W. Niederhut

John, You have posted a long series of abjectly false statements and misinterpretations of what I have written about the history of Putin's Russia Federation and Putin's decision to invade an annex Ukraine, in accordance with Aleksander Dugin's 1997 blueprint for Russia's future empire. Oddly, you have also completely ignored my detailed commentaries about my own personal experiences with Putin's regime in the 21st century, as a member of the Russian Orthodox Church (ROCOR) during the past quarter century-- even labeling me, "Russophobic!" (I chanted Russian vigil services and liturgies for many years in the ROCOR.) In other words, you are either suffering from serious reading comprehension problems, or engaging in an intellectually dishonest, bad faith approach to a meaningful debate. Under the circumstances, it makes no sense to continue conversing with you about Russian history and the current crisis in Europe. I will recommend, once again, that you educate yourself about Putin's history, and his transformation of the Russian Federation's floundering Yeltsin-era democracy into today's militant, fascist police state. Disregard Paul Rigby's KGB-sponsored disinformazia on the subject, (by Helmer) and take the time to read Catherine Belton's book, Putin's People. https://www.amazon.com/Putins-People-Took-Back-Russia/dp/0374238715

British Moscow correspondent, and author of Putin's People, has co-authored a major article in this morning's Washington Post. I'm re-printing it here, as an educational courtesy, for non-subscribers. Putin, czar with no empire, needs military victory for his own survival By Robyn Dixon and Catherine Belton February 19, 2023 at 10:19 a.m. EST MOSCOW — President Vladimir Putin likes to portray himself as a new czar like Peter the Great or Ivan III, the 15th-century grand prince known as the “gatherer of the Russian lands.” But Putin’s year-long war in Ukraine has failed so far to secure the lands he aims to seize, and, in Russia, there is fear that he is leading his nation into a dark period of strife and stagnation or worse. Some in the elite also say the Russian leader now desperately needs a military victory to ensure his own survival. “In Russia, loyalty does not exist,” said one Russian billionaire. Putin’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine began with hubris and a zeal to reshape the world order. But even as he suffered repeated military defeats — diminishing his stature globally and staining him with allegations of atrocities being committed by his troops — Putin has tightened his authoritarian grip at home, using the war to destroy any opposition and to engineer a closed, paranoid society hostile to liberals, hipsters, LGBTQ people, and, especially, to Western-style freedom and democracy. The Russian president’s squadrons of cheerleaders swear he “simply cannot lose” in Ukraine, thanks to Russia’s vast energy wealth, nuclear weapons, and the sheer number soldiers it can throw onto the battlefield. These supporters see Putin rising supreme from Ukraine’s ashes to lead a swaggering nation defined by its repudiation of the West — a bigger, powerful version of Iran. But business executives and state officials say Putin’s own position at the top could prove precarious as doubts over his tactics grow among the elite. For many of them, Putin’s gambit has unwound 30 years of progress made since the collapse of the Soviet Union. Putin’s vision of Russia horrifies many oligarchs and state officials, who quietly confide that the war has been a catastrophic error that has failed in every goal. But they remain paralyzed, fearful and publicly silent. “Among the elite, though they understand it was a mistake, they still fear to do anything themselves,” said the only Russian diplomat to publicly quit office over the war, Boris Bondarev, formerly based at Russia’s U.N. mission in Geneva. “Because they have gotten used to Putin deciding everything.” Russian soldiers stand with Kalashnikov rifles during a parade celebrating the 80th anniversary of the Russian victory in the Battle of Stalingrad during World War II, in the central square of Volgograd, Russia, on Feb. 2. (For The Washington Post) Some are sure that Putin can maintain his hold on power without a victory, as long as he keeps the war going and wears down Western resolve and weapons supplies. For anyone in the elite to act, Bondarev said, “there needs to be an understanding that Putin is leading the country to total collapse. While Putin is still bombing and attacking, people think the situation is not so bad. There needs to be a full military loss, and only then will people understand they need to do something.” What all camps seem to agree on is that Putin shows no willingness to give up. As Russia’s battlefield position deteriorated in recent months, he escalated repeatedly, shuffling his commanders, unleashing brutal airstrikes on civilian infrastructure and threatening to use nuclear weapons. Now, with his troops reinforced by conscripts and convicts and poised to launch new