Russia today

[blindpig]

Worthy & Unworthy Victims: Navalny & Lira
February 28, 2024

While Alexey Navalny’s death commanded 24-hour news coverage, Gonzalo Lira’s death in Ukraine was virtually ignored. Alan MacLeod on why one death apparently mattered so much more to U.S. corporate media.


Alexey Navalny in court in 2013. (Evgeniy Feldman / Novaya Gazeta, Wikimedia Commons,
CC BY-SA 3.0)

By Alan MacLeod
MintPress News

MintPress conducted a quantitative analysis of the media coverage of the two political figures who recently died in prison: Alexey Navalny and Gonzalo Lira.

Both were controversial characters and critics of the governments that imprisoned them. Both died under suspicious circumstances (their families both maintain they were effectively murdered). And both died in the past six weeks, Navalny in February and Lira in January.

A crucial difference in their stories, however, is that Navalny perished in an Arctic penal colony after being arrested in Russia (an enemy state), while Lira’s life ended in a Ukrainian prison, abandoned by the pro-Kiev government in Washington, D.C.

The study compared the coverage of Navalny and Lira’s death in five leading outlets: The New York Times, The Washington Post, ABC News, Fox News and CNN over six days. These outlets were chosen for their reach and influence and, together, could be said to reasonably represent the corporate media spectrum as a whole.

The data was compiled using the Dow Jones Factiva news database and searches on the websites of the news organizations. This study takes no position on the matter of Navalny, Lira or the Russia-Ukraine war.


(MintPress News)

In total, the five outlets collectively ran 731 articles or segments that discussed or mentioned Navalny’s death, including 151 from the Times, 75 from the Post, 177 from ABC, 215 from Fox, and 113 from CNN. This means that each organization studied ran more than one piece per hour.

This media storm stands in stark contrast to the Lira case, where the entire coverage of his death [by the five outlets in the study] boiled down to a single Fox News article.

Moreover, the article in question described him as “spreading pro-Russian propaganda” in its headline, did not inform readers that there was anything suspicious about his death, and appeared to be doing its best to justify his treatment in the body of the article.

Aside from that, there was radio silence.

It is perhaps understandable that Navalny’s death was covered in much greater detail than Lira’s. Navalny was a political leader known across Russia and the world who died just weeks before the country’s presidential elections.

Yet Lira was far from unknown. News anchor Tucker Carlson, for example, devoted an entire show to his imprisonment, while high-profile figures like Twitter owner Elon Musk took up his cause.

State Department spokesperson Matthew Miller has been repeatedly asked about Lira’s case and has failed to offer concrete answers. As an American living in Ukraine who took a pro-Russian line on the invasion, Lira built up a following of hundreds of thousands of people across his social media platforms.

As an American citizen who died while in the custody of a government that the U.S. has provided with tens of billions of dollars in aid, it could be argued that Lira’s case is particularly noteworthy for an American audience and should be given special attention.

Moreover, Lira died more than one month before Navalny, meaning that the study compares more than 40 days of Lira coverage to just six days of coverage of Navalny’s death, making the disparity all the more glaring.

A Tale of Two Deaths


Navalny, center, at a meeting of the Central Election Commission in December 2017. (Evgeny Feldman, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0)

Alexey Navalny was a lawyer, activist and the leader of the opposition Russia of the Future Party. A fierce critic of President Vladimir Putin, for many, especially in the West, he became a symbol of the struggle for human rights and democracy in Russia.

In 2021, he released a documentary film alleging that Putin was building an enormous $1 billion palace on the Black Sea for himself.

Navalny made many enemies and was allegedly poisoned in 2020. Although most in the West believe the Kremlin was behind the incident, this is not a commonly held view in Russia.

After returning from Germany for medical treatment in January 2021, he was incarcerated. On Feb. 16 he died at the notorious Polar Wolf penal camp in Russia’s far north.

“Vladimir Putin killed my husband,” Navalny’s wife, Yulia, said in a statement, adding, “The most important thing we can do for Alexey and for ourselves is to keep fighting more desperately and more fiercely than before.”


A temporary exhibit in Geneva, opposite the U.N., in June 2023 of a replica of a solitary confinement cell where Navalny was held several times. (Markus Schweizer, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0)

Western leaders are largely of the same opinion. President Joe Biden said that, while the details are still unclear, “there is no doubt that the death of Navalny was a consequence of something Putin and his thugs did.”

