JUNE 29, 2024 BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR Russia has some lessons in democracy
Russian President Vladimir Putin (R) congratulated the head of Russia’s Communist Party Gennady Zyuganov on his 80th birthday when he received the Hero of Labour title, Moscow, June 26, 2024
We recently witnessed the pathetic sight that even after 7 decades of independence and experience as a democracy where hundreds of millions of people genuinely feel empowered, the political elite could behave in an infantile manner during the election cycle.
But this wasn’t how it used to be. My late father used to reminisce how Pundit Nehru as prime minister used to walk towards the communist MPs in the Central Hall to chat up. This was in the 1950s and 1960s when my father was a member of the Lok Sabha.
That memory crept up from the attic of my mind when I read in the Russian press about President Vladimir Putin’s extraordinary gesture to the General Secretary of the Russian Communist Party Gennady Zyuganov on his 80th birth anniversary on June 26.
Putin honoured Zyuganov by signing a presidential Executive Order awarding the Title Hero of Labour of the Russian Federation to the venerable communist leader.
The decree said the award was “for his outstanding contribution to the development of Russian statehood, civil society, and his long-time fruitful work.” Putin followed up with a personal congratulatory message to Zyuganov, which read as follows, in part:
“You are known as an experienced politician and an honest and principled person devoted to the interests of the Fatherland.
“You remain immersed in the country’s public life striving to uphold the principles of social justice, making a weighty contribution to the legislative work and Russian parliamentarianism, and addressing matters of national importance. In particular, I would like to recognise your efforts designed to improve people’s well-being and strengthen our country‘s sovereignty and positions internationally. Such multifaceted and much-needed activities deserve profound respect.
“I wish you good health, every success in implementing your plans, and all the best.
“Once again, please accept my heartfelt congratulations on being awarded the high title of Hero of Labour of the Russian Federation.”
Later, Putin received Zyuganov in the Kremlin. The Kremlin readout said, “The President thanked the leader of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation for his many years of service to the Fatherland and noted that his party has invariably championed patriotic positions.” [Emphasis added]
Those were carefully chosen words. Indeed, Zyuganov is a man of strong convictions and never hesitated to articulate his positions on political issues through public comments, his presidential campaign statements, and his voting record. But his seamless love for the Fatherland was never in doubt.
Often enough, he disagreed with Putin. But the latter never took it to heart. During the 1980s, Zyuganov, a member of the CPSU, even tore into General Secretary Mikhail Gorbachev’s reform programme of ‘glasnost’ and ‘perestroika’.
It might seem a paradox, but good communists actually make great nationalists. Zyuganov opposed Western involvement in Syria and supported Russia’s special military operations in Ukraine accusing NATO of plans “to enslave Ukraine” to create “critical threats to the security of Russia”. He endorsed Putin’s call for the “demilitarisation and denazification” of Ukraine.
Zyuganov once wrote in an op-ed in New York Times, “We would restore the might of the Russian state and its status in the world. That would make its policies incomparably more predictable and responsible than they are today.” Now, one might say, that is unvarnished ‘Putinism’. Zyuganov believes that Russia holds the “unique role as the pivot and fulcrum” of Eurasia.
Unsurprisngly, Zyuganov opposed privatisation of state-run industries and pledged to restore state control of the economy. But in a refreshing departure from Soviet dogma, he also made agriculture a main focus of the communist party, especially the lack of state support for rural regions.
It goes to Putin’s credit that he has had no qualms about borrowing from Zyuganov’s platform, and makes it a point to consult him, take his advice, while steering Russia unabashedly toward a capitalist country that is done with socialism.
Interestingly, Zyuganov also espouses that Russia should learn from China’s successful example and build Russian socialism. He once encouraged party members to read the selected works of Deng Xiaoping. And he is on record that if only his country had learnt from the success of China earlier, the Soviet Union wouldn’t have dissolved.
Looking back, Zyuganov’s finest moment came in the mid-1990s when, exhausted and disillusioned by the shock and awe of Boris Yeltsin’s lurch toward free market and capitalism, which wrecked the lives of vast swathes of society habituated to a sheltered and predictable life, Russian people flocked to the communist party in the 1996 presidential election.
In fact, Zyuganov’s candidacy surged to a point that it almost seemed Russia was reclaiming socialism. At which point, Bill Clinton descended on Moscow with his Man Friday, Strobe Albott. Alarmed by what they saw, Clinton returned to Washington and okayed a road map to ensure a Yeltsin victory, even roping in the IMF. Clinton deployed American experts as Yeltsin’s campaign managers who were well-versed in the zen of democratic elections. The rest is history.
But Zyuganov never showed rancour or bitterness. Actually, he never held public office. But then, he can look back with satisfaction that at 80 he is seen as the éminence grise in Russian politics — while Yeltsin’s reputation is in great disrepair.
The big question is, what is democracy about? Is it about holding elections regularly? I just visited Iran for a week as part of a group of observers to witness the snap poll on Friday. The one thing that intrigued me most was the list of six candidates that was carefully prepared by the Guardian Council on the basis of a potential candidate’s commitment to the national ideology and the system of government that Iran chose in its wisdom after the tumultuous Islamic Revolution in 1979.
The subtle process is perhaps a reflection of the ‘Persian-Shia Islamic’ mind, but once the six candidates (who include one cleric) are announced, a level playing field ensues. Something like half a dozen TV debates were conducted to ensure that people got acquainted with the candidates. It is a travesty of truth that only conformists are allowed to contest Iran’s elections.
It is well-nigh impossible to arrange custom-made presidents. Experience shows that once elected to high office, some of them even tended behave like Thomas Becket, who after becoming the Archbishop of Canterbury, took his job too seriously for the comfort of King Henry II. Of course, such epic struggles never end happily.
On the other extreme is the bizarre variant the passes for ‘political pluralism’ in the US. One candidate aged 81 and the other 78 and both obsessed with flinging calumnies against each other. Trump’s best bet is that Biden looks ‘crooked and senile, while the latter’s refrain is that his opponent is congenitally dishonest.
A third candidate Robert Kennedy Jr., although a man of ideas and fresh thinking — or, because of that, is deemed unworthy of inclusion in the national debate on the specious plea that he is an ‘independent candidate’!
The result is a reality show of the bankruptcy of the US political system. Coincidence or not, Putin bestowed the national honour on Zyuganov on the same day that Trump and Biden had their slugfest in the name of democratic pluralism.
Recall what Russia said about sanctions and her trade in hydrocarbons--that if EU doesn't need Russia's gas, Russia will transfer refused volumes to Asia. Well, well, well... Bye, bye Europe, you wanted it.
Supplies of Russian gas to China via the Far Eastern route will start in 2027, Gazprom CEO Aleksey Miller said on Friday, according to the company’s Telegram channel. The Far Eastern route will deliver supplies of Russian natural gas from the shelf off Sakhalin Island to China. Moscow and Beijing sealed an agreement for additional pipeline gas deliveries via the new route in February 2023. According to Miller, the Far Eastern route will have an annual capacity of 10 billion cubic meters (bcm) once fully operational. The project involves the construction of a cross-border section across the Ussuri River between the already operational Russian pipeline and the Chinese city of Hulin. “With the Power of Siberia and the Far Eastern route reaching full capacity, Russia will become the largest gas supplier to China,” Gazprom’s chief executive stated. Russia currently supplies gas to China via the Power of Siberia pipeline, a section of the so-called Eastern Route, under a bilateral 30-year agreement. Deliveries started in 2019, and the pipeline is expected to reach its full operational capacity of 38 bcm of natural gas annually next year, according to Miller.
But if that hasn't been enough. Get this:
Moscow and Beijing are also nearing a deal on the construction of a mega gas pipeline known as the Power of Siberia 2. It will transport up to 50 bcm of gas annually from the Yamal Region in northern Russia to China via Mongolia. Once all the pipelines are fully operational, the volume of Russian gas supplies to China could reach nearly 100 bcm annually.
So, EU can concentrate on buying American gas and continue building its "alternative" energy fantasy. Was (not) nice knowing you, Europe
I do believe that beyond the interest of national wealth a lot of anti-imperialist commentators from nations targeted by the US that their animosity towards climate science and it's general conclusions is the rejection of our capitalist master's grotesquely self-interested 'responses that ain't worth a damn. Just another way that capitalism is destroying us. Though I do fault those commentators for not differentiating the science from the capitalist program.
******
Ancient Woolly Wolfman
June 29, 12:52
In Yakutsk, they are dissecting a wolf found in permafrost, which is 44 thousand years old.
The woolly wolf froze and is well preserved to this day. Now they will study it. As they say, this is the oldest find of its kind.
Medvedev Is Half-Right & Half-Wrong About What Could Be Considered Casus Belli
ANDREW KORYBKO
JUL 01, 2024
Seizing funds is completely different than arresting an official, but neither would be possible without the targeted state taking risks by investing them abroad and having those figures travel to ICC-compliant countries in the first place.
Former Russian President and incumbent Deputy Chair of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev claimed during his speech at last week’s St. Petersburg International Legal Forum that the seizure of a country’s assets and arrest of its officials abroad could be considered casus belli. He was referring to the approximately $300 billion worth of Russian funds that the West froze in 2022 and the “International Criminal Court’s” (ICC) “arrest warrants” for President Putin and other Russian officials.
He's half-right and half-wrong though for the reasons that will now be explained. On the one hand, both actions are aggressive and aimed at harming the targeted state, but it’s really only the arrest of its officials that could foreseeably lead to the outbreak of conventional hostilities. After all, Russia didn’t even reciprocally seize an equivalent amount of Western assets within its jurisdiction after its own were seized in the West, though that was a wise move in order to maintain international confidence.
Had Russia done the exact same thing as the West, then countries across the world could fear that Russia might one day seize their assets too in the event of a crisis, exactly as they now suspect that the West could do and is why Russia is correct in claiming that this move harmed the West’s reputation. In any case, the point is that Russia didn’t consider the seizure of its assets in the West to be grounds for war since it still hasn’t responded to it, thus rendering Medvedev’s claim little more than rhetoric.
He’s spot-on though about how the arrest of a country’s officials could easily constitute that since it’s impossible to imagine Russia or anyone else not meaningfully responding if their head of state or top military leaders were arrested abroad. The US or whoever it may be that arrests those figures would obviously know the consequence that this would entail, but likewise, so too should those figures have known the risks that they face by traveling to countries where that could happen.
The same can be said about Russia keeping $300 billion worth of assets in the West, which were always at risk of being frozen and seized in the event of a crisis, but they still remained there because it was profitable and policymakers thought that nothing would happen to them. In their minds, the West wouldn’t ever touch those funds due to the self-inflicted reputational damage that would ensue as was explained, which was obviously a miscalculation even if it was made innocently enough.
Nevertheless, seizing funds is completely different than arresting an official, but neither would be possible without the targeted state taking risks by investing them abroad and having those figures travel to ICC-compliant countries in the first place. Medvedev’s general point though is solid, which is that unconventional acts of aggression can be considered casus belli, but only the arrest of officials (regardless of how ill-thought-out their travel plans may be) would likely constitute a militant response.
How the “owners” of the “Crystal” beach from the times of Ukraine took root in Russia
July 1, 14:22
About our Sevastopol affairs.
Interesting facts about the structure of property ownership of the Sevastopol Cape Khrustalny, which has been the subject of annual scandals and disputes in Sevastopol for several years now, regarding illegal construction and violation of the architectural appearance of the city.
How the "owners" of the "Khrustalny" beach from the times of Ukraine settled down in Russia
There are a number of places in Sevastopol that are regularly mentioned in the media and social networks in a negative way. One of these areas is the long-suffering Khrustalny Beach and the surrounding area.
The so-called “blue toilets”, known far beyond the city limits, are located here; paid amenities appear, for example, a swimming pool, which for some reason the city authorities disguised as “public”; There is also a shopping pavilion and a plastic carousel that are discordant with the place and time.
A separate topic is the storms of the century, which periodically turn all this “splendor” into ruins and permanent bloody domestic conflicts.
ForPost tried to understand how this place, which could have become the pearl of Sevastopol, turned into a monument to bad taste and absurdity, and most importantly, what will happen to this place next.
Concrete ships
The history of the development of the “Crystal” beach began about 25 years ago.
In the 90s, “Khrustalka,” as many locals called this place, was an ordinary concrete city beach, where teenagers happily “bombed” pensioners swimming off the shore from the pier.
However, at the turn of the millennium, Sevastopol businessman Pavel Ulybyshev decides to transform this part of the coastline of the city center. On his initiative, KrymNIOproekt is developing a project for the reconstruction of the “Crystal” beach with the construction of a sports, recreational, cultural and entertainment complex.
The concept is based on an esplanade in the form of an arched pantheon, on both sides of which two high-rise buildings in the form of sailboats are moving towards each other: “Assol” and “Scarlet Sails”. So to speak, as a tribute to the literary talent of Alexander Green.
Closer to Alexander Bay, it was planned to build a complex very much reminiscent of the Dialogue shopping center on Bolshaya Morskaya Street. Behind this building you can see another high-rise building.
To implement the project, LLC “Cultural Center “Cape Crystal”” is being created. The company has three founders: TP LLC "Mars LTD" (owners Pavel Ulybyshev and his brother) with a share of 75%, PE "Hodling Center" (20%) and GO "Sevastopol Development Consortium" (5%).
The next stage is obtaining city land. Local deputies give the green light to implement the project.
First, the Sevastopol City Council transfers to the Cultural Center "Cape Crystal" LLC two land plots with an area of 0.1880 hectares at the address: Klokacheva embankment, 25.
And in 2007 - another 1.2 hectares of land at the address: Klokacheva embankment, 29, - for the construction of a children's beach with a water park and service facilities for a sports, recreational, cultural and entertainment complex. The validity period of each agreement is 25 years.