offensives, the 70-year-old Russian leader needs a win to maintain his own credibility. “Putin needs some success to demonstrate to society that he is still very successful,” a senior Ukrainian security official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to discuss politically sensitive issues. Moscow’s glittering indifference As the casualties mount in Ukraine, filling graveyards across Russia’s provinces, Moscow’s glittering facade conveys a hedonistic, indifferent city. Its restaurants and cafes are crammed with glamorous young patrons sporting European designer wear, taking selfies on the latest iPhones, and ordering truffle pizza or duck confit to be washed down with trendy cocktails. But beneath, Putin is creating a militarized, nationalistic society, fed on propaganda and obsessed with an “existential” forever war against the United States and NATO. So far, no one in officialdom has had the nerve to object — not publicly, at least. “Whatever he says, it’s taken like this,” the editor in chief of Nezavisimaya Gazeta, Konstantin Remchukov, said with a loud snap of his fingers. Russians abandon wartime Russia in historic exodus Since Putin rose to the presidency in 2000, his legitimacy has been based on his popularity and stature among the elite, buttressed by his ability to instill fear by stripping some of their assets and throwing others into prison. The defeats in Ukraine have dented him. The president seems forever haunted by the moment when as a young KGB officer serving in Dresden, the Soviet Union “gave up its position in Europe” as the Berlin Wall collapsed. And his pursuit of the empire lost with the subsequent Soviet collapse is throwing his country back into a gray, repressive and isolated past. For Putin, his efforts are a quest to right what he has perceived as historical wrongs. In his near-maniacal revisionist view, Ukraine has always belonged to Russia. But even if Putin somehow forces Ukraine into capitulating and ceding occupied territory, those in the elite who lean toward a more liberal society stand to lose the most. Punitive Western economic sanctions are likely to remain in place, and some oligarchs undoubtedly would be pressed to pay to rebuild Russia’s new lands. Some analysts predict a sweeping purge of oligarchs and others deemed insufficiently patriotic. Flowers at a newly opened monument to the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin on an embankment of the Volga River by the entrance to the Museum of the Battle of Stalingrad, in Volgograd, Russia, on Feb. 3. (For The Washington Post) Already, there are shocking glimpses of Putin’s new Russia: A couple in a Krasnodar restaurant were arrested, handcuffed and forced to the floor after being denounced to the police by an eavesdropper who heard them quietly bemoaning the war. An older woman on a bus was dragged from her seat, thrown to the floor and roughly pushed out the door by passengers because she called Russia an empire that sends men to fight in cheap rubber boots. Videos purportedly show members of the Kremlin-approved but technically illegal mercenary Wagner Group executing “traitors” in beatings with a sledgehammer. Former central bank official Alexandra Prokopenko described an atmosphere in which officials fear prison amid intimidation by the security services. “It is a concern for every member of the Russian elite,” said Prokopenko, who is in exile in the West. “It’s a question of survival for high-ranked, mid-ranked officials who all remained in Russia. People are quite terrified about their safety now.” She said former colleagues still at the bank told her they saw “no good exit for Russia right now.” Two-pronged backlash Increasingly isolated, Putin faces growing resentment from hawkish nationalists who believe he should have acted more radically to seize Kyiv and from a liberal-leaning faction that thinks the war is a grave error. He has tightened his inner circle to a few hard-liners and sycophants, ruthlessly eliminated opposition rivals and set up a formidable security apparatus to safeguard against any threat. Pro-Kremlin analysts see escalation — pumping in more soldiers and ramping up military production — as the path to victory. That appears to fit Putin’s character. But no one really knows the current military goal or what Putin might consider a victory. Some think he will settle for seizing all of Ukraine’s eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions, where Russia began fomenting separatist war in 2014. Others say he has not given up his designs on taking Kyiv and toppling the government. Year of war In September, Ukraine’s first big successful counteroffensive shone a harsh spotlight on Putin’s instincts in a crisis: a bullish doubling-down designed to sever any path to compromise. His illegal claim to annex four Ukrainian territories, despite not controlling them militarily, was a burn-all-bridges tactic meant to draw sharp new red lines on the map of Ukraine.His speech on the occasion of the supposed annexations, in the Grand Kremlin Palace’s St. George