-allied country in a deeply dangerous position, according to impeachment inquiry testimony released Monday.

Laura Cooper, a deputy assistant defense secretary overseeing U.S. policy on Ukraine, corroborated key parts of previous impeachment testimony during her Oct. 26 deposition and provided a new window into the Pentagon's role in trying to block Trump's attempt to press Ukraine into investigating Joe Biden's family and other Democrats before the 2020 election.

Cooper said national security officials across the government were confident Trump was wrong in holding up the $391 million in military assistance while pushing for the Ukrainian investigations

And what does President Barack Obama say about giving lethal aid to Ukraine?♠

In the mean time it is turning out that Democratic House Members believe that running for President (or at least for the Democratic Party nomination) exempts one from any investigation of corrupt conduct.

Sad.  Very sad.

Regards  —  Cliff
♠  Hint:  He opposed it and thwarted it until the day he turned the Presidency over to Donald J Trump.

Russiagate Was About Bernie?

For John, BLUF:  Yes, this is months old, but given the story is still evolving.  And looking to the future?  This whole Russiagate thing just gets curiouser and curiouser.  Nothing to see here; just move along.

---

So the Russians wanted Bernie Sanders elected president in 2016 all along...

From The American Thinker, by Ms Monica Showalter, 16 April 2019.

Here is the lede plus four:

A couple days ago, former prosecutor Andrew McCarthy had a stunning piece on the arrest of Julian Assange and what that could really mean for understanding what was going on with the Russians during the 2016 elections that Democrats made such a stink about.

In a piece for Fox News, he wrote:

Prior to the publication of the stolen Democratic-party emails and internal documents, Julian Assange and WikiLeaks exhorted Russian government hackers to send them “new material.”

That is what we are told by Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s indictment of Russian intelligence officers.  (I won’t offend anyone by calling them “spies” — after all, they were just doing electronic surveillance authorized by their government, right?)  Assange wanted the Russians to rest assured that giving “new material” to WikiLeaks (identified as “Organization 1” in the indictment) would “have a much higher impact than what you are doing” — i.e., hacking and then putting the information out through other channels.

But time was of the essence.  It was early 2016.  If Hillary Clinton was not stopped right there and then, WikiLeaks warned, proceedings at the imminent Democratic national convention would “solidify bernie supporters behind her.”  Of course, “bernie” is Bernie Sanders, the competitor who could still get the nomination.  But if Assange and the Russians couldn’t raise Bernie’s prospects, WikiLeaks explained, Mrs. Clinton would be a White House shoo-in:  “We think trump has only a 25% chance of winning against hillary . . . so conflict between bernie and hillary is interesting.”

My friend, Jeff Levy, Colonel, USAF (retired), pointed out to me that a thorough Mishap Board (Accident Investigation Team) often uncovers far more than just why the aircraft crashed.  And so it is with Russiagate.  .

Hat tip to Ann Althouse.

Hat tip to the InstaPundit.

Regards  —  Cliff