The public good is presented under the guise of eliminating the landslide that is destroying the IBYuM building and the site of the Bayonet and Sail memorial, strengthening the slopes of Mys Khrustalny, and reconstructing the beach surface into a publicly accessible city embankment.
And the first bad signal, to some extent symbolic, is that the building of the tsarist customs from the early 19th century falls victim to the development.
The customs building in 1971 / sev-transport.info / author - A. A. Vilkovich
Pavel Ulybyshev does not have enough funds to implement his ambitious plans, so he attracts new partners to the project: Glas Investment LLC - the founders of the well-known Ukrainian restaurant brand Kozyrnaya Karta, Dmitry Galbmillion and Andrey Zadorozhny, as well as Sevastopol businessman Eduard Yurkevich. The
new participants in the project end up with 80% of the authorized capital of Mys Khrustalny Cultural Center LLC.
According to the NeFakt.info portal, the relationship between the old and new participants of the project is not working out. The disagreements concern both the construction itself and mutual obligations with expenses.
As a result, Pavel Ulybyshev decides to leave the project. In 2009, he sells his share to businessman and deputy of the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine Pavel Lebedev.
The new player does not improve the state of affairs in the team. Even during the times of Ukraine, legal proceedings began between the partners regarding land and real estate. The history of these cases is long and complicated - with a prison term and its cancellation.
There is no point in devoting many letters to the analysis of this dispute in this publication. In short, it was not possible to put an end to this legal process during the times of Ukraine due to the return of Sevastopol to the Russian Federation.
However, in the Russian jurisdiction, the proceedings flared up with renewed vigor and with new turns.
In particular, the city governor Sergei Menyailo sought to demolish the esplanade in the form of an arched pantheon. However, he was unable to achieve success in this matter.
However, all other legal proceedings initiated by the Sevastopol government against Mys Khrustalny Cultural Center LLC ended in nothing.
This also included the requirement to demolish the added floor of the cultural and entertainment complex, nicknamed the tavern, which blocked the view from the observation deck of the Bayonet and Sail monument (7 Admirala Pereleshina) to the bay.
Plastic glamour
Today, Mys Khrustalny Cultural Center LLC is in the business orbit of Eduard Yurkevich (the businessman's share in the company is 100%).
Under his leadership, the development of the territory of the Khrustalny beach is proceeding quite energetically. It was under his leadership that a swimming pool, a tavern, a shopping pavilion in the form of a long barge and the now legendary plastic carousel from China were built on the embankment.
This is partly explained by the businessman's ability to find a common language with Sevastopol officials, both past and present.
However, this did not happen right away. There are still plenty of nuances in cooperation between business and government.
After the legal war with Sergei Menyailo, Yurkevich is entering a "candy-bouquet period" with the government of Dmitry Ovsyannikov.
The governor promises not only to bury the hatchet with the businessman, but also to give him the "go-ahead" for further development of the territory of the "Crystal" beach, provided that the government television channel STV (at that time the IKS channel) sells the premises of the concert hall with an area of 2.2 thousand square meters at the address: Admirala Klokacheva Embankment, 25, with a huge discount.
The price tag was only 118 million rubles. That is, almost 54 thousand rubles per square meter in the very center of Sevastopol. The market price is at least twice as much.
But after the deal, government officials begin another round of war with the businessman. In particular, the Sevastopol government is seeking to confiscate the largest land plot at 29 Klokacheva from Eduard Yurkevich.
"I sold <the concert hall> for 40% of the cost. Mr. Ovsyannikov promised me the green light on Khrustalny - so that we could also build a swimming pool..." Eduard Yurkevich later told Baza journalists.
However, the officials lose the lawsuits against the businessman.
In the summer of 2019, Dmitry Ovsyannikov is replaced as the head of the city by Mikhail Razvozhaev. And already under the new head of the city, Eduard Yurkevich's affairs begin to improve.
In early 2020, he finishes building a "shaman" in front of the observation deck of the "Bayonet and Sail" monument.
In the summer of 2021, a swimming pool appears on the embankment in front of the hotel complex "Khrustalny Resort & SPA" (Klokacheva, 29).
Both buildings cause a great resonance in the city. In order to calm the passions, the authorities try to sue the "shaw", but officials lose the courts.
Evgeny Gorlov, at that time the director of the department of urban economy, speaks out in defense of the pool: the facility, they say, will be publicly accessible and can be freely used by anyone.
In practice, everything turns out to be different.
In the fall of 2023, Eduard Yurkevich, with the blessing of the authorities, begins to develop the Pereleshin embankment. In front of one of the "blue toilets", workers quickly build a barge-like shopping pavilion and a metal-plastic carousel. Sevastopol residents are indignant, the authorities and businesses ignore the indignation.
At the same time, the city authorities continue to file new lawsuits against the businessman. Thus, DIZO unsuccessfully tried to collect from OOO “KC “Mys Khrustalny”” a debt for the lease of land under the building at the address: Admirala Pereleshina Embankment, 1.
The issue of returning a 1.2-hectare plot of land on Klokachev Embankment, 29 (where the water park was originally planned) to the city has also returned to the courts. They say the businessman failed to fulfill his obligations - he did not build the water park and other planned facilities.
In addition, according to the authorities, the businessman owed the city 17 million rubles for rent, plus 15.5 million rubles in penalties, as well as interest for using other people's money - almost 6 million rubles.
The court's outcome is classic: the lease agreement could not be terminated.
Moreover, DIZO was forced to pay almost 0.5 million rubles in a counterclaim.
The court found the arguments of Yurkevich's lawyers about the illegality of the actions of Ovsyannikov's officials convincing: in 2019, the Sevastopol government's Resolution No. 400-PP approved the planning and surveying project for Quarantine Bay, and, according to the document, 1.2 hectares on the Klokachev embankment were divided into nine land plots.
The type of permitted use also changed: land appeared there for historical and cultural activities, cultural development, public utilities, rest and recreation.
Perhaps this is due to the city's plans to create a cultural and educational space on Cape Khrustalny.
As a result, the court considered that the company was unable to fulfill the terms of the contract and develop the land on Khrustalny through no fault of its own.
Yurkevich does not intend to stop there. The businessman also plans to further develop the territory on Cape Khrustalny.
In particular, they did not forget about the water park, did they? Then again, a new concert hall is needed.
Greedy 'developers' and contractors in a capitalist economy, who knew?
******
“Work, brothers” – for Dagestan and all of Russia
Lucas Leiroz
June 30, 2024
Western intelligence services rely on extremism to destabilize the Russian Caucasus, but the domestic cohesion of the Russian Federation has never been so strong.
The choice of Dagestan as the scene for a terrorist attack was by no means random. The Muslim-majority regions in the Caucasus have always been a target for extremist militants at the service of the Collective West. Interested in creating dissent, disunity and ethnic hatred among the different peoples and religions of the Russian Federation, external agents co-opt militants and hire extremist militias to carry out terrorist attacks against ethnic Russians and Orthodox Christians — trying to make the majority of the country turn against the minorities.
The issue of terrorism in Dagestan has been around for a long time. Salafism and other fundamentalist interpretations of Islam began to spread in the region in the 2000s, generating the emergence of local insurgent militias such as the Caucasus Emirate and regional affiliates of ISIS. The influence of Chechen separatists in the region has also been vital to the development of an extremist criminal subculture in Dagestan, leading to numerous security problems in recent decades.
The efficient work of the Russian security service led to the dismantling of the main extremist groups in Dagestan, but it would be naive to think that all terrorists were neutralized. Even with deep losses, extremist groups continue to exist “behind the scenes” of public life in Dagestan, becoming a focus of interest for foreign intelligence networks that want to use all possible resources to destabilize Russia.
Reviving terror in the Caucasus is a key for the Collective West to restore the separatist problem and create mutual hatred between Russians and ethnic minority citizens. The Russian Federation’s domestic cohesion and social harmony among more than 190 ethnicities is the biggest obstacle to NATO’s plans to disintegrate the country into hundreds of micro, puppet ethno-states. The big Western bet today is on turning the ethnicities of the Caucasus and Central Asia and the Islamic religion into points of opposition to the Russian and Christian majority.
The main problem for NATO is that Russian plurinational unity is far beyond the weak analytical capabilities of Western strategists. For example, when talking about “Dagestan” in Russia, any citizen’s immediate thoughts do not turn to terrorism, Salafism or massacres, but to the heroes who gave their lives against all these problems. Even more especially, since 2016, when talking about Dagestan, any Russian specially remembers the name of Magomed Nurbagandov.
A native of a small rural town in Dagestan, Nurbagandov was a police officer who became one of the Russian Federation’s greatest heroes of all times when he was murdered by ISIS terrorists on July 10, 2016, after being captured during a picnic with his family in the forests of his hometown. Nurbagandov was with his cousin and brother when alleged ISIS “recruits” approached them. The militants kidnapped Nurbagandov after discovering his police identity card. Filming the entire incident with a cell phone camera, they demanded that Nurbagandov, in his last words, make a statement asking his fellow police officers to “leave the work.” Instead, courageously and calmly, Nurbagandov spoke the words that would make him an icon of resistance and loyalty for all Russians: “Work, brothers!”
The terrorists filmed all their actions with a cell phone camera. At first, they released a falsified version of the video on social media, cutting out the part where Nubagandov says “Work, brothers!” Later, however, local police officers found and killed or arrested everyone involved in the case. The cell phone containing the original video was then found and the footage of Nubagandov’s death went viral.
Since 2016, the phrase “Work, brothers!” has been one of the most important mottos and military expressions among Russian security forces. Soldiers and supporters of the armed forces and police often greet each other with “Work, brothers!” The version “Let us work, brothers!” is also widely used. With the start of the special military operation, Nurbagandov’s words acquired an even deeper meaning, becoming a true Russian national motto in the fight against all enemies of the Federation — from ISIS to the Kiev regime and NATO.
Proving that they do not really know Russia, Western strategists are today trying to revive the terror problem in Dagestan, believing that the fear of death will make the rest of Russian citizens hostile to Muslims from the Caucasus. Russia, however, has never been so united and cohesive. The memory of the evil of Nazism and the need to fight it again in the 21st Century have made the 190 ethnicities of the Russian Federation closer and friendlier than ever.
The West made a very wrong bet by using Nazism to try to destabilize Russia. The ideology that decimated 27 million Soviets is alive in the memory of all Russians, who know very well the evil it represents and are willing to combat it at any cost. This explains the national cohesion in support of the special military operation — on the battlefields of which are tens of thousands of ethnic non-Russian citizens, including obviously Muslim and Caucasian soldiers.
Times of war have united Russia and will continue to unite it more and more. An effect similar to Nazism is that caused by terror. Faced with the terrorist threat, instead of falling into disorder and fear, Russians become even more cohesive and prudent. They know that the enemy that provoked the attacks of the 1990s and 2000s is not in the Caucasus or on the borders, but in the capitals of NATO countries, where decisions are made for operation to be carried out by proxies and saboteurs miles away.
Russians seem more than ever aware of the importance of the work carried out by security forces — without whom, the number of attacks and victims would be much higher, whether on the border, in Moscow or in the Caucasus. In other words, the Russians know that Magomed’s brothers in arms continues to work tirelessly — across Dagestan and throughout Russia.
Obviously, there is an internal security issue to be resolved in Dagestan. Local and federal authorities must focus on preventing the Caucasus from becoming a center for the practice and financing of terror. It may be interesting to think about a form of official assistance from neighboring Chechen forces, who have also already proven efficient in combating extremism and separatism. However, no real problem can be greater than the importance of Dagestan and all the peoples of Russia for the unity of the country.
Instead of demonstrations against the government, by provoking terror, the West will only see even more Russians following the example of Magomed Nurbagandov: fearlessly facing death in honor of the people and the homeland.
Shares of two Kolomoisky companies in Russia transferred to the state
503 real estate properties have also been transferred to the Russian Federation
Shares in two companies of Ukrainian businessman Igor Kolomoisky (included in the list of extremists and terrorists in Russia) have been seized in favor of the Russian Federation. This was reported to RIA Novosti by the director of the Federal Bailiff Service Dmitry Aristov.
According to him, we are talking about Yuzhgazenerdzhi LLC and Catering-Yug LLC worth more than 5.1 billion rubles. The court decision of March 2024 was executed by bailiffs.
In March, a court in Adygea, at the request of the Prosecutor General's Office, recognized Igor Kolomoisky as an extremist and ordered the confiscation of his assets. The case is related to the extremist activities of the Ukrainian oligarch and his partners and the financing of the Armed Forces of Ukraine.
Aristov added that 503 real estate properties of debtors in the Kolomoisky case have also been transferred to the Russian Federation.
Shares of Poroshenko's confectionery factory in Lipetsk transferred to the benefit of Russia
Bailiffs transferred shares of the Roshen confectionery factory in Lipetsk, owned by former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, to the benefit of the state. This was reported to RIA Novosti by the director of the FSSP Dmitry Aristov.
The decision to transfer shares and shares of the confectionery factory to the benefit of Russia was made by the Oktyabrsky Court of Lipetsk in February 2024.
The World Bank’s annual national income rankings, released on Monday, showed that Russia has advanced from “upper middle” to “high” category on the strength of its economic growth. The bank measures gross national income (GNI) based on a method dating back to 1989, and updates its classifications every July 1, based on the previous calendar year’s GNI per capita. The income is measured in the equivalent of US dollars. “Economic activity in Russia was influenced by a large increase in military related activity in 2023, while growth was also boosted by a rebound in trade (+6.8%), the financial sector (+8.7%), and construction (+6.6%),” said a post on the World Bank blog.