Hall, reached a new hysterical pitch over what he called the West’s “outright Satanism” and its desire to gobble Russia up and destroy its values. “They do not want us to be free; they want us to be a colony ” he said. “They do not want equal cooperation; they want to loot. They do not want to see us a free society, but a mass of soulless slaves.” He has repeatedly described a quest to establish a multipolar world where Russia regains its rightful place among the great powers. Sometimes, Putin sharply rebukes one of his officials about failures, leaving others fearful of public humiliation. He elevates and rewards thuggish figures, such as Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov and the Wagner founder, Yevgeniy Prigozhin, but swiftly curbs them if they step out of line. At times, Putin seems weirdly out of touch with the realities of his war. Days after pro-war bloggers reported last week that dozens of Russian tanks and many soldiers were lost in a failed attack on Vuhledar involving Russia’s elite 155th Guards Naval Infantry Brigade, Putin boasted to journalists that the “marine infantry is working as it should — right now — fighting heroically.” Meanwhile, a profound pessimism has settled on the country. Those who believe the war is lost run the gamut from liberals to hard-liners. “It seems it is impossible to win a political or military victory,” one state official said, speaking on the condition of anonymity to offer a candid assessment. “The economy is under huge stress and can’t be long under such a situation.” Patriotic death cult Publicly, Putin has voiced no concern about Russia’s brutal killings of civilians in cities including Bucha, Mariupol and Izyum, while his propaganda machine dismisses news of such atrocities as “fakes.” The International Criminal Court is investigating war crimes in Ukraine, and the European Parliament has called for a special court on Russia’s crime of aggression, the invasion of Ukraine. But pro-Kremlin analyst Sergei Markov said talk of war crimes prosecutions only stiffened Putin’s resolve. “What will Putin’s response be? Fighting — and it doesn’t matter what the price will be,” Markov said. Kremlin image makers convey Putin’s power in staged events where he looks the archetypal dictator — often a lone figure in the distance placing flowers at monuments to past military heroes. His staged appearances with purported ordinary Russians seem scripted and artificial, with participants simpering in nervous awe. The same faces keep appearing in different settings — dressed as soldiers, fishermen or churchgoers, raising questions about how many real people the president ever meets. As the war casualties pile up, Putin and top propagandists extol a fatalistic cult of death, arguing that it is better to die in Russia’s war than in a car accident, from alcoholism or cancer. “One day we will all leave this world,” Putin told a group of carefully selected women portrayed as mothers of mobilized soldiers in November, many of them actually pro-Kremlin activists or relatives of officials. “The question is how we lived. With some people, it is unclear whether they live or not. It is unclear why they die, because of vodka or something else. When they are gone, it is hard to say whether they lived or not. Their lives passed without notice.” A mobile military draft office, with banners, video clips on a screen and music to promote enlistment in the Russian army in the center of Volgograd on Feb. 2. (For The Washington Post) But a man who died in war “did not leave his life for nothing,” he said. “His life was important.” Venerable rights organizations such as Memorial and the Sakharov Center have been forced to close, while respected political analysts, musicians, journalists and former Soviet political prisoners have been declared “foreign agents,” Many have fled, or been jailed. As sanctions slowly bite, prices soar and businesses struggle to adapt, economists and business executives predict a long economic decline amid isolation from Western technology, ideas and value chains. “The economy has entered a long period of Argentinization,” said a second Russian billionaire. “It will be a long slow degradation. There will be less of everything.” Russia ousts director of elite museum as Kremlin demands patriotic art Through the war, Putin has profoundly changed Russia, clamping down harder on liberties, prompting hundreds of thousands of Russians to emigrate. In the future, pro-democracy liberals will not be tolerated, analysts say. “The pro-West opposition will be gone,” said Markov. “Whoever doesn’t support the special military operation is not part of the people,” he said, using Putin’s term for the war. But the second Russian billionaire said he was convinced that one day, somehow, the country would become “a normal, European, nonimperial country” and that his children, who have U.S. passports, would return. “I want them to return to a free Russia, of course,” he said. “To a free and democratic Russia.” Dixon reported from Moscow and Belton from London