Latvian President Edgars Rinkevics said that he was “brutally murdered by the Kremlin.” “That’s a fact, and that is something one should know about the true nature of Russia’s current regime,” he added.

Other politicians were more cautious. “Why this hurry to accuse someone?” Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva (Lula) asked. “If the death is under suspicion, we must first carry out an investigation to find out why this person died,” he said.

[Ukraine’s intelligence chief rejected the Russian assassination stories, saying Navalny died of natural causes, from a blood clot.]

Despite this and Lula’s warning, Western nations are already taking action against Russia. Both the U.S. and the U.K. have announced new rounds of “major sanctions” against Moscow, although it is far from clear to what extent previous sanctions actually hurt Russia.

Although he enjoyed a good reputation in the West, in his homeland, Navalny was a controversial character.

Earlier in his political career, he was a prominent leader in xenophobic, far-right marches. He also appeared in a political video where he described the Muslim people of the Northern Caucasus as an “infestation of cockroaches.”

While bugs can be killed with a slipper, in the case of human infestations, “I recommend a pistol,” he said before mimicking shooting one. According to a 2023 poll, just 9 percent of Russians held a positive view of him, compared to 57 percent who disapproved of his activities.


Gonzalo Lira in the Premier Palace Hotel, Kiev, Ukraine. February 2022. (Gonzalo Lira, Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0)

Lira, meanwhile, found success as an author and filmmaker earlier in life. He gained international notoriety, however, because of the 2022 Russian invasion.

As an American living in Ukraine at the time, his thoughts and perspectives traveled widely. He was far from a shrinking violet, often taking a strongly pro-Russian stance on the war, labeling Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky a “cokehead,” and praising Putin’s move as “one of the most brilliant invasions in military history.”

It was this sort of content that angered both the Ukrainian government and many in the United States.

The Daily Beast, for instance, attacked him, describing him as a “pro-Putin shill,” and went so far as to contact the Ukrainian government to make them aware of Lira’s work.

Lira confirmed that, after The Daily Beast’s article, he was arrested by the Ukrainian secret police.

He was rearrested in May 2023 and would never see freedom again. Like with Navalny, Lira’s relatives claim he was badly mistreated in prison, and they blame the government for his death.

“I cannot accept the way my son has died. He was tortured, extorted, [held] incommunicado for 8 months and 11 days, and the U.S. Embassy did nothing to help my son,” Lira’s father wrote. “The responsibility of this tragedy is [with] the dictator Zelensky [and] with the concurrence of a senile American President, Joe Biden… My pain is unbearable. The world must know what is going on in Ukraine with that inhuman dictator Zelensky,” he added.

While Lira was undoubtedly far from neutral, neither was the Western press, which has largely taken a pro-Ukraine, anti-Russia stance. Like Navalny, Lira also had a controversial past.

Under the name “Coach Red Pill,” he made dating and relationship advice videos for the misogynistic manosphere community, where he reportedly offered sexist advice to men such as “never date a woman in her thirties.” [He also wrote in a Telegram post that Augusto Pinochet was the best leader Chile ever had. Lira was Chilean in origin.]

A Tireless Visionary vs. Human Trash


Demonstration around the Russian embassy in Berlin on Feb. 21, 2024, after the death of Alexey Navalny. (A.Savin, Wikimedia Commons, FAL)

Not only was the coverage of Navalny’s death extensive, but it also portrayed the deceased political activist in a highly positive light and gave ample space to figures claiming he was effectively assassinated by the Russian government.

The New York Times, for example, published an op-ed by Nadya Tolokonnikova of the anti-Putin punk band Pussy Riot, in which she said Navalny gave “hope and inspiration to people around the world.” “For many of us in Russia, Alexey was like an older brother or a father figure,” she said, adding:

“He helped me and millions of Russians realize that our country doesn’t have to belong to K.G.B. agents and the Kremlin’s henchmen. He gave us something else, too: a vision he called the ‘beautiful Russia of the future.’ This vision is immortal, unlike us humans. President Vladimir Putin may have silenced Alexey, who died last week. But no matter how hard he tries, Mr. Putin won’t be able to kill Alexey’s beautiful dream.”


Lira while filming Secuestro in 2007. (Guruguru, Wikimedia Commons, Public domain)

In contrast, the sparse coverage Lira’s death received in any outlet resembling a mainstream one was overwhelmingly negative. The Daily Beast, for example, [which was outside the study] ran with the headline “U.S. Finally Confirms American Dating Coach-Turned-Kremlin Shill Died in Ukraine.”