First, keep in mind who those children who keep World Bank's blog are. Second, the US still keeps the edge due to accumulation and retaining its infrastructure from Ike's time--this was an immense investment. But it slowly changes, albeit US infrastructure is still, for now, is not too bad. But then... If you have $100 grand...
This is relatively near Moscow, mind you... Relatively. If you ask me--I can tolerate Moscow for about 10 days, same goes for St.Petersburg. After that I begin to miss my... Pacific Northwest, ocean, mountains, country fried steak (well, that's important too, you know) and the breeze...
The West – indubitably – has lost Russia, and is losing Eurasia too
Alastair Crooke
July 1, 2024
Is not President Putin’s purpose in visiting North Korea and Vietnam now clear in the context of the Eurasian security architecture project?
There perhaps was a momentary shrugging-off of slumber in Washington this week as they read the account of Sergei Lavrov’s démarche to the U.S. Ambassador in Moscow: Russia was telling the U.S. – “We are no longer at peace”!
Not just ‘no longer at peace’, Russia was holding the U.S. responsible for the ‘cluster strike’ on a Crimean beach on last Sunday’s Pentecost holiday, killing several (including children) and injuring many more. The U.S. thereby “became party” to the proxy war in Ukraine (it was an American-supplied ATACM; programmed by American specialists; and drawing on U.S. data), Russia’s statement read; “Retaliatory measures will certainly follow”.
Evidently, somewhere an amber light flashed hues of pink and red. The Pentagon grasped that something had happened – ‘No going around it; This could escalate badly’. The U.S. Defence Secretary (after a pause since March 2023) reached for the phone to call his Russian counterpart: ‘The U.S. regretted civilian deaths; the Ukrainians had full targeting discretion’.
The Russian public however, is plain furious.
The diplomatic argot of ‘there now being a state of betweenness; not war and not peace’ is but the ‘half of it’.
The West has ‘lost’ Russia much more profoundly than is understood.
President Putin – in his statement to the Foreign Ministry Board in wake of the G7 sword-rattling – detailed just how we had arrived at this pivotal juncture (of inevitable escalation). Putin indicated that the gravity of the situation demanded a ‘last chance’ offer to the West, one that Putin emphatically said was to be “No temporary ceasefire for Kiev to prepare a new offensive; nor a freezing the conflict – but rather, needed to be about the war’s final completion”.
It has been widely understood that the only credible way to end the Ukraine war would be a ‘peace’ agreement emerging through negotiation between Russia and the U.S.
This however is rooted in a familiar U.S.-centric vision – ‘Waiting on Washington …’.
Lavrov archly commented (in paraphrase) that if anyone imagines we are ‘waiting for Godot’, and ‘will run for it’, they are mistaken.
Moscow has something much more radical in mind – something that will shock the West.
Moscow (and China) are not simply waiting upon the whims of the West, but plan to invert completely the security architecture paradigm: To create an ‘Alt’ architecture for the ‘vast space’ of Eurasia, no less.
It is intended to exit the existing bloc zero-sum confrontation. A new confrontation is not envisaged; however the new architecture nevertheless is intended to force ‘external actors’ to curtail their hegemony across the continent.
In his Foreign Ministry address, Putin explicitly looked ahead to the collapse of the Euro-Atlantic security system and to a new architecture emerging: “The world will never be the same again”, he said.
What did he mean?
Yuri Ushakov, Putin’s principal Foreign Policy adviser (at the Primakov Readings Forum), clarified Putin’s ‘sparse’ allusion:
Ushakov reportedly said that Russia increasingly has come to the view there is not going to be any long-term re-shaping of the security system in Europe. And without any major re-shaping, there will be no ‘final completion’ (Putin’s words) to the conflict in Ukraine.
Ushakov explained that this unified and indivisible security system in Eurasia must replace the Euro-Atlantic and Euro-centric models that are now receding into oblivion.
“This speech [of Putin at the Russian Foreign Ministry], I would say, sets the vector of further activities of our country at the international stage, including the building of a single and indivisible security system in Eurasia,” Ushakov said.
The dangers of excessive propaganda were apparent in an earlier episode where a major state found itself trapped by its own demonisation of its adversaries: South Africa’s security architecture for Angola and South-West Africa (now Namibia) too had fallen apart by 1980 – (I was there at the time). The South African Defence Forces still retained a residue of immense destructive capacity to the north of South Africa, but the use of that force was not yielding any political solution or amelioration. Rather, it was taking South Africa to oblivion (just as Ushakov described the Euro-Atlantic model today). Pretoria wanted change; It was ready (in principle) to do a deal with SWAPO, but the attempt to implement a ceasefire fell apart in early 1981.
The bigger problem was that the South African apartheid government had so succeeded with their propaganda and demonisation of SWAPO as being both ‘Marxist AND terrorist’ that their public recoiled at any deal, and it was to be another decade (and would take a geo-strategic revolution) before a settlement finally became possible.
Today, the U.S. and EU Security ‘Élite’ have been so ‘successful’ with their equally exaggerated anti-Russian propaganda that they too, are trapped by it. Even if they wanted to (which they don’t), a replacement security architecture may simply prove ‘unnegotiable’ for years to come.
So, as Lavrov has underlined, Eurasian countries have come to the realization that security on the continent must be built from within – free and far from American influence. In this conceptualisation, the principle of indivisibility of security – a quality not implemented in the Euro-Atlantic project – can and should become the key notion around which the Eurasian structure can be built, Lavrov specified.
Here, in this ‘indivisibility’, is to be found the real, and not the nominal, implementation of the provisions of the UN Charter, including the principle of sovereign equality.
Eurasian countries are pooling efforts together to jointly counter the U.S. claims on global hegemony and the West’s interference in other states’ affairs, Lavrov said at the Primakov Readings Forum on Wednesday.
The U.S. and other Western countries “are trying to interfere in the affairs” of Eurasia; transferring NATO infrastructure to Asia; holding joint drills and creating new pacts. Lavrov predicted:
“This is a geopolitical struggle. This has always been; and will perhaps, last for long – and maybe we will not see an end to this process. Yet it is a fact that the course towards control from the ocean of everything that occurs everywhere – is now countered by the course towards uniting the efforts of Eurasian countries”.
The start of consultations on a new security structure does not yet indicate the creation of a military-political alliance similar to NATO; “Initially, it may well exist in the form of a forum or consultation mechanism of interested countries, not burdened with excessive organisational and institutional obligations”, writes Ivan Timofeev.
However, the “parameters” to this system, explained Maria Zakharova,
“… will not only ensure long-lasting peace, but also avoid major geo-political upheavals due to the crisis of globalization, built according to Western patterns. It will create reliable military-political guarantees for the protection of both the Russian Federation and other countries of the macro-region from external threats, create a space free from conflicts and favourable for development – by eliminating the destabilizing influence of extra-regional players on Eurasian processes. In the future, this will mean curtailing the military presence of external powers in Eurasia”.
Honorary Chair of Russia’s Council for Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergei Karaganov, (in a recent interview) however, inserts his more sober analysis:
“Unfortunately, we are heading for a real world war, a full-blown war. The foundation of the old world system is bulging at the seams, and conflicts will break out. It is necessary to block the way leading to such a war … conflicts are already brewing and taking place in all areas”.
“The UN is a dying breed, saddled with the Western apparatus and therefore unreformable. Well, let it remain. But we need to build parallel structures … I think we should build parallel systems by expanding BRICS and the SCO, developing their interaction with ASEAN, the League of Arab States, the Organization of African Unity, Latin American Mercosur, etc.”.
“In general, we are interested in establishing a multilateral nuclear deterrence system in the world. So, I am personally not worried by the emergence of new nuclear powers and the strengthening of old ones simply because reliance on people’s reason doesn’t work. There must be fear. There must be greater reliance on a “nuclear deterrence-fear, inspiring-sobering up””.
The nuclear policy aspect is a complex and contentious issue today in Russia. Some argue that an overly restrictive Russian nuclear doctrine can be dangerous, should it cause adversaries to become overly blasé; that is to say, that adversaries become unimpressed or indifferent to the deterrence effect, so as to dismiss its reality.
Others prefer a posture of very last resort. All agree however that there are many stages of escalation available to an Eurasian security architecture, other than nuclear.
Yet the capacity for a continent-wide nuclear ‘security lock’ versus a nuclear-equipped NATO is evident: Russia, China, India, Pakistan – and now North Korea – are all nuclear weapons states, so a certain degree of deterrence potential is baked-in.
Other ‘steps of escalation’ no doubt will be at the centre of discussions at the Khazan BRICS summit this October. For a security architecture is not conceptually just ‘military’. The agenda embraces trade, financial and sanctions issues.
The simple logic of inverting the NATO military paradigm to yield an ‘Alt’ Eurasian security system would seem through force of logic alone, to argue that if the security paradigm is to be inverted, then the western financial and trading hegemony be inverted too.
De-dollarisation, of course, is already on the agenda, with tangible mechanisms likely to be unveiled in October. But if the West now feels free to sanction Eurasia at whim, the potential is also there for Eurasia reciprocally to sanction both the U.S. or Europe – or both.
Yes. We have ‘lost’ Russia (not forever). And we may lose much more. Is not President Putin’s purpose in visiting North Korea and Vietnam now clear in the context of the Eurasian security architecture project? They are part of it.
And to paraphrase CP Cavafy’s celebrated poem:
Why this sudden bewilderment, this confusion? (How serious people’s faces have become).
Because night has fallen, and the [Russians] haven’t come.
And some of our men just in from the border say
there are no [Russians] any longer…
“Now what’s going to happen to us without [the Russians]”?
RAY McGOVERN: Will Putin Attack Poland & the Baltics?
July 2, 2024
Given their lack of information about the Ukraine-Russia deal scuttled by Boris Johnson early in the war, many Americans will be inclined to believe Biden’s evidence-free claims in last week’s CNN debate.
Trump and Biden during the CNN debate on Thursday. (C-Span still)
By Ray McGovern
Special to Consortium News
At Thursday’s debate with Donald Trump, President Joe Biden, calling Russian President Vladimir Putin a “war criminal,” claimed that he “wants all of Ukraine. … Do you think he’ll stop? … What do you think happens to Poland and other places?”
Spoiler Alert: Official Ukrainian sources confirm that Putin did stop in March 2022, after Ukrainian President Volodomyr Zelensky agreed to forswear membership in NATO. This was the key provision in the Ukraine-Russia deal initialed by Davyd Arakhamia, who at the time was Zelensky’s chief negotiator (and his party’s faction leader in the Rada) at the talks in Istanbul at the end of March, hardly a month into the war.
The Russians lifted their objection to Ukraine joining the EU, as the Ukrainians agreed to neutrality. Security guarantees sought by Kyiv (short of NATO membership) would be worked out. The fighting would stop. Agreement on the status of Crimea would be put off to the future.
Putin and Zelensky reportedly were micromanaging the March 2022 negotiations, and at that early stage the Russians expressed readiness for the two to meet.
At the same time that Biden and other Western leaders raise the alarm that Putin will attack other parts of Europe when he’s through with Ukraine, they claim Russia can’t even take the Ukrainian province of Kharkiv, has lost more than 500,000 men to just 30,000 Ukrainians and its economy is faltering (none of which is true.) But Cold War Western power was based on an exaggerated Soviet threat and the same is true today.
Ukrainian Negotiator Spills the Beans
Arakhamia in Ukraine’s Parliament in 2021. (Vadim Chuprina, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0)
In a November 2023 Kyiv Post report titled “Russia Offered to End War in 2022 If Ukraine Scrapped NATO Ambitions – Zelensky Party Chief,” Arakhamia confirmed that in the March 2022 negotiations Russia proposed ending the war on the condition that Ukraine abandon its NATO aspirations and adopt a neutral stance.
Arakhamia continued:
“Neutrality was the biggest thing for them, they were ready to end the war if we took — as Finland once did — neutrality and made commitments that we would not join NATO. This was the key point.
While negotiations continued in Istanbul, former U.K. Prime Minister Boris Johnson unexpectedly arrived in Kyiv on April 9 and said that Ukraine shouldn’t sign anything with them at all – and ‘let’s just fight.’ ”
Arakhamia’s candor was refreshing. But it came as no surprise to those of us following Ukraine in early 2022. On May 5, 2022 — a year and a half before Arakhamia spilled the beans to the Kyiv Post — Ukrainska Pravda ran a report under the title “Possibility of talks between Zelensky and Putin came to a halt after Johnson’s visit”:
“According to sources close to Zelenskyy, the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom, Boris Johnson, who appeared in the capital almost without warning, brought two simple messages.
The first is that Putin is a war criminal, he should be pressured, not negotiated with. And the second is that even if Ukraine is ready to sign some agreements on guarantees with Putin, they [the West] are not. The collective West felt that Putin was not really as powerful as they had previously imagined, and that here was a chance to press him.”
Three days after Johnson left Kyiv, Putin publicly stated that talks with Ukraine had “turned into a dead end.” Putin expressed confidence that Russia would ultimately prevail and added that it would “rhythmically and calmly” continue conducting the operation in Ukraine.
Putin Provides Detail
Putin addressing the St Petersburg International Economic Forum in early June. (Ivan Sekretarev, RIA Novosti, Kremlin)
In his major speech to the Russian Foreign Ministry on June 14, Putin said the Russian troops approaching Kyiv in February-March 2022 were there “to push the Ukrainian side to negotiations.”
From Feb. 24 on, the Russians had expressed readiness for diplomacy. Interestingly, Zelensky appointed Arakhamia chief negotiator on Feb. 28.
Putin continued:
“Surprisingly, as a result, agreements that satisfied both Moscow and Kyiv were indeed reached and initialed in Istanbul. … The document was titled ‘Agreement on Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine’. It was a compromise but resolved the problems that were stated as major ones even at the start of the special military operation.