Yes, Ron. That was one of my basement studio recordings. I was so inordinately fond of Dylan's Love & Theft album that I bought the song book years ago, and recorded covers of most of those songs. At the time, I had no idea that Dylan would later win the Nobel Prize in Literature.

John, I'm responding to your latest confused post in red (below.) William, What UN resolution? As far as I can see, the only resolution you cited is a resolution of the European Parliament, an anti-Russian body in thrall to the US. It is UN General Assembly Resolution 49/60-- as I stated (above.) The part of the resolution you quoted contains no reference to the 1994 UN definition – and even if it did, the point I made about that 1994 definition being outdated still stands. Wrong. It is a direct quotation/definition from the December 1994 UN Resolution. Are you suggesting that definitions from 1994 have expiration dates? 🤓 (I hope my eldest daughter is still named, Elisabeth. She was born in 1994.) Are you trying to deliberately mislead people with this circular nonsense? What's circular about referencing a UN definition of "terrorism?" Do tell. As for Aleksander Dugin’s 1997 playbook, this is another red herring. There is no evidence I’m aware of that Dugin has any official role vis-à-vis Putin. You’re grasping at straws in your ongoing attempt to demonise Putin. Newsflash. Dugin is widely regarded as Putin's guru, and has been for quite some time. In fact, his daughter was recently killed in what was thought to have been an assassination attempt on Dugin, himself. It’s really desperate stuff – false propaganda in fact. Nonsense, John. Do some remedial reading on the subject of Dugin and Putin's totalitarian police state. Do you really believe that there was no reason whatsoever for the Russians to feel existentially threatened by NATO’s expansion in eastern Europe, given the USA’s “full spectrum dominance” foreign policy and its (the USA’s) appalling record of serial “regime-changing”? Did you study any of the references I have posted debunking the "blame it on NATO" narrative? On the contrary, Putin has been planning to annex Ukraine and re-establish the Soviet empire for years. And, most important, in view of the ongoing carnage and destruction in Ukraine, I would second Chris’s question to you about what should be done to stop it. As I already replied to Chris, twice, I'll try again. Perhaps the third time will be the charm. Is Putin currently open to negotiating a peace deal? If so, I'm all for it. But Putin-the-Invader, is reportedly not interested in negotiating. Instead, he has been flying nuclear bombers over Norway and the U.K. Multi-polarity may hold a very bright future for you.

Matt, Ben is either indolent or intellectually dishonest. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and attribute his false statements to indolence. For example, I just posted a reference to an Intercept article documenting NSA evidence of GRU hacking of U.S. voting systems in 2016, (in addition to references to the U.S. Senate Intel Report on the subject) and Ben's response was to say that I had "presented no evidence" of GRU hacking! 🙄 John Cotter is being similarly disingenuous. I just posted a key reference for John and others (on the Political Discussion board) which provides the true backstory for understanding Putin's strategic plans in Russiagate/Trumpism, and the invasion of Ukraine. The reference is Putin's geopolitical playbook-- Aleksander Dugin's 1997 The Foundations of Geopolitics. It's worth a look, bearing in mind that the book was published years ago, around the time that former KGB Lt. Col. Vladimir Putin ascended to the Presidency of Russia's floundering democracy. “The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia” by Aleksander Dugin was written in 1997. Since then, it has risen to the rank of textbook for the Russian military’s “Academy of the General Staff”. It lays out a Nationalist, Eurasianist political ideology and strategy for Russia to rebuild its influence and rise to world dominance. The strategic objectives laid out in the book are clear and systematic. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries. First off, the textbook says that the United States need to be weakened internally. Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics". The book also recommends: • Isolating the United Kingdom from the rest of Europe • Annexing Ukraine • Dismembering Georgia • Creating a vital alliance with Iran • Destabilizing Turkey