Its subheadline read, “Gonzalo Lira, a blogger who pushed Kremlin propaganda in Ukraine, died after apparently coming down with pneumonia,” meaning that there was no mention of his arrest or jailing in either title or subtitle.

Most media consumers (who do little more than browse headlines) would assume from that description that an awful person met a natural death. The article went on to tear down his credentials as a journalist (which The Daily Beast used only in “scare quotes” when discussing him) and accused him of making “hysterical” pronouncements about how the Ukrainian government was after him – even though he had just died in a Ukrainian prison.

This “good riddance to bad rubbish” framing encapsulated what little coverage of Lira’s death there was in the corporate press.

Worthy & Unworthy Victims

How to explain such an overwhelming disparity in coverage? That American media have so steadfastly ignored the death of Gonzalo Lira – an American citizen – cannot be boiled down to its lack of newsworthiness. Instead, Lira is a victim of the phenomenon that media scholars call worthy and unworthy victims.

In 1988, academics Edward Herman and Noam Chomsky developed the theory of worthy vs. unworthy victims in their book Manufacturing Consent. Together, they compared the media coverage of various violent actions around the world in order to ascertain why certain atrocities are ignored and why others become front-page news.

To Herman and Chomsky, whether the media would be interested in a violent story came down largely to two factors: who is the perpetrator, and who is the victim?

If the perpetrator is an enemy state or hostile actor, then media interest will be exponentially higher.

However, if the United States or its allies are at fault, then the media is likely to ignore the story. Likewise, if the victim is the U.S. or an ally, they will receive a great deal of attention.

However, the media have little interest in presenting enemy actors or states as victims, so those cases will be overlooked.

That is why Herman and Chomsky found, for example, that the coverage of one single murdered priest in an enemy nation (Communist Poland) drew more air time and column inches than the assassinations of over 100 churchmen in massacres committed by U.S.-backed groups in Latin America.

In short, your death will only be covered extensively if there is political capital to be made out of it – if the incident allows media to present enemy parties as barbarous and the U.S. or friendly parties as virtuous or worthy of sympathy.

Navalny was a Western-backed political figure attempting to unseat Putin from power. His death, therefore, checks both boxes of the Worthy Victims checklist, hence the 24-hour coverage across the press.

Lira, on the other hand, was a pro-Russian journalist and commentator who relentlessly critiqued and attacked the Ukrainian government. He is neither a sympathetic character in the corporate media’s eyes, nor does it make any political sense to present the Zelensky administration (whom the U.S. is steadfastly supporting) as responsible for killing an American citizen.

Hence, his story is dropped and does not pass through the filters to make it onto our screens and into public consciousness.


This study is certainly not arguing that Navalny’s death is not a newsworthy event, nor that Lira deserves equal or more coverage. Nor does it take any stance on Navalny or Lira as individuals or on the wider geopolitical tussle between the United States, Russia and Ukraine.

It merely uses these stories as case studies to show that what makes it as “news” in establishment media is not random but the result of an intensely politicized process. In other words, when it comes to deaths, murders or assassinations, the media will likely only cover yours if there is something to be gained from it.

https://consortiumnews.com/2024/02/28/w ... alny-lira/

******

Putin's Address To The Federal Assembly

Today President Vladimir Putin addressed the Russian Federal Assembly.

After taking stock on how Russia responded to recent challenges, Putin asserted that the western attempts against Russia had failed:

The so-called West, with its colonial practices and penchant for inciting ethnic conflicts around the world, not only seeks to impede our progress but also envisions a Russia that is a dependent, declining, and dying space where they can do as they please. In fact, they want to replicate in Russia what they have done in numerous other countries, including Ukraine: sowing discord in our home and weakening us from within. But they were wrong, which has become abundantly clear now that they ran up against the firm resolve and determination of our multi-ethnic people.
...
Together, as citizens of Russia, we will stand united in defence of our freedom and our right to a peaceful and dignified existence. We will chart our own course, to safeguard the continuity of generations, and thus the continuity of historical development, and address the challenges facing the country based on our outlook on the world, our traditions and beliefs, which we will pass down to our children.

Putin continued by reviewing the introduction of new strategic Russian weapon system which are superior to those in the West. He again offered a dialogue over limiting those:

Russia is ready for dialogue with the United States on issues of strategic stability. However, it is important to clarify that in this case we are dealing with a state whose ruling circles are taking openly hostile actions towards us. So, they seriously intend to discuss strategic security issues with us while simultaneously trying to inflict strategic defeat on Russia on the battlefield, as they themselves say.
Here is a good example of their hypocrisy. They have recently made unfounded allegations, in particular, against Russia, regarding plans to deploy nuclear weapons in space. Such fake narratives, and this story is unequivocally false, are designed to involve us in negotiations on their conditions, which will only benefit the United States.