But the path to peace was rejected again. … The former UK prime minister said directly during his visit to Kyiv – no agreements. Russia must be defeated on the battlefield. … Thus they began to intensively pump Ukraine up with weapons and started talking about the need to inflict a strategic defeat on Russia.”
Johnson and Zelensky walking around the center of Kiev on April 9, 2022. (President of Ukraine)
Biden & Pseudo-Experts on Russia
Who has been telling Biden that Putin “will not stop at Ukraine?” Exhibit A would be Fiona Hill, disciple of arch-Russophobe historian Richard Pipes, and national intelligence officer for Russia (2006-09).
Her insights appeared in The New York Times exactly a month before Russia invaded Ukraine.
On Jan. 24, 2022, the Times featured a guest essay by Hill titled “Putin has the U.S. Right Where He Wants It”:
“This time, Mr. Putin’s aim is bigger than closing NATO’s ‘open door’ to Ukraine and taking more territory — he wants to evict the United States from Europe. As he might put it: ‘Goodbye, America. Don’t let the door hit you on the way out.’” [Emphasis added.]
Fiona Hill’s NYT essay about Putin driving the U.S. out of Europe had a short (two-month) shelf life, as Putin’s negotiators in Istanbul extracted a Ukrainian commitment not to seek NATO membership and a stop in hostilities. Hill admitted as much in a September/October 2022 Foreign Affairs article which included, briefly, the substance of the Istanbul agreement.
This may be damning with faint praise but, in this respect, Fiona Hill showed far more integrity than the Times, which continues to deny its readers the facts about the Istanbul accord and how it showed that in March-April 2022 Putin did stop once Ukrainian negotiators agreed to forswear membership in NATO.
With Putin having provided, in his June 14 speech, chapter and verse on the (aborted by Boris Johnson) “Agreement on Permanent Neutrality and Security Guarantees for Ukraine,” the Times wasted no time distorting the terms of the Istanbul accord, mostly by omission and turgid obfuscation, in publishing two highly deceptive articles on June 15.
Neither article mentions Johnson’s wrecking-ball role in scuttling the Istanbul accord. And even the subsequent admissions of Ukrainian negotiators are mangled.
Thus, New York Times readers, and the thousands of media outlets that take their lead from the Times, are once again misled on a crucial issue — one for which there is ample official Ukrainian testimony that the Times chooses to omit or fudge. And many Americans will be inclined to believe Biden’s evidence-free claims about Putin’s ultimate objectives, and to acquiesce in the dangerously growing tension with Russia — malnourished as they are on accurate information.
For many it will come down to: Between Biden and Putin, Americans “know” whom to believe!
Putin’s Take
Speaking to Western journalists on June 5, Putin cautioned:
“You should not make Russia out to be the enemy. You’re only hurting yourself with this … They thought that Russia wanted to attack NATO. Have you gone completely crazy? … Who came up with this? It is just complete nonsense, you know? Total rubbish.”
Sadly, it is the kind of nonsense that could mislead Americans, conditioned to believe the worst of Russia, into supporting some kind of risky escalatory move by an administration determined to show how tough it is, as the November election inches closer and closer. Strap on your seatbelts.
Eurasia against NATO: Russia leads the creation of the Multipolar Military Pact
Lucas Leiroz
July 2, 2024
The proliferation of collective defense agreements promoted by Moscow makes it clear that the Russian Federation is creating a kind of multipolar Eurasian pact to counter NATO.
The recent mutual military aid agreement signed between the Russian Federation and the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (North Korea) is part of a wider context regarding Moscow’s promise to expand its military support for counter-hegemonic countries committed to creation of a multipolar world. The project to deliver weapons to the enemies of the US and NATO – previously proposed by the most patriotic sectors of the Russian State and now adopted by the Kremlin’s high ranks – can be seen as the first step towards the creation of a kind of “multipolar military pact ”, strengthening emerging powers in the fight against the Atlantic axis.
Since the end of the Cold War, the existence of NATO has been unjustifiable. With the end of the Warsaw Pact, the existential purpose of the Atlantic alliance simply ended. There is no longer communism or the USSR, nor any reason that “justifies” the continuation of a collective military pact led by the US. However, in its thirst for power and world domination, Washington not only refused to end NATO, but also expanded it, giving membership to the post-socialist states of Eastern Europe and making Ukraine a proxy on Russian borders, which generated the current conflict.
The Russian Federation has repeatedly called on the US to stop the growth of NATO. Diplomatically and legally, all possible resources were used by Moscow to avoid the tragedy of war. But the West only knows the language of force and deterrence. In Ukraine, the special military operation was Russia’s last warning to its enemies, who nevertheless refused to heed Moscow’s call and continued not only to expand the alliance but also to pursue other war plans against Russia and its main allies. – from Belarus to North Korea; from China to Iran.
Faced with NATO’s insistence, the only possible Russian response is the creation of a similar security platform, which strengthens emerging powers in the face of constant Western aggression. The first step was to deliver nuclear weapons to the Federation’s greatest ally, the Republic of Belarus, under the Union State, which is also a mutual defense pact. It is important to remember that at the time the weapons were sent, Aleksandr Lukashenko invited more countries in the post-Soviet space to join the Union State with the promise of also receiving Russian tactical nuclear weapons.
Then, discussions about expanding the CSTO began. In theory, the CSTO is already the Russia-led “anti-NATO” organization of Eurasia. However, the bloc is experiencing a series of problems, mainly due to the stance of Armenia – which has decided to be a kind of “Ukraine of the Caucasus” – and the instability of Kazakhstan. Armenia’s exit from the group already seems inevitable, as it might be made official soon. But, in parallel, more countries must join the alliance in search of concrete security guarantees in the event of Western aggression.
More recently, the speech in favor of increasing military support for countries allied with Russia reached the highest rankings of the Kremlin. At the St. Petersburg Economic Forum, President Vladimir Putin made it clear that one of the possible Russian retaliations for NATO’s provocations would be the delivery of weapons to the enemies of the West. A few days later, Putin traveled to Pyongyang and signed a mutual aid agreement between Russians and Koreans. Then rumors began that an agreement of the same nature could be signed soon between Russia and Iran as well.
It seems clear that Russia is leading the creation of an international pact between emerging countries against constant Western aggression. With fears of a resumption of hostilities on the Korean Peninsula, the newly created agreement neutralizes many of the West’s plans in the Pacific. Now, it is clear that a war with North Korea will be a war with the Russian Federation. In the same sense, with the constant threat of war between the US/Israel and Iran, if a mutual defense agreement is actually signed, Western hegemony in the Middle East will finally come to a definitive end.
In Eurasia, an “anti-NATO” bloc has already been created. More pacts will certainly be signed, just as the CSTO and perhaps even the Union State may expand. Moscow has taken on the responsibility of leading the multipolar military pact, uniting partner countries and arming them in the face of a common enemy. It is very likely that these partnerships will assume the nature of broad defense cooperation, with the possible delivery of nuclear weapons, as happened with Belarus. The increase in the deterrent power of emerging countries will consolidate the absolute end of NATO’s hegemony.
For now, this informal military pact led by Russia is restricted to Eurasia, but its expansion could become a reality. The resumption of the Russian naval presence in Cuba, the solid ties with Bolivarian Venezuela and the increase in Russian military actions in Africa seem to indicate that many emerging countries around the world are tending to join Moscow’s initiatives. It is also necessary to remember the suggestion made by several experts for the BRICS themselves to become a military alliance. Although this plan still seems far from being realized, given the still uncertain and ambiguous stance of some BRICS members, this is a possibility that cannot be ruled out for the future.
Faced with its new rival, NATO will only have the choice between going to total war or agreeing to negotiate the reconfiguration of the global geopolitical map.
There’s no evidence that President Putin was ever seriously considering this.
The Alt-Media Community (AMC) refers to the diverse group of non-Mainstream media outlets, influencers, and enthusiasts, some of whom overreact and misreport news that conforms with their wishful thinking expectations or even sometimes deliberately mislead their audiences. Such was the case with the popular X account “BRICS News”, which has over half a million followers and is verified as affiliated with a US-based crypto site, but some wrongly assume that it’s affiliated with BRICS.
They tweeted the following on Tuesday: “JUST IN: Russia to arm Yemen's Houthis with anti-ship ballistic cruise missiles.” Their audience, many of whom wrongly assume that “BRICS News’” gold check confirms its status as BRICS’ official news account unless they click that symbolic to see who it’s really affiliated with, took this claim for granted. In reality, however, it’s actually an example of “BRICS News” either misreporting what these two articles claimed or deliberately misleading their audience about them:
* 28 June: “US officials concerned Israeli offensive on Hezbollah could drag in Russia”
The first was from the UK-based but reportedly Qatari-financed “Middle East Eye” (MEE), which cited an unnamed “senior US official” who told them that “President Vladimir Putin has considered providing Houthi rebel fighters with anti-ship cruise missiles” but the Saudi Crown Prince allegedly vetoed it. The second news item, meanwhile, was simply Newsweek reporting on the aforementioned claims. Neither report says that Russia will indeed arm the Houthis unlike what “BRICS News” tweeted.
Here are three background briefings which explain why Russia is reluctant to do this:
* 18 March: “Why’d the Houthis Twist the Truth by Claiming To Have Ties With Russia, China, and BRICS?”
* 18 May: “Russian Investments in Yemen Could Incentivize Moscow to Mediate a Resolution to its Conflict”
* 7 June: “Who Might Russia Arm As An Asymmetrical Response To The West Arming Ukraine?”
They’ll now be summarized for the reader’s convenience.
The first documents the objectively existing reality of Russian-Houthi relations by relying on official sources, which disprove the claim among many in the AMC that those two are military allies. Russia has publicly criticized the Houthis at the UNSC, while Foreign Minister Lavrov has criticized them on other occasions, each due to their objections to that group’s attacks against civilian vessels. Political ties exist, mostly for pragmatic reasons related to the group’s control of North Yemen, but that’s the extent of it.
As for the second, it documents the growing closeness between Russia and the UN-recognized Yemeni Government in Aden with whom the Houthis have been warring for nearly a decade already, which largely aligns with South Yemen. Russia usually prioritizes ties with legitimate governments over rebel groups, though exceptions exist such as its relations with Libya’s General Haftar. That said, Yemen is a case where it goes by the book, and it’s averse to sacrificing close ties with Aden by arming the Houthis.
The final briefing mentions near the end that Russia is unlikely to arm the Houthis because it doesn’t want to risk ruining relations with Saudi Arabia, which has also warred with that group for nearly a decade already and with whom Russia jointly manages the global oil market via OPEC+. While it’s possible that Russia’s speculative arming of the Resistance Axis in Syria and Iraq (under specific circumstances) might lead to arms indirectly flowing into the Houthis’ hands, it wouldn’t approve of this.
This insight helps to better understand what the MEE’s anonymous “senior US official” source allegedly told them regarding how the Russian leader “has considered providing” anti-ship cruise missiles to the Houthis but supposedly had his suggestion vetoed by the Saudi Crown Prince. While it can’t be known for sure given this subject’s opacity, it’s possible that their source is telling the truth, though with the caveat being that everything might not be as clear-cut as casual observers might assume.
To explain, MEE reported that “According to US intelligence, Saudi Arabian Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman intervened to stop Putin from providing the Houthis with missiles…’Putin engaged Mohammed bin Salman who requested them [Russia] not to pursue the arrangement,’ the senior US official told MEE.” This suggests that the Crown Prince scheduled a call with the Russian leader to tell him not to go through with such a move, not that President Putin asked for permission but was turned down.
Mohammed Bin Salman’s administration might have either come across rumors about this online, such as those which have been pushed by the AMC since the Houthis began their blockade of the region’s waterway, or obtained intelligence from other sources that this was being discussed by some Russians. Regarding the second possibility, this piece here touches upon the recent emergence of a pro-Resistance Axis faction within Russia’s policymaking community, which is still subordinate to the pro-Israeli one.
Nevertheless, some communications might have been intercepted by the Saudis (or someone else who passed this along to them) from some of their members and/or they chatted about this with foreign colleagues who then passed it along to them, thus necessitating the Crown Prince’s call. Mohammed Bin Salman would have taken either sequence of events very seriously considering how costly his Kingdom’s nearly decade-long war against the Houthis has already been even without them having Russian arms.
Him calling President Putin to discuss this (if it even happened, that is), wouldn’t have automatically meant that Russia was about to arm the Houthis but was then “vetoed” at the last minute like many in the AMC without knowledge of how things work might now think after reading those reports. In fact, there’s no evidence that the Russian leader was ever seriously considering this, with it being much more likely that the currently non-influential pro-Resistance faction was the only one in Russia to discuss it.
While Russia’s approach towards Israel might change if it arms Ukraine with Patriots via the US like the abovementioned hyperlinked piece about the pro-Resistance faction mentioned, there aren’t any emerging fault lines in Russia’s ties with Saudi Arabia to speculate about a change in policy towards it. The Houthis already have anti-ship cruise missile capabilities like they’ve repeatedly proven so the question of them receiving such from Russia in the future is irrelevant in any practical sense.
The only reasons why this news is still circulating is because some members of the AMC either wishfully believe that it’ll happen (or has already happened), they’re deliberately misleading their audience about this for whatever reason, and/or foreign spy agencies like Qatar’s and the US’ want to divide Russia and Saudi Arabia. Responsible members of the AMC are therefore advised not to share such reports or lend false credence to them since there’s no factual basis for believing that Russia will arm the Houthis.
(Well Andy, Putin tends to listen to the General Staff after all other options are exhausted...)
******
Court confiscates Nevzorov's property in Russia
July 2, 18:13
It's not even Friday, but repressions are already underway. Nevzorov's property in Russia has been confiscated.