It looks like Chris has leap-frogged and dodged my rebuttal. Chris has also dodged my question and reference (above) about Putin's apparent unwillingness to negotiate an end to his invasion. Chris, was dodge ball, perchance, your favorite childhood sport?

Nice try, Jeff, but no cigar. You're the guy who has repeatedly tried to limit any discussion of Putin's 2016 GRU election meddling to mere social media propaganda by Russian trolls. In reality, Putin's interference in our 2016 election-- on behalf of his compromised stooge Donald Trump-- was multi-faceted. It involved channeling Russian money to the Trump campaign, divisive social media trolling in the U.S., hacking and strategic leaking of Democratic Emails, and direct GRU hacking of U.S. voting systems.

John, The source of that definition is the U.N. resolution I cited above. Meanwhile, you and Paul Rigby should study Aleksander Dugin's 1997 playbook for Putin's future Russian empire-- The Foundations of Geopolitics-- which is theorized to eventually extend from Dublin to Vladivostok! You Hibernians will be in with In Crowd. Among other strategies, Dugin advised Putin and the Russian military to use Russia fossil fuel resources and pipelines to manipulate and coerce Western Europeans to accept Russia's imperialist agenda. So, perhaps there is still hope for the multi-polar world that you and Paul Rigby so admire, provided that the U.S. and our NATO allies refrain from further acts of "terrorism." 🤓

Paul, IMO, there is no meaningful equivalence between Tweedle Dee Joe & Tweedle Dumb Donald, but I did once cover Bob Dylan's song about them. https://soundclick.com/share.cfm?id=14552475

More of your usual pettifoggery, eh, Jeff? Far from "refuting basic established information," as you imply, I was simply setting the record straight, for Benjamin Cole, about Kilimnik's longstanding working relationship with Paul Manafort in Ukraine (since 2005.) Ben had expressed skepticism about Manafort's knowledge of Kilimnik, when Manafort was working for the Kremlin in Ukraine. Thanks for confirming that I was correct. As for the question of whether Kilimnik is a Russian GRU intelligence agent, the Republican-controlled U.S. Senate Intelligence Committee concluded that he is. I believe there is still an outstanding FBI warrant for his arrest. As for Manafort's history of lying to Mueller's investigators about his 2016 campaign contacts with Kilimnik, where did I say that Manafort's polling data was shared with the GRU for the purpose of Russian social media propaganda? On the contrary, my belief is that Manafort's polling data had more to do with GRU hacking of U.S. voter registration databases, for the purpose of manipulating vote tallies in key swing states. (See the Intercept article above.)

John Cotter, Chris Barnard, and Paul Rigby will be interested to know that Putin's foundational 1997 playbook for 21st century Russian hegemony in Europe -- Aleksander Dugin's Foundations of Geopolitics --specifically called for extending Russian rule over Europe, "from Dublin to Vladisvostock." The book was published around the time that Putin emerged as the "former KGB agent" in command of the Kremlin. (Putin, himself, later said, "There is no such thing as a 'former KGB agent.'") Should Dugin have specified, "Donegal to Vladisvostok"-- to include western Ireland in the future "multi-polar" Russian empire? In any case, if multi-polarism is what Cotter, Barnard, and Rigby want, Dugin is their man. 🤓 https://tec.fsi.stanford.edu/docs/aleksandr-dugins-foundations-geopolitics

It's, obviously, a hoax. (See Benjamin Cole, Matt Taibbi, and Joe Rogaine for details. 🤥)

“The Foundations of Geopolitics: The Geopolitical Future of Russia” by Aleksander Dugin was written in 1997. Since then, it has risen to the rank of textbook for the Russian military’s “Academy of the General Staff”. It lays out a Nationalist, Eurasianist political ideology and strategy for Russia to rebuild its influence and rise to world dominance. The strategic objectives laid out in the book are clear and systematic. The textbook believes in a sophisticated program of subversion, destabilization, and disinformation spearheaded by the Russian special services. The operations should be assisted by a tough, hard-headed utilization of Russia's gas, oil, and natural resources to bully and pressure other countries. First off, the textbook says that the United States need to be weakened internally. Russia should use its special services within the borders of the United States to fuel instability and separatism, for instance, provoke "Afro-American racists". Russia should "introduce geopolitical disorder into internal American activity, encouraging all kinds of separatism and ethnic, social and racial conflicts, actively supporting all dissident movements – extremist, racist, and sectarian groups, thus destabilizing internal political processes in the U.S. It would also make sense simultaneously to support isolationist tendencies in American politics". The book also recommends: • Isolating the United Kingdom from the rest of Europe • Annexing Ukraine • Dismembering Georgia • Creating a vital alliance with Iran • Destabilizing Turkey

European Parliament declares Russia a state sponsor of terrorism November 23, 2022 BRUSSELS (Reuters) - The European Parliament on Wednesday designated Russia a state sponsor of terrorism, arguing that its military strikes on Ukrainian civilian targets such as hospitals, schools and shelters violated international law. European lawmakers voted in favor of a resolution calling Russia a state sponsor of terrorism. The move is largely symbolic, as the European Union does not have a legal framework in place to back it up. At the same time, the bloc has already imposed unprecedented sanctions on Russia over its invasion of Ukraine. In the EU, the parliaments of four countries have so far designated Russia as a state sponsor of terrorism, according to the European Parliamentary Research Service: Lithuania, Latvia, Estonia and Poland.

Why the Nordstream 2 demolition was not an act of terrorism I. UN definition of terrorism / December 1994 (GA Res. 49/60) Criminal acts intended or calculated to provoke a state of terror in the general public, a group of persons or particular persons for political purposes II. The following types of violence or threat of violence usually fall outside of the definition of terrorism: Wartime (including a declared war) or peacetime acts of violence committed by a nation state against another nation state regardless of legality or illegality and are carried out by properly uniformed forces or legal combatants of such nation state Reasonable acts of self-defense, such as the use of force to kill, apprehend, or punish criminals who pose a threat to the lives of humans or property Legitimate targets in war, such as enemy combatants and strategic infrastructure that form an integral part of the enemy's war effort such as defense industries and ports

Ben, You, obviously, never read the Mueller Report or the U.S. Senate Intel Report on Russiagate. In fact, you didn't even read the Mueller Report summary that I posted for Mathew Koch! If you had done so, you would know that Kilimnik is a Russian intelligence agent. And Kilimnik worked closely with Manafort in Ukraine, beginning in 2005, to install Putin's Kremlin puppet, Yanukovych, in the Ukrainian presidency. To quote Daniel Patrick Moynihan, you're entitled to your own opinions about Russiagate, but not your own "facts."

Well, Ben, you could always ask our Kremlin expert, Jeff Carter. 🤓 Jeff assured us long ago that Manafort had a longstanding working relationship with Konstantin Kilimnik. But why did Manafort go to such great lengths to lie to Mueller's investigators about his 2016 campaign contacts with GRU agent Kilimnik, which included collusion--sharing polling data about the impending election? What was Manafort so desperate to hide from Mueller? The judge vehemently denounced Manafort for lying, before sentencing him to years in prison. (Of course, Manafort knew that Trump would pardon him for stonewalling Mueller's investigation.) I can clearly see that you're currently stuck in the MAGA-verse Russiagate-denial echo chamber, and that no contrary evidence will burst your Gerth-ian bubble. But posting redundant MAGA spam is no substitute for answering the hard questions about the damning evidence. Russiagate was no hoax. Are you aware that Trump's longstanding Russian mafia business associate, Felix Sater, bragged in 2015 that Putin was going to put Trump in the White House?