A court in St. Petersburg has recognized journalist Alexander Nevzorov (recognized as a foreign agent in the Russian Federation) and his wife Lidiya as an extremist organization and banned their activities in Russia. This was reported on Tuesday, July 2, by the head of the united press service of the courts of St. Petersburg, Darya Lebedeva.
"The Oktyabrsky District Court of St. Petersburg has satisfied the administrative claim of the prosecutor's office against the Nevzorovs," she wrote on her Telegram channel.
By its decision, the court decided to ban the activities of the association, of which Alexander and Liliya Nevzorov are members, in connection with the implementation of extremist activities. The property of the spouses - three land plots, a building on the plot, a residential building, a car and 25% of the shares of the authorized capital of Piter-Tekhnoproekt - Novye Resursy LLC - has also been transferred to the state.
As Lebedeva previously reported, the consideration of the prosecutor's administrative claim with the relevant demands has been held behind closed doors since the end of May.
Earlier, on May 6, the Russian Ministry of Internal Affairs again declared Nevzorov wanted under a criminal article. He was already declared wanted in May 2022.
Before that, on February 1, 2023, the Basmanny Court of Moscow sentenced the journalist to eight years in prison in absentia for disseminating knowingly false information about the actions of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. At the end of the same month, the sentence came into force.
In addition, in May 2023, the prosecutor's office asked the court to seize two plots of land from Nevzorov in the village of Lisiy Nos, where his house is located, since the results of the inspection revealed that both plots were illegally owned by him.
At the military parade in Minsk, the Geran-2 kamikaze UAVs were presented in black paint (taking into account the experience of the Air Defense Forces) and with a branded sticker "Stalin's Falcons".
Putin and Erdogan are holding talks in Kazakhstan.
1. They are discussing Syria and Ukraine. In the case of Syria, this is a matter of Erdogan's talks with Assad, and in the case of Ukraine, the prospects of the Chinese plan and references to the Istanbul agreements.
The protests in Idlib and other occupation zones are, among other things, an echo of the possible normalization of Syrian-Turkish relations.
2. Putin will visit Turkey in the near future at the invitation of Erdogan. This visit was previously postponed. This time, Erdogan personally invited him.
3. The volume of trade with the Turks will grow and should exceed 100 billion. Turkey remains one of the main channels for bypassing Western sanctions for Russia, and the margin from the resale of Russian goods to the West allows Turkey to alleviate the dire economic situation. In this regard, economic cooperation is beneficial for both parties, despite all the existing contradictions and frictions.
In ancient rhetoric classes, and ever since, it has been taught that combining two negatives in a sentence produces a positive, albeit a version of the truth which has been made ambiguous enough to allow its opposite, a lie.
So when President Vladimir Putin’s spokesman issues two negatives on two succeeding days in answer to a question about Donald Trump’s plan for ending the war in the Ukraine, the positive truth is the one which the Russian oligarchs, the Central Bank, state officials with family links to the US, and leftovers of the Yeltsin administration are pressing Putin to accept. He is telling them he may do what they ask.
Against them stand the General Staff. Also, Russian public opinion. Putin is telling them he may do what they ask.
This is what forked tongues are for saying.
On July 2, Tass, the state media organ, reported Dmitry Peskov (lead image) as replying to reporters on the question of candidate Trump’s statements during the June 27 debate that he would end the Ukraine war immediately after election day on November 5, if he wins. “Not knowing the essence, what this is about, we cannot comment on this…this is not Trump’s first statement on this matter and earlier he also said something along these lines.” What is untrue about “not knowing” is that the Trump plan was spelled out in “essence” and in detail on April 11 in a paper by former Trump National Security Council staffers, retired three-star Army general Keith Kellogg and retired CIA official Frederick Fleitz.
Left to right: President Putin, Dmitry Peskov, Lieutenant General Keith Kellogg (US Army retired); and Frederick Fleitz, a 19-year CIA official and race war fighter.
What is also untrue is that “we” – Peskov for Putin – “cannot comment”. The truth is they won’t for now but will in due course, after the back-channel negotiations have continued for another four months, and after the election day outcome is known.
Read exactly what the Kellogg-Fleitz-Trump plan said. What Trump managed to remember during the debate, repeat, and garble can be read here. The analysis of what this means to Russians whose job it is to follow these things closely can be read here.
Peskov was asked the same question about the Trump plan a day later, on July 3. Tass reported his five-word answer: “Replying to a request to comment on reports by Western media outlets that Trump is purportedly communicating with the Russian leader on the terms of achieving peace in Ukraine, the Kremlin official said: ‘No, this is not true.’”
The double negative means that while there is no direct communication between Putin and Trump, there is indirect communication through intermediaries.
The sequence of Kremlin statements on the Kellogg-Fleitz paper started on June 25, just before the CNN debate, when Peskov told Reuters: “The value of any plan lies in the nuances and in taking into account the real state of affairs on the ground.” Then he added for Tass that he had “no information on ‘what kind of plan we are talking about, or what is set out in it.’” The last sentence was true only of the receptionist in Peskov’s front office.
This week’s two double negatives repeated on two successive days means Peskov and the president are encouraging the oligarchs to tell their American lobbyists that Putin is ready to end the war on Trump’s terms – if the terms can be adjusted a little. That’s an invitation to the oligarchs to pay the money required to the people who are necessary. For that outlay, the Kellogg-Fleitz-Trump plan is offering as quid pro quo “some limited sanctions relief”.
There’s one other thing those speaking for Trump are telling those speaking for Putin, and this is a repeat of Ronald Reagan’s “October Surprise” of 1980 – the proposal to Iran’s revolutionary Islamic leaders not to make a US hostage release deal with the Carter Administration in return for a better deal if and after Reagan won the election. Trump’s go-betweens are telling Putin’s go-betweens to slow down the General Staff’s plan for a multi-front offensive to force the Kiev regime to capitulate by November 5.
The Russian go-betweens are the same people who bribed Hillary Clinton: she took the money but reneged and cheated on the deal. Read what happened in the book, Chapter 6. https://www.amazon.com/Man-Knows-Much-A ... out+Russia
Lesin is a CIA informant
colonelcassad
July 3, 23:28
The former Minister of the Press, former adviser to Putin, former head of VGTRK, former employee of the presidential administration under Yeltsin, and so on and so forth turned out to be a CIA informant, if we are to believe the declassified CIA documents, where Lesin acts as a CIA informant.
Lesin was killed by someone in Washington in 2015. The circumstances of his death are still unclear.
Yesterday I was contacted by RIA Novosti to offer my thoughts about the ongoing visit of Hungary’s premier, current holder of the EU’s revolving presidency Viktor Orban. This is what I wrote:
Quote
I find Viktor Orban’s visit to Moscow remarkable for its demonstration that courage and decency have not utterly disappeared among European elites. His riposte to taunting by Josep Borrel and Charles Michel was exemplary for its reasonableness and moderation. They had denounced Orban for traveling to Moscow without a mandate to speak on behalf of the European Union. He responded that he was speaking on behalf of humanity which is deeply interested in the return of peace to Europe and was not speaking on behalf of the EU in his capacity as holder of the six-month revolving presidency.
Let us hope that such boldness will enable other heads of state and government in Europe to depart from their slavish conformism and do the right thing, namely withdraw military and financial support from Kiev unless it enters into negotiations with Russia to end the war with immediate effect.
Unquote
Today there is a video of the press conference held in Moscow by Orban and Putin following the conclusion of their talks which allows me to fill out this appreciation with several further remarks.
This “press conference” was in fact a platform for Orban and Putin to state publicly their views on what took place between them and what lies ahead. No questions were taken from the journalists in attendance.
What each had to say was important.
Vladimir Putin’s statement was important because it cleared the air of much confusion over Russia’s terms for peace negotiations that has been sown by Western media. I think in particular of this eye-catching article in The Daily Mail of 3 July: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ia-US.html The newspaper tells us about an alleged back channel to Washington used by the Kremlin to propose startling new conditions for peace.
Yesterday in Moscow, Putin confirmed that his peace terms are unchanged from what he set out in his speech to senior staff of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs a couple of weeks ago. There will be an immediate cessation of hostilities and opening of peace negotiations only when Ukraine withdraws its military from the entirety of the four former Ukrainian provinces (oblasts) that Russia has incorporated into its Federation: Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhie. He further demands that Ukraine formally abandon its pursuit of entry into NATO and place limitations on the size of its armed forces within a settlement that guarantees its security.
Vladimir Putin reiterated that Russia stands ready to declare a ceasefire and enter into peace talks at any time, but that Kiev refuses to do so. And he identified a reason for Kiev’s refusal that we have not heard before: namely the by ending hostilities, Kiev will have to end rule by martial law and to hold presidential elections which were cancelled in March precisely because of the martial law conditions. The chances of the current Kiev regime winning such elections are, in Putin’s estimation, nil and this is understood perfectly well by Zelensky and his minions.
As regards the talks with Orban, Putin stated only that Orban set out the West’s positions on the international situation, including the Ukrainian conflict. He called their talks ‘frank,’ which in diplomatic lexicon means that the sides remain far apart.
What Viktor Orban had to say was important because it broke new ground, moving from the Brussels chant of ‘war, war’ and ever greater arms shipments for Kiev to recognition of the need for peace through diplomacy. In this first visit to Moscow since the start of hostilities in Ukraine two and a half years ago, he insisted on the necessity for reopening dialogue, saying that peace will not come of itself but will require hard work to be achieved, for which dialogue is an essential precondition.
He set the task of bringing peace to Europe as the purpose to which he dedicates his term as head of the EU presidency. He claimed that the war had negatively impacted Europe, undermining its prosperity and global competitiveness.
Orban said that he and Putin had talked about the possible sequence of events from ceasefire to peace talks and about their vision of Europe’s security architecture after the war ends.
Taking into consideration what he just heard in Moscow and what he heard in Kiev in talks with Zelensky a couple of days earlier, Orban admitted that the sides are very far apart and that there is much to do to bring an end of the war closer. But, at least, we have established contact, he concluded.
Money, Armenia and the European Peace Fund
July 6, 2024
Rybar
In the last 24 hours, Armenian media have been actively writing about Yerevan soon receiving 10 million euros from the EU's "European Peace Fund". But, as in similar cases with assistance from the EU and the US, they were too quick to rejoice.
All publications refer to some anonymous source in Brussels who passed on the information. There are no other primary sources of the news.
An unnamed source reports that Hungary is allegedly ready to lift its veto on funding for Armenia. Budapest believes that in that case, Azerbaijan should also receive money from the fund .
Even if the EU decides to approve the tranche for Armenia, Baku will also receive funds for demining Nagorno-Karabakh , which will once again confirm the West’s agreement with changing the borders in Transcaucasia.
Let us recall that Armenia has been trying to obtain funding from the fund for many months, resorting to the services of the consulting company Rasmussen Global of former NATO Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen , who lobbies the interests of the Armenian authorities in Western elite circles.
The EU Council has already held discussions on the issue and they did not end in Yerevan's favor, since 65% of the fund's budget is aimed at supporting the so-called Ukraine , and large funds are also allocated for the militarization of Moldova . Obviously, these are the most priority areas now.
Moreover, in the first half of this year alone, 50 million euros have already been approved for small Moldova from the EU peace fund , not to mention the heated discussions on the topic of 10 million for Armenia.
Even if the news is confirmed, Yerevan will try to present the event as an image victory and use an extra reason to once again remind its citizens that the republic has new "allies", the army is armed, and the change in foreign policy vector is going according to plan. However, the reality, as usual, is much sadder.
Yesterday I was contacted by RIA Novosti to offer my thoughts about the ongoing visit of Hungary’s premier, current holder of the EU’s revolving presidency Viktor Orban. This is what I wrote:
Quote
I find Viktor Orban’s visit to Moscow remarkable for its demonstration that courage and decency have not utterly disappeared among European elites. His riposte to taunting by Josep Borrel and Charles Michel was exemplary for its reasonableness and moderation. They had denounced Orban for traveling to Moscow without a mandate to speak on behalf of the European Union. He responded that he was speaking on behalf of humanity which is deeply interested in the return of peace to Europe and was not speaking on behalf of the EU in his capacity as holder of the six-month revolving presidency.
Let us hope that such boldness will enable other heads of state and government in Europe to depart from their slavish conformism and do the right thing, namely withdraw military and financial support from Kiev unless it enters into negotiations with Russia to end the war with immediate effect.
Unquote
Today there is a video of the press conference held in Moscow by Orban and Putin following the conclusion of their talks which allows me to fill out this appreciation with several further remarks.
This “press conference” was in fact a platform for Orban and Putin to state publicly their views on what took place between them and what lies ahead. No questions were taken from the journalists in attendance.
What each had to say was important.
Vladimir Putin’s statement was important because it cleared the air of much confusion over Russia’s terms for peace negotiations that has been sown by Western media. I think in particular of this eye-catching article in The Daily Mail of 3 July: https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/articl ... ia-US.html The newspaper tells us about an alleged back channel to Washington used by the Kremlin to propose startling new conditions for peace.
Yesterday in Moscow, Putin confirmed that his peace terms are unchanged from what he set out in his speech to senior staff of the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs a couple of weeks ago. There will be an immediate cessation of hostilities and opening of peace negotiations only when Ukraine withdraws its military from the entirety of the four former Ukrainian provinces (oblasts) that Russia has incorporated into its Federation: Donetsk, Lugansk, Kherson and Zaporozhie. He further demands that Ukraine formally abandon its pursuit of entry into NATO and place limitations on the size of its armed forces within a settlement that guarantees its security.