Ben, The vapors appear to be mostly in your head. You need to do some remedial reading about Manafort, Kilimnik, the GRU, and Russian hacking of the 2016 U.S. election. Here's another interesting reference for you. (Bold italics mine.) TOP-SECRET NSA REPORT DETAILS RUSSIAN HACKING EFFORT DAYS BEFORE 2016 ELECTION A top-secret National Security Agency report details a months-long Russian hacking effort against the U.S. election infrastructure. NSA Report on Russian Hacking of U.S. Election (theintercept.com) June 5, 2017 Excerpt The NSA analysis does not draw conclusions about whether the interference had any effect on the election’s outcome and concedes that much remains unknown about the extent of the hackers’ accomplishments. However, the report raises the possibility that Russian hacking may have breached at least some elements of the voting system, with disconcertingly uncertain results.

Well, it's gratifying to see John Cotter finally admit to Paul Brancato, albeit indirectly, that Putin has, in fact, committed war crimes in Ukraine. Hurrah! 🙄 Meanwhile, John, Chris, and Rigby never answered my question about the definition of terrorism-- while falsely claiming that it is "disingenuous." 🙄 As for Chris's question about ending the carnage in Ukraine, I have repeatedly expressed such a wish. Chris has either not read, or not understood, my comments on that subject. But is Putin willing to negotiate an end his terrorist campaign against Ukraine? Putin Goes All In: 140,000 Dead in Ukraine and He Won't Stop - 19FortyFive

Ben, You flunked Russiagate 101. You ducked all but one of the key questions. As for Manafort, I'm trying to help you connect the dots. It's, obviously, not working... 🥺 Why was Paul Manafort so desperately invested in lying to Mueller's investigators about his 2016 contacts with Russian GRU agent Konstantin Kilimnik-- even committing perjury after striking a plea bargain deal? (And Manafort had worked with Kilimnik for years. He knew he was GRU.) What was Manafort so desperate to hide from Mueller? Are you aware that Manafort worked for the Kremlin prior to 2016 to manipulate Ukrainian elections for Putin? Next question. Did the Russian GRU hack any voter registration databases in U.S. states in 2016? Which states would GRU hackers have most likely targeted if they wanted to alter the outcome of the 2016 U.S. election? And how would GRU hackers have known where to concentrate their hacking efforts? Wouldn't they have needed expert intelligence from someone familiar with U.S. elections? Were there any anomalous vote counts in U.S. swing states in 2016--i.e., results that were markedly inconsistent with pre-election and exit-polling results? What were the unexpected vote differentials in the three states that gave Trump an improbable Electoral College victory in 2016-- Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania-- despite losing the popular vote by 2%? (Answer: Trump's unexpected EC victory hinged on a mere 80,000 votes in three states-- out of 150 million votes!) Were any legitimate ballots disqualified in swing states like Wisconsin in 2016-- based on post-election analyses? Why did Julian Assange Email Donald Trump, Jr. on election night in 2016, to advise Trump not to concede the election, based on preliminary results and exit polls from states that Trump was expected to lose-- e.g., Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania?

Ben, Let's hear your explanations for the following Russiagate facts. 1) Paul Manafort's 2016 contacts and sharing of polling data with Russian GRU agent Konstantin Kilimnik. 2) Paul Manafort's perjury about his 2016 contacts with Kilimnik, even after he agreed to cooperate with Mueller's investigation. 3) Paul Manafort floating a Trump pardon to Rick Gates during Gates' interrogations by Mueller-- witness tampering that resulted in Manafort's placement in solitary confinement. 4) Michael Flynn pleading guilty to lying to the FBI about his December 2016 phone contacts with Kisylak. 5) Trump firing Comey (and McCabe) in order to obstruct the Flynn investigation. 6) Trump publicly denying in Helsinki the fact that Putin had interfered in the 2016 U.S. election. 7) Trump lying about the fact that he was negotiating a Moscow Trump Tower deal in 2016 .

Yes, and, presumably, it's all NATO's fault... 🤓 As for your selective reading of the Prokop article, Ben, you left out the key part of Prokop's takedown of Gerth (bold italics mine.) As David Corn pointed out, Gerth's bogus revisionist history of Russiagate focused mainly on the Steele Dossier and Alfa Bank. And let's not forget about Paul Manafort and Roger Stone committing perjury and stonewalling Mueller's investigation-- after Trump floated pardons and later pardoned them. "A fuller recap of what the (Russiagate) scandal was all about would go something like this: What became the FBI’s investigation into Trump-Russia was opened in the summer of 2016 for reasons having nothing to do with Steele, Fusion, or Alfa Bank. That year, leading Democrats had seen their emails and documents stolen in hacks, later to surface on mysterious websites or to be published by WikiLeaks. Initial assessments blamed the Russian government for the hack (and Mueller’s team later confirmed those assessments, fleshing them out with much more detail). Trump viewed these leaks as highly beneficial to him, touting them constantly on the campaign trail, and even publicly calling on “Russia, if you’re listening” to find more Clinton emails. (He then claimed this was a joke, but in private, he urged his campaign advisers to try and get ahold of more Clinton emails.) While this was unfolding, the FBI received a tip that a little-known Trump foreign policy aide, George Papadopoulos, had been saying he knew Russia had damaging emails related to Clinton before any hack news was public. So the bureau opened a counterintelligence investigation originally focused on a discrete question: Had the Russian government conveyed information about their plans to interfere in the 2016 election to someone on Trump’s team? This was, I would argue, an entirely reasonable question. And with hindsight, due to this investigation and reporting, we know that many shenanigans were indeed afoot. Trump’s longtime adviser Roger Stone was trying to get hacked Democratic emails from WikiLeaks in advance, while apparently informing Trump about his efforts. Trump campaign chair Paul Manafort was sharing the campaign’s polling data and strategy with an associate the FBI claims is tied to Russian intelligence. Trump’s personal attorney, Michael Cohen, had reached out to the Russian government to try to get a Trump Tower Moscow project going, though it didn’t end up happening. Donald Trump Jr. even welcomed an emailed offer of dirt on Hillary Clinton that was said to be “part of Russia and its government’s support for Mr. Trump,” setting up a meeting with Manafort and Jared Kushner to discuss it. (They didn’t find the information useful.)

The question is the opposite of disingenuous, John, as are all of my posts. It's an honest question about the definition of the term, "terrorism." As for Mathew Koch and Chris Barnard's comments about my alleged "inconsistency," I'll refer them back to my criticism of the U.S. military industrial complex during the past half century (including an editorial I wrote for my school newspaper 50 years ago condemning Nixon's bombing of Cambodia.) Hopefully, Mathew and Chris will eventually figure that out. (I'm not holding my breath.)

Marina Yankina, Russian Defense Official, Falls From Window to Her Death (msn.com)

Paul, We are, certainly, involved in an erstwhile proxy war. Ukraine cannot defend its sovereignty without U.S. and NATO assistance. Contrary to what some confused forum members imagine, I, too, have long been a critic of both the U.S. military industrial complex (since WWII) and the post-WWII Soviet and neo-Soviet military industrial complex. I'm, basically, a progressive Social Democrat who opposed the Vietnam War and the U.S. invasion of Iraq (and the phony "War on Terror.") I'm also opposed to Putin's invasion of Ukraine and war crimes-- many of which seem calculated to terrorize and demoralize the Ukrainian people. My specific question for Chris has to do with the definition of terrorism. Is the strategic sabotage of military resources in time of war terrorism?