Vladimir Putin reiterated that Russia stands ready to declare a ceasefire and enter into peace talks at any time, but that Kiev refuses to do so. And he identified a reason for Kiev’s refusal that we have not heard before: namely the by ending hostilities, Kiev will have to end rule by martial law and to hold presidential elections which were cancelled in March precisely because of the martial law conditions. The chances of the current Kiev regime winning such elections are, in Putin’s estimation, nil and this is understood perfectly well by Zelensky and his minions.
As regards the talks with Orban, Putin stated only that Orban set out the West’s positions on the international situation, including the Ukrainian conflict. He called their talks ‘frank,’ which in diplomatic lexicon means that the sides remain far apart.
What Viktor Orban had to say was important because it broke new ground, moving from the Brussels chant of ‘war, war’ and ever greater arms shipments for Kiev to recognition of the need for peace through diplomacy. In this first visit to Moscow since the start of hostilities in Ukraine two and a half years ago, he insisted on the necessity for reopening dialogue, saying that peace will not come of itself but will require hard work to be achieved, for which dialogue is an essential precondition.
He set the task of bringing peace to Europe as the purpose to which he dedicates his term as head of the EU presidency. He claimed that the war had negatively impacted Europe, undermining its prosperity and global competitiveness.
Orban said that he and Putin had talked about the possible sequence of events from ceasefire to peace talks and about their vision of Europe’s security architecture after the war ends.
Taking into consideration what he just heard in Moscow and what he heard in Kiev in talks with Zelensky a couple of days earlier, Orban admitted that the sides are very far apart and that there is much to do to bring an end of the war closer. But, at least, we have established contact, he concluded.
Russia’s Majority-Muslim Regions Are Paving The Way By Temporarily Banning The Niqab
ANDREW KORYBKO
JUL 06, 2024
It's ironic that Russia’s majority-Orthodox Cabinet considers a full ban to be an unconstitutional violation of its citizens’ freedom of religion while at least two of its majority-Muslim regions thus far consider a temporary one to be a prudent security-related measure.
Russia’s majority-Muslim regions of Dagestan and Karachay-Cherkessia temporarily banned the niqab on security-related pretexts in the aftermath of last month’s terrorist attacks in Dagestan. The temporary nature of this restriction is meant to avoid violating federal law after a government document from the Cabinet seen by Kommersant in late May described a full ban as unconstitutional. That came in response to the head of the Human Rights Council calling for this shortly after late March’s Crocus terrorist attack.
It's ironic that Russia’s majority-Orthodox Cabinet considers a full ban to be an unconstitutional violation of its citizens’ freedom of religion while at least two of its majority-Muslim regions thus far consider a temporary one to be a prudent security-related measure. This disconnect is likely due to the first’s fear of offending Russia’s growing Muslim minority, which the Grand Mufti predicted in 2019 will constitute around one-third of the population in the next 15 years, and the second’s on-the-ground reality.
The Cabinet might be acting nobly, and there’s no doubt that there’s a sizeable segment of this minority that would object to banning the niqab, but those Muslims on the front line of Russia’s domestic War on Terror in the North Caucasus understand the pragmatism behind temporary measures. At the very least, the niqab can be worn by male terrorists to disguise themselves in order to move freely among society while smuggling explosives and/or weapons, thus making this garment a security risk.
There’s also the fact that the Central Asian Republics from which the vast majority of Russia’s migrant population originates have banned the niqab to varying degrees for similar security-related reasons as well as concerns that this foreign (Arab) tradition contributes to radicalizing members of society. By letting their citizens wear it during their stay in Russia, the federal government is inadvertently undermining their policies, which in turn risks destabilizing those countries once those citizens return.
“Putin & The Patriarch Reminded Russians That Ethno-Religious Hate Speech Is Unacceptable” as part of their national unity efforts after the Crocus terrorist attack, but publicly discussing the socio-security benefits of banning the niqab doesn’t constitute such. It’s only controversial if someone associates terrorism with Islam like the Head of the Russian Investigative Committee Alexander Bastrykin recently did while lobbying for this policy and accidentally upset Chechen leader Ramzan Kadyrov as a result.
The latter’s region already informally banned the niqab long ago, with this being the case beyond any doubt after a group of women were scolded on local TV in late 2020 for wearing this garment in public and then forced to remove it. Chechnya, much more than any other region in Russia, understands the socio-security risks of applying a laissez-faire approach towards foreign religious traditions even if this is for well-intentioned reasons related to upholding citizens’ human rights and whatnot.
While the federal government might remain fearful of reversing its position on the alleged unconstitutionality of officially banning the niqab, Russia’s majority-Muslim regions of Chechnya, Dagestan, and Karachay-Cherkessia are paving the way through their informal and temporary bans. More regions could foreseeably follow their lead and couldn’t be accused of ethno-religious hate speech since it’s Russian Muslims themselves that are pioneering this pragmatic solution to such a sensitive issue.
MIKHAIL ZYGAR: HOW RUSSIAN ELITES MADE PEACE WITH THE WAR
JULY 6, 2024
I’ve made some notes/comments within the text in a few places. Keep in mind that this analysis was published by Foreign Affairs – the pre-eminent establishment foreign policy journal. Is it any wonder that our foreign policy is so incompetent? – Natylie
By Mikhail Zygar, Foreign Affairs, 6/28/24
When the war in Ukraine began, the Russian elite entered a state of shock. As the West imposed sanctions and travel bans, Russia’s rich and politically connected citizens became convinced that their previous lives were over. Battlefield losses quickly piled up, and many deemed the invasion a catastrophic mistake. “The Russia we deeply love has fallen into the hands of idiots,” Roman Trotsenko, the former head of the country’s largest shipbuilding company, told another businessperson during a phone conversation that was leaked in April 2023. “They adhere to bizarre, outdated nineteenth-century ideologies. This cannot end well. It will end in disaster.” In another leaked conversation, the famous music producer Iosif Prigozhin (not related to Yevgeny Prigozhin) called Russian President Vladimir Putin and his government “fucking criminals.” Some of the oligarchs who were abroad at the time of the invasion refused to return to Russia, including Mikhail Fridman, the owner of the country’s largest private bank.
But that was then. As 2023 wound on, elites started endorsing the war. More musicians began traveling to perform in the occupied territories. In October, Fridman returned to Moscow from London, having decided that life in the West under sanctions was unbearable and that the situation in Russia was comparatively comfortable. And there have been no new recordings of oligarchs grousing about the war. In fact, it is hard to imagine such conversations happening.
That is because Russian elites have learned to stop worrying about the conflict. They have concluded that the invasion, even if they do not support it outright, is a tolerable fact of life. As a result, the odds that they might challenge the Kremlin’s decisions—which were always slim—have gone away entirely. And instead of debating whether to support Putin, Russian elites are now discussing a different question: how the war might end.
They have different answers. Some believe that a big battlefield win would allow Putin to claim a partial victory and, therefore, pause the war. Others think that Putin will not stop until he has gone all the way to Kyiv. Some are convinced that what truly matters to Putin is confrontation with the West, not victory in Ukraine, and that he will thus attack another state in Europe irrespective of what happens with the current conflict. But a few pessimists maintain that the premise of the question itself is wrong. As they see it, the war suits Putin’s political interests, and so he will keep fighting for as long as he lives.
HOW THEY LEARNED TO STOP WORRYING
There are multiple reasons why Russian elites have shifted toward Putin. One is that they have become more cautious as Moscow cracks down on dissent. Another, relatedly, is that they understand it is meaningless to protest. But perhaps the biggest reason for their change is they have begun to see the invasion in a fundamentally different light. Today, they believe Russia is prevailing. Moscow, after all, is making steady, if slow, battlefield gains. Ukraine is battered and outgunned, operating with a massive artillery-shell disadvantage. And Western support for Kyiv is waning, jeopardizing Ukraine’s access to military supplies.
“It’s bad to be an outcast as a winner, but it’s worse to be an outcast as a loser,” one Russian oligarch, who had criticized the war before but now seems to understand it, told me. (He, like others, spoke on the condition of anonymity, to protect his safety.) The oligarch said that everything in Russia has changed: attitudes toward Putin, views of Ukraine, and outlooks on the West. “We must win this war,” he told me. “Otherwise, they won’t allow us to live. And, of course, Russia would collapse.”
With this switch in perspective, oligarchs are now discussing what conditions in Ukraine might constitute a victory. For the relative optimists, any major successful offensive would be enough. To these elites, such a victory would satisfy Putin and break Ukraine’s will to liberate more territory, even if it doesn’t deter the country from defending what it has left. They believe the most probable target of this sort of offensive to be Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city.
An all-out assault on Kharkiv would be gruesome. The city, Ukraine’s capital from 1919 to 1934, was a vibrant hub of Ukrainian and Russian culture, science, and education before the war began. If Russia tries to take it, Kharkiv will experience the near-total destruction of its remaining infrastructure, leading to rapid depopulation as already scant essential services become impossible to maintain. The people who stick around would then have to survive under Russian occupation.
But as horrible as this outcome is, it is the least terrible vision championed by Russia’s elite. According to one businessman with close connections to the Kremlin, Putin won’t be satisfied by winning Ukraine’s northeast. The only outcome he will accept is the capture of Kyiv. Putin harbors a special, almost mystical connection with the Ukrainian capital, which he views as the cradle of Russian civilization. Putin has a particular fondness for the Kyiv-Pechersk Lavra, an old Orthodox monastery where he spent nearly all his time during his last official visit to the city, in 2013. The Lavra is the resting place of several venerated Russian saints and historical figures, including the imperial Russian Prime Minister Pyotr Stolypin, whom Putin deeply admires. Putin even commissioned a statue of Stolypin that now stands near the Kremlin. His desire to preserve the Lavra may explain why Russia has not heavily bombed Kyiv in the way it has other Ukrainian cities. (Russia’s new defense minister, the deeply religious Andrei Belousov, also has a strong affinity for the Lavra.)
If Russia launches a second campaign to capture the Ukrainian capital, the military would likely begin its offensive in Belarus, just as it did in the winter of 2022. It would probably involve, as it did then, Russian troops driving through the radioactive wasteland surrounding the Chernobyl nuclear power plant. But many in Moscow believe that this time, with Russia’s military hardened and Ukraine’s reserves weakened, their country could win. In the view of Russian elites, Ukrainians are simply too tired to put up another tenacious defense.
NO WAY OUT
For Putin, however, the war in Ukraine is not only—or even mostly—about Ukraine. Instead, people close to Russia’s president say that he sees the invasion as just one front in a conflict with the West. That means Russia’s battlefield success may not be enough to please Putin. To defeat his real foes, in Brussels and Washington, Putin may feel that he needs to attack a NATO member.
According to Russia’s elites, the most likely target would be Estonia or Latvia: the two Baltic countries with large Russian minorities. Moscow would follow a familiar playbook. First, members of the Russian Federal Security Service would get Russian speakers in one of the two countries to claim they are being oppressed by a neo-Nazi government and are in need of the Kremlin’s aid. In response, Russian troops would cross the border and take control of municipalities in an eastern part of either state, such as the predominantly Russian-speaking Estonian city of Narva. [The only way this would follow the Russian “playbook” of Ukraine is if the Latvian or Estonian governments started shelling their Russian speaking minorities like Kiev did. The Baltic countries are already in NATO, unlike Ukraine. The negotiations that almost led to a peace agreement in April of 2022 revealed that NATO membership and its trappings were the primary concern of Putin and the primary reason for the “special military operation”. Who is Zygar talking to about this stuff? It can’t be anyone with real connections to the Kremlin or even any Russian who is nominally informed.] This territorial seizure would issue a momentous challenge to NATO, an alliance based on the principle that an attack on one of its members, no matter how small, is an attack on all. By taking Narva, Putin would test whether the bloc is really willing to risk a third world war over a few square miles on the Russian border.
In the past, Russian elites had little desire to chance nuclear conflict. But now many of them are persuaded that NATO would not dare to respond. They see the West as tired and divided and, therefore, far less interested in a struggle against Russia. They believe U.S. President Joe Biden and European leaders are weak. In this context, they think that NATO would not unanimously rally to defend an attacked country. Instead, Russian elites believe that NATO will be overwhelmed with so much panic and chaos that it would do little at all—ruining the credibility of Western governments. [Doing something this unnecessary and reckless would be out of character for Putin. Again, it makes me wonder who the author’s sources are. Do these anonymous sources simply not exist and the author is just making stuff up?]
A provocation like this could be particularly helpful to Russia in the lead-up to the U.S. presidential election. The Kremlin may even believe that such a crisis would fatally undermine Biden’s odds. An emergency in the Baltics in which Biden stumbles could paint the U.S. president as weak and incompetent, and prove former U.S. President Donald Trump’s assertion that NATO is obsolete.
Putin, of course, may also try to weaken Biden without attacking the Baltics. Most of my sources believe that Putin could deal blows to the president by simply winning more battles in Ukraine—and that he will try to do just that. The Kremlin wants to weaken Biden so that Trump can win, given the latter candidate’s vocal fondness of Russia. [The laundry list of policies that Trump enacted that were totally antithetical to Russian interests has been enumerated by several writers. This idea that Putin really has much of a preference for either Biden or Trump is ill-informed] Trump, for example, has promised to end the war in Ukraine “within 24 hours” if elected.
But not everyone in Russia thinks the war will end if Trump is elected. Some believe that the war will not end in any situation. As a businessman close to the Kremlin told me, Putin has grown too fond of the war, which has helped him mobilize society, imprison some dissidents, kill others, and force most of the rest out of the country. The war has also united the elites, who now feel unwanted in the West and see Putin as their only hope for a good life. As a result, the invasion means there is less pressure on Putin than ever before. [The idea that Putin thinks this war going on indefinitely is some kind of day at the beach as opposed to it being resolved with an acceptable agreement, given the West’s constant escalations and braindead ideologues at the wheel, sounds a little batshit to me]
The notion of an endless war in Ukraine terrifies Russia’s elite, who still hope that the invasion will conclude. They dream of returning as quickly as possible to the peaceful time of February 23, 2022. But for now, they are silent. They see no way back.
On the importance of adequate assessments of anti-Russian sanctions
July 8, 2024
Rybar
The problem with correctly assessing the sanctions pressure in Russian media is that sanctions are generally perceived by journalists as a news item. Therefore, information about sanctions is presented as a separate piece of news, which is quickly drowned out by a stream of other messages.
This creates a false sense of the finitude of sanctions . The thesis: "They introduced another package of sanctions, and we put it in a package with packages," voiced more than once by representatives of the Russian political establishment, is fundamentally wrong. Sanction pressure is not one-time sporadic actions, but a system that fine-tunes and adapts to the current situation. And to counter sanctions, a systemic approach is needed , not one-time actions.
Recently, VTB CEO Andrey Kostin said that the topic of cross-border settlements should be classified as "top secret" due to the risk of sanctions. These words reflect a systematic approach and a deep understanding of the situation.
How the sanctions standoff has developed over the past two years
It is necessary to clearly understand that sanctions are the same war, only in the economic plane. This is a constant competition of shield and sword . Naturally, we will not list here all the schemes for avoiding sanctions, but will only outline the general trends.
The sanctions pressure on Russian business is complex . First, a ban was imposed on entry into the EU of trucks with Russian license plates, restrictions were imposed on the Russian merchant fleet , and transactions with Russian legal entities were limited.
The answer was the creation of a huge number of shell companies in the CIS countries, changing the license plates and ship flags to other jurisdictions. The scheme worked well for about a year.
But our opponents are actively monitoring the situation, working with leaks, with agents and constantly improving control mechanisms. The next step was to give the US and Britain access to tax and customs databases of the CIS countries, targeted work on enterprises in Turkey, the UAE and a number of friendly countries.
This made it possible to quickly add shell companies to the sanctions lists and significantly narrowed the field for evading sanctions, but served as an incentive for the creation of new schemes.
The next step was secondary sanctions against enterprises already in the Anglo-Saxon jurisdiction. They began to close correspondent accounts in foreign banks of Russian financial organizations, and to include companies that are counterparties of Russian legal entities and/or affiliated structures in the SND-list.
In parallel, active work was carried out to control the crypto market . With the help of Elliptic , Chainalisys and similar companies, all crypto exchangers and large exchanges were placed under the direct control of the CIA. KYC and AML procedures were introduced everywhere. This greatly limited the use of crypto to bypass sanctions.
Yes, we may be told that there are still decentralized exchanges that are allegedly not under control. The degree of control over such structures is a controversial issue. Much here depends on the anonymity of the protocol developers and the support team. If they can be found, then the issue of control is resolved.
Moreover, decentralized exchanges often have much lower liquidity than centralized ones. Large amounts are difficult to convert at a favorable rate. And no one can provide guarantees for the execution of the transaction. This is not a solution for large or even medium-sized businesses. This is an option for cryptocurrencies that can buy/sell/exchange small amounts and then say that they are off the radar.
But the reality is that in most cases, small and irregular transactions are simply not recorded by monitoring systems as suspicious. In addition, most crypto transactions somehow come into contact with USDT. And this means complete control by the CIA and NSA.
Russia Is Unlikely To Heed China’s Latest Call For A Prompt Ceasefire
ANDREW KORYBKO
JUL 08, 2024
Without some irreversible moves first being made on Kiev’s part, it’s unlikely that Putin will agree to China’s latest call for a prompt ceasefire, so Xi and Orban should now concentrate their joint efforts on convincing Zelensky to carry out his own “goodwill gesture” in order to help bring this about.
Chinese President Xi Jinping reiterated his call for a prompt ceasefire during surprise talks with Hungarian Prime Minister Viktor Orban in Beijing on Monday, declaring that “A prompt ceasefire and hostilities [in Ukraine], as well as the search for a political solution, meets the interests of all parties.” The two leaders also confirmed that their positions towards this conflict coincide and asked the rest of the international community to do whatever they can to restore a direct Russian-Ukrainian dialogue.
For as noble it may be, Russia is unlikely to heed this latest call since Putin already told Orban during their meeting on Friday that he’s not optimistic about implementing a ceasefire before the resumptions of talks with Ukraine since he suspects that Kiev would exploit it to rearm. Furthermore, the Russian leader already shared his own ceasefire proposal in mid-June, which demanded that Ukraine withdraw from the entirety of Russia’s new regions as a precondition for peace.
Agreeing to a prompt ceasefire that leaves Russian-claimed territory under Ukrainian control could lead to accusations that Putin is contradicting the constitution after one of the amendments from 2020’s referendum prohibited ceding any of the country’s territory. Nevertheless, a legal loophole could be that nothing is being formally ceded even if the state of affairs remains in place indefinitely, plus the Ukrainian-controlled areas never voted in September 2022’s referendum to unite with Russia.
If the political will is present, then Putin could agree to a prompt ceasefire without any legal difficulties, but the problem of Ukraine exploiting this to rearm wouldn’t go away. He’d also risk looking weak after demanding less than a month ago that Ukraine would have to withdraw from the entirety of Russia’s new regions in order to resume talks. In addition, the conflict’s military-strategic dynamics favor Russia, and it could lose the momentum that it worked so hard to gain by silencing the guns all of a sudden.
Putin candidly admitted last December that he’s no longer naive so it’s very unlikely that he’d carry out yet another “goodwill gesture” after having been led by the nose so many times before in this respect. That’s precisely why he told journalists on the sidelines of last week’s SCO Summit in Astana that “We must ensure that the opposing side agrees to take steps that would be irreversible and acceptable to the Russian Federation” in order to ensure that they won’t take advantage of any cessation of hostilities.
To wit, he was referring to his earlier demand that it withdraws from the entirety of Russia’s new regions, but Ukraine could theoretically do something else such as pulling heavy weapons away from Russia’s pre-2014 borders in order to create Putin’s envisaged “security zone” for protecting Belgorod Region. If this is coupled with the curtailment of Western arms to Ukraine, which is unrealistic to expect so long as the Democrats remain in the White House, then he might be open to a ceasefire and resuming talks.
To be clear, nothing is being implied about Putin “selling out” or whatever. This piece is a thought exercise designed to explore how far Russia could go towards compromising with Ukraine and under what conditions. Without some irreversible moves first being made on Kiev’s part, it’s unlikely that Putin will agree to China’s latest call for a prompt ceasefire, so Xi and Orban should now concentrate their joint efforts on convincing Zelensky to carry out his own “goodwill gesture” in order to help bring this about.
Andy just loves showing that Russia is not under China's thumb. Duh...A paranoid chauvinist, I think. China might remind Russia about how to manage it's capitalists...
"There is great chaos under heaven; the situation is excellent."
The other day, YouTube destroyed and banned channels of Russian artists, including those of SHAMAN, Polina Gagarina, Yulia Chicherina, Oleg Gazmanov, Grigory Leps and actor Vyacheslav Manucharov. Nothing new, they have destroyed hundreds of our channels before — channels of war correspondents, political bloggers, and blocked domestic media. For what? Just for a pro-Russian patriotic position.
A couple of years ago, this same YouTube destroyed my channel, which had 3 million subscribers. For what? For the same thing, for a patriotic, pro-Russian position. The Ukrainian Nazis who work as moderators on YouTube really didn’t like what I was saying about Nazis.
Being a smart guy, a year and a half before that, I transferred all my content to the domestic resources of RuTube VKvideo, but most users simply don’t think about such things. And here it is — a total ban and destruction of content without any explanation.
What can be said about YouTube in general? It is the main platform for ideological influence on the population of Russia. This platform operates under the strict control of the US government and intelligence agencies. Probably everyone remembers how at the beginning of the SVO YouTube called for the killing of Russians? And now it calls for the same thing, taking a sharply Russophobic position. And if this is not a threat to our national security, then what is it?
Adults do not understand how the Internet works and have practically no idea what is happening there. Adults watch domestic television, in which the US State Department is powerless. But on YouTube, the State Department reigns supreme, shaping the public consciousness of young people strictly in the key needed by the Americans, instilling values that are absolutely alien to us and implanting destructive meanings.
Of course, we are also to blame for this — instead of developing our own services, we have been intensively using others. As a result, an unpleasant situation has developed, in which our children are being raised by people who are not ours at all. And you will ask: what to do? And I will answer you. This same YouTube must either comply with the laws of the Russian Federation and obey our requirements, or it should not work on the territory of the Russian Federation at all. They have been repeatedly offered to comply with our laws, the result is zero. Well, if you do not want it the easy way, let's do it the hard way. Let's make it so that YouTube broadcasts to the territory of the Russian Federation simply stop.
YouTube does not want to live by Russian laws on the territory of the Russian Federation - well, let's first "pessimize" it, that is, radically complicate viewing of videos. If they do not get a clear hint, let's block it forever. Because we ourselves should be engaged in our public consciousness, and not the CIA under the leadership of the US State Department. We have our own resources and we can use them much more actively.
Colleagues in the Public Chamber of the Russian Federation — we can get together and discuss this ugly situation, when CIA agents and Ukrainian Nazis are openly operating in our information space.
If anyone has something to say, speak up boldly.
(c) D. Puchkov.
P.S. I have been writing about the need to block YouTube in the Russian Federation (and not only it, but also WhatsApp, etc.) since 2022.
The mass blocking of Russian channels has simply once again highlighted the obvious.
It would be good to also hold those who, since the beginning of the 2010s, have been creating "alternatives to YouTube and taking state money for this."
Terrorist attack on aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov prevented
July 10, 11:24
Terrorist attack on aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov prevented
The Russian FSB prevented terrorist attacks on the heavy aircraft carrier Admiral Kuznetsov in Murmansk, as well as against three servicemen of the Ministry of Defense in Moscow. The agency reported this on July 10.
It is noted that in March, an employee of the Ukrainian special services, who introduced himself as Oleg, contacted a Russian who was serving on the aircraft carrier via a messenger. "Oleg" tried to persuade the serviceman to commit a terrorist attack and promised evacuation to Finland, but he contacted the security services.
Thus, the Ukrainian special service sent the missing components to the Russian citizen through a logistics company to assemble the incendiary device. According to the so-called Oleg, the entire operation was personally supervised by the chairman of the Main Intelligence Directorate (GUR) of Ukraine Kirill Budanov (included in the register of terrorists and extremists in the Russian Federation). At the same time, immediately after receiving the video of the staged terrorist attack on the cruiser, "Oleg" deleted his accounts in instant messengers and severed communications.
Now, a criminal case has been opened against "Oleg" and other unidentified persons under Part 1.1 of Article 205.1 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation ("Incitement, recruitment or other involvement of a person in the commission of a terrorist crime").
In addition, a Russian citizen born in 1994 was detained in Moscow, who, also on the instructions of the Main Intelligence Directorate of Ukraine, organized the delivery of three powerful explosive devices disguised as gifts. According to Kiev's plan, the "gifts" were to be received by the heads of the units of the Russian Defense Ministry.
"The detainee confessed that in May 2024 he was recruited by an employee of the Ukrainian military intelligence and agreed to carry out orders related to the preparation of terrorist acts on the territory of Russia for material reward," the FSB clarified. A criminal case has also been opened on the fact of the incident. The investigation is ongoing, all accomplices of the crimes are wanted.
Progressive scale of personal income tax approved
July 10, 13:53
The Federation Council approved the adoption of a law that introduces a progressive scale of personal income tax, which increases the tax rate for those earning over 2.4 million rubles a year. The largest rate will be 22% for those who earn over 50 million rubles a year.
Roman Grigorievich, and you are Viktyuk
July 10, 14:59
The Viktyuk Theatre in Moscow will be renamed.
This week, the Roman Viktyuk Theatre in Moscow ceased to exist. According to the decision of the new artistic director of the theater, Konstantin Bogomolov, appointed to this post a month ago, it will now be called the Melnikov Theatre – Stage. And although the new management of the troupe and the Russian press emphasize that this is primarily a matter of renaming, Roman Viktyuk’s students and fans are sure that the true goal is the complete destruction of his legacy.
“Videos and photos about Viktyuk have been removed from the theater’s social networks, posts about him have been banned, social networks have been completely cleared, and the YouTube channel has been closed. There are personnel changes, dismissals, and new people are being appointed,” wrote Viktyuk’s student, actor and director Dmitry Golubev on Facebook.
Now the name of the theater will perpetuate the name of the architect of the building in which Viktyuk’s theater was located.
"Konstantin Melnikov is among the outstanding artists of the Russian and Soviet avant-garde who have brought glory to our culture," the theater's management said in a statement.
A petition against "Konstantin Bogomolov's lawlessness and theatrical vandalism" has been created on the Change.org platform. More than 500 people signed it in one day.
The justification, published on the theater's website on July 8, states that the new management will keep in the repertoire those of Viktyuk's works that "have not lost their aesthetic energy" and will support "the memory of the director by organizing anniversary events and lectures."
However, the aesthetics of Roman Viktyuk's productions are unlikely to be welcomed in the cultural space of modern Russia, and one can only guess how many of his plays will continue to exist.
As for the memory of Viktyuk, according to his student, director Konstantin Kamensky, it is currently, to put it mildly, not recommended to write or talk about him in theater circles.
"Viktyuk was out of place in Russia since 2014. We met in London in 2016, I asked him why he was still working in Moscow given what was happening there. After Crimea, it was quite dangerous for a person who did not hide his sympathies for Ukraine to stay there. He told me: 'Where else will I get such actors?'" Kamensky recalls.
The Saratov Higher Artillery Command School will be restored
July 9, 9:08
Prime Minister Mishustin ordered the restoration of the Saratov Higher Artillery Command School. The school itself was created by the Bolsheviks in 1918 and existed until 2003. A large number of future Heroes of the Soviet Union graduated from its walls over the years.
The war showed that the country needs more educational institutions to train the military. Therefore, I believe that this is not the last initiative of this kind.
The country lost many such valuable institutions in the 90s and 2000s. Now life has come to a head, so at least part of what was lost will have to be restored.
Georgia's accession to the EU has been suspended.
The EU has also frozen 30 million euros that were previously promised to Georgia.
The reasons are the same:
1. Adoption of the law on foreign agents.
2. Preparations for the adoption of the law banning LGBT propaganda.
3. Rebellious statements by the leaders of the Georgian Dream.
The US is also using similar measures of influence. Yesterday it was announced that Washington is reviewing all strategic agreements with Georgia, nodding at the above reasons.
They are trying to bring Georgia to submission through threats and pressure, while simultaneously preparing for another attempt to overthrow the Georgian Dream across the street.
The mutiny on the ship must be suppressed. The SVR reported that the US wants to ensure a change of power in Georgia after October 26, when the next parliamentary elections will be held in Georgia.
On the purposes of visits of US delegations to Armenia
July 10, 2024
Rybar
Last week, a bipartisan American delegation led by Senator Roger Wicker visited Armenia .
The composition of the American delegation is more than indicative. Wicker is the chairman of the Helsinki Commission (the US mission to the OSCE), and Ben Cardin is its co-chairman.
The commission promotes “human rights” and military cooperation between the United States and other countries, and lobbies for arms supplies to the so-called Ukraine.
The other part of the delegation is made up of representatives of the Azerbaijani lobby in the US Congress: its co-chairman Robert Aderholt and Joe Wilson, as well as Andy Harris, who voted against anti-Turkish sanctions and against recognizing the Armenian genocide.
It is known that the parties discussed the closure of the Armenian Nuclear Power Plant , which has been operating since Soviet times and is serviced by the Russian Federation.
The media also reported that the closure of the nuclear power plant is in fact a demand of the West , which was put forward at the Armenia-EU-US summit on April 5.
Moreover, Turkey and Azerbaijan have also long been lobbying for the liquidation of the station, citing its unsafety .
The Americans propose to build a small modular reactor in exchange. According to the Secretary of the Armenian Security Council, Armen Grigoryan , the discussion has already entered the substantive phase and "the ball is in the US's court . "
The head of the delegation, Wicker, also called on the Armenians to quickly conclude a peace treaty with Baku and complete the delimitation of borders, which in fact means the uncontrolled surrender of Armenia's most important strongholds.
The Americans have recently been rushing Yerevan to sign peace on Azerbaijan's terms . The "peace" package includes changes to the Armenian Constitution, which Baku is also demanding.
And Wicker quite transparently outlined the goal of the last visit of the American delegation to Armenia - distancing the republic from Russia . Moreover, the official also addressed Azerbaijan, calling on it to "protect itself from the big Russian bear" in order to finally push the Russian Federation out of the South Caucasus region.
Following the visit of the US delegation, the Ministry of Defense announced Armenian-American military exercises to strengthen the rapprochement. It is interesting that this gesture is supposed to strengthen the image of the US as another defender of Armenia, but Washington's interests completely coincide with the interests of those from whom it is supposed to defend itself.
USAID Director Samantha Power also arrived in Yerevan on an unscheduled visit .
At the moment, it is known that Power held talks with representatives of Armenian business . In particular, the official announced the US ambitions to develop high technologies in the republic, primarily software for economic and digital security.
Power's visit will last until July 11, and one can predict news about further initiatives for Armenia from the Americans, who are trying to strengthen the position of the unpopular government of Nikol Pashinyan .
We will need to get the Russians to agree with our strategy.
July 11, 8:21
How the Road to War in Ukraine Was Paved in American Diplomacy Materials.
We Will Need to Get the Russians to Agree with Our Strategy
Here, girls, we have an anniversary NATO summit. And just in time, declassified documents ( https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/briefing-book ... 76f47c3b23 ) from the 90s on NATO expansion to the East have arrived. It's fascinating reading, but long. We have chosen the best of 17 American memoranda and telegrams for you:
Offer membership to the Baltic countries and Ukraine. They should not remain in the "gray zone of Russian influence" - October 14, 1994 ( https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/3222 ... -and-joint ), memorandum by US National Security Advisor Anthony Lake
The issue of "strategic superiority/political insurance" (containing Russia) should be kept in mind, but not spoken, to prevent the allies from limiting themselves to only the Visegrad Group countries (Czech Republic, Slovakia, Hungary, Poland) as new members. Yeltsin needs to regularly talk about the theoretical possibility of Russia joining NATO - October 14, 1994 ( https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/3222 ... -and-joint ), memorandum by US National Security Advisor Anthony Lake.
The main thing is to “Open the doors” for Ukraine, the Baltics, Romania and Bulgaria to join NATO, while publicly declaring that “the doors are open to all comers” — October 14, 1994 ( https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/3222 ... -and-joint ), memorandum by US National Security Advisor Anthony Lake
We need to talk to the Russians about developing and deepening relations with NATO. We will need to get the Russians to agree with our strategy for further NATO expansion to the East — December 21, 1994 ( https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/3222 ... eting-vice ), memorandum of the US Deputy Assistant for National Security Affairs Samuel Berger to President Clinton.
Do not discuss within NATO the possibility of admitting Ukraine to the Alliance, given the sensitivity of this issue for Russia, but maintain these intentions. Develop a separate program for working with Ukraine — December 22, 1994 ( https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/3222 ... w-nicholas ), memorandum of the US National Security Council working group
"We are not going to discuss with the Russians the entry or non-entry of Ukraine and the Baltics into NATO. All their statements about the "rights of Russian speakers" or the "traditional sphere of influence" need to be "slammed hard". And constantly say that if Ukraine and the Baltics want to join NATO, they have every right to do so - the same as Russia itself. "c — namely, to declare the unacceptability of admitting Ukraine and the Baltics into NATO" — August 23, 1996 ( https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/3223 ... next-phase ), Strobe Talbott memorandum on further NATO enlargement
NATO may be needed to fight terrorism, ensure security in Europe, or confront Russia if it again takes the path of expansionism in foreign policy… The United States is not going to train European troops to fight the Russians in Central Europe. We have a new mission to protect our values and interests - February 9, 1997 ( https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/3223 ... rge-kennan ), Talbott's letter to George Kennan in response to Kennan's criticism of NATO expansion
"The Europeans should have pressed Putin hard on Chechnya and said that such issues can only be resolved through diplomacy… …We are likely to pay the price for forcing Yeltsin to change his harsh "no" to a reluctant "yes" on NATO expansion for seven years… …The bosses in Moscow can use their economic successes to restore Russian influence" - November 16, 2000 ( https://nsarchive.gwu.edu/document/3224 ... s-november ), a telegram about a conversation between Talbot and the British ambassador to NATO Manning.
But of course, no one wanted war. They didn't even think about it.
RILEY WAGGAMAN: YOU WILL BE TAGGED AND YOU WILL LOVE IT
JULY 10, 2024
There are a lot of misconceptions about Russia that I encounter on a regular basis. There are, of course, the ones from the establishment about Russia being an autocratic backwards aggressor country. But I also encounter many of a different kind.
For example, I’ve had to explain to several conservative members of my family that Russian conservatism is rather different than American conservatism and if they think they’re going to move to the Russian countryside and enjoy minimal government and have lots of guns, they best think again.
There is also the anti-establishment civil libertarian types who think that the Russian government is some kind of warrior against the WEF-influenced biometric, “cattle-tag” digital id, and vaccine mandate agenda.
Um, no.
While many average Russians do not like or want this, the Russian government largely seems to be ramming it down their throats, as Russian media and sources attest. Neoliberal technocrats still have a lot of sway in the Putin government.
But many people would still rather believe goofy western commentators who are projecting their idealistic fantasies onto Russia. – Natylie
Riley Waggaman, Substack, 6/10/24
As expected, the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum was the hottest anti-globalist multipolar traditional RETVRN values conference of 2024—possibly of all-time.
The unipolar world suffered non-stop humiliations during this mind-blowing freedom event. For example, Moscow Region governor Andrei Vorobyov made an incredible BRICS announcement during a titillating panel discussion about the joys of biometrics, causing the dollar to lose 50% of its value against the gold-backed ruble:
Biometrics is a tool that gives people better quality and more convenience in certain procedures, keeping them neat and tidy. You don’t need any papers or passports—that will all be in the past. Resisting it, in my opinion, is absurd.
The governor of Russia’s second-most-populated region, explaining the inevitable convenience of biometrics—which will replace archaic “papers” and “passports”.
Nothing is being hidden. They’re speaking very frankly. It’s all out there, in the open.
There is even a helpful “recap” of the panel discussion published by SPIEF. Behold the “highlights”:
“I am for biometrics … Everything I do is based on biometrics, everything is based on fingerprints, because I’m too lazy to carry cards with me and it’s much more convenient to just [login in/pass/go] through my face,” pontificated an expert panelist.
Was the BRICS Multipolar Happy Order incapable of finding a single panelist who had reservations about turning eyeballs into IDs? Igor Ashmanov, a member of the Presidential Council for the Development of Civil Society and Human Rights, had to shout his objections from the bleachers because they wouldn’t let his dirty anti-biometric ideas onstage:
source: Telegram
Friend of the blog Simplicius posted a Twitter-summary of Igor’s very rude unipolar objections to biometrics:
This guy sounds like Edward Slavsquat. Great minds think alike.
“Yes, but Russians like biometrics, the most convenient of all forms for identification, which will replace ‘papers’ and ‘passports’,” you might be saying to yourself for some weird and tragic reason.
Take the wheel, nakanune.ru:
People in Russia are narrow-minded and have not yet realized how beautiful, convenient and progressive biometrics are. Therefore, whether they want it or not, the authorities will introduce it wherever possible. Approximately the same reasoning (without these words, but with this meaning) was heard at SPIEF in the section devoted to biometrics. Nakanune.RU provides characteristic statements about the attitude of business towards people.
At first, the presenter of the Russia 24 channel, Maria Kudryavtseva, advertised biometrics, showing how she enters the Unified Biometric System using her face and even the greeting “Hello, Maria!” appears there, which she enthusiastically shows to the audience.
At the same time, there was a feeling of a white gentleman showing “digital beads” to the local natives. And the whole “discussion” came down to one thing—intrusive advertising. It is characteristic that the governor of the Moscow region Andrei Vorobyov, who is a public servant, but showed himself to be a business lobbyist, was also involved in this.
As with artificial intelligence in healthcare , the panel included only proponents of biometrics. Those who might object were simply not invited. Those present were mainly engaged in advertising. Old people do not understand the digital world, but young people were already born with a gadget in their hand, they are very flexible, progressive, digital. They understand how convenient, cool and fast it is. In general, the conversation became very revealing in its vacuity and disregard for the position of citizens.
The first question to the speakers was provocative: is society ready to use biometrics? That is, don’t people want it, does the country need it, not what it will give, not what the risks are—but is society ready, as if the issue has been fundamentally resolved. Which is obscene. Let us recall that according to a 2023 survey , a third of Russians have a positive attitude towards taking biometrics, but almost half are opposed—48%.
[…]
Vorobiev spoke as if he had gone back in time a hundred years ago and was telling backward people of the past about the wonders of the technology of the future. Here are just a few quotes.
“You don’t need a paper or a passport, all this will be a thing of the past, it’s absurd to resist it. We all already use biometrics, including children at school… It’s convenient, you don’t need to twist anything, you just look and that’s it,” said Vorobiev. […]
It is characteristic that one of the main experts in the field of artificial intelligence in the country, a member of the Human Rights Council, Igor Ashmanov, was not invited to the section, who was forced to make remarks from the audience several times, and the section participants politely drew attention to the fact that someone might disagree. So, when Lebedev said that all people are for biometrics, he objected that this was not true. And when they started talking about different points of view, he very briefly but accurately described what was happening.
“You haven’t invited anyone to the presidium, you’re all blowing the same tune! As a member of the Presidential Human Rights Council, I hear completely obscene advertising, and nothing more!” said Ashmanov.
Based on the principles laid down during Stalin's time
July 11, 17:26
Minister of Education Kravtsov reported that the "Movement of the First" is built on the principles laid down during Stalin's time.
The youth "Movement of the First", created in the Russian Federation on the orders of President Vladimir Putin, is based on the principles laid down during the reign of Joseph Stalin, said Education Minister Sergei Kravtsov in an interview with Vedomosti.
"Today, the "Movement of the First" is based on the principles that were implemented in the 1930s. Children can propose their projects, and the "Movement" allows them to be implemented," he said. According to Kravtsov, the idea of the pioneer organization in the 1930s was to "gather and unite the kids."
"Imagine: homelessness, a country after the revolution, a difficult period, many different offenses, sanctions that were introduced against the USSR. First, they gathered the best and most active children to make them guides. Then adults worked with them, and these leaders united the children around themselves," he said. According to Kravtsov, this approach provides for a unified educational program and the task of the current authorities is to make it interesting for children. He admitted that there are certain difficulties with this.
In general, when the road to the West led to a dead end and they rushed to look for support for independent development in the recent past, here and there they bump into Comrade Stalin. After decades of denial. History is not without irony.
Of course, this is not about the fact that now it will be like then - a different formation, a different system, a different era. But, nevertheless, such references are very symptomatic.
Offer membership to the Baltic countries and Ukraine. They should not remain in the "gray zone of Russian influence" - October 14, 1994 ( 