At the same time, they have blocked our proposal which has been on the table for over 15 years. I am referring to the agreement on preventing the deployment of weapons in outer space, which we drafted back in 2008. There has been zero reaction to it. It is totally unclear what they are talking about.

Under such conditions serious strategic security talks with the U.S., which will have to be done in an all including package, are not possible.

Putin also responded to Macron's recent threat of introducing western forces into the war in Ukraine. (It is well know that such forces are already there). Putin:

The West has provoked conflicts in Ukraine, the Middle East, and other regions around the world while consistently propagating falsehoods. Now they have the audacity to say that Russia harbours intentions of attacking Europe. Can you believe it? We all know that their claims are utterly baseless. And at the same time, they are selecting targets to strike on our territory and contemplating the most efficient means of destruction. Now they have started talking about the possibility of deploying NATO military contingents to Ukraine.
But we remember what happened to those who sent their contingents to the territory of our country once before. Today, any potential aggressors will face far graver consequences. They must grasp that we also have weapons – yes, they know this, as I have just said – capable of striking targets on their territory.

This is again followed by an offer to talk:

Indeed, just like any other ideology promoting racism, national superiority or exceptionalism, Russophobia is blinding and stupefying. The United States and its satellites have, in fact, dismantled the European security system which has created risks for everyone.
Clearly, a new equal and indivisible security framework must be created in Eurasia in the foreseeable future. We are ready for a substantive discussion on this subject with all countries and associations that may be interested in it. At the same time, I would like to reiterate (I think this is important for everyone) that no enduring international order is possible without a strong and sovereign Russia.

Putin further asserts that the increasing share of global GDP in BRICS countries and the decrease of the GDP share of the West are a new reality.

There are no way to escape its consequences.

Posted by b on February 29, 2024 at 15:06 UTC | Permalink

https://www.moonofalabama.org/2024/02/p ... .html#more

******

Re-shoeing Garcia-Bernal
February 28, 20:41



Blogger Garcia-Bernal decided to change her shoes.

Lately I’ve often been asked (really, by the way, they’ve been asking) what has changed and why I “turned from Vichka to Zichka.” Why has my position changed? Weird question. If anything, 2 years have passed since the beginning of the war and a lot has changed.

The Ukrainian leadership has moved from the rhetoric of “We want peace” to the rhetoric of “We want to destroy Russia and force the Russians to pay and repent.” We learned from the Ukrainian side that the negotiations (which we all dreamed of) were disrupted in March 2022 by Ukraine on Johnson’s advice. We looked at the terrorist attacks in Russia that are being carried out by the Ukrainian leadership. We saw how European officials gave a damn about the rights of Russians abroad, demonstrating deep xenophobia and so on.

What was possible two years ago - to demand peace, shout NO TO WAR, today already looks like complete bullshit. I honestly mentally searched for options on how to end all this and not endanger my country, Russian citizens and myself personally. And I didn’t find it. There is none of them. Ukraine does not want negotiations. So we continue to fight. I'm tired of trying to persuade people not to die.

You will say: “I changed my shoes.”
And I will answer: “Whoever does not change his shoes, his feet stink.”

The truth is that in the current war it will not be possible to sit on two chairs. The chairs move apart and the ass hangs over the abyss.

One way or another, you have to choose a side. And these sides, as during the Great Patriotic War, are two.
Someone knew it right away. Someone understood after the start of the SVO. Some took 2 years.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/8995710.html

Transnistria turned to Russia for help
February 28, 15:55



The Parliament of Transnistria adopted a resolution asking for help from Russia in connection with the economic blockade of the Republic.

https://ic.pics.livejournal.com/colonel ... 10_900.jpg

Google Translator

****

Russia willing to help its partners in Latin America


Patrushev confirmed Russia is ready to collaborate with its Latin American partners. | Photo: SCRF
Published February 28, 2024 (7 hours 13 minutes ago)

The secretary of the Russian Security Council stated that for the Eurasian giant the events that arise in America are of vital importance.

Nikolai Patrushev, secretary of the Russian Security Council, indicated on Tuesday that his government held meetings with representatives of the governments of Nicaragua, Cuba, Bolivia and Venezuela.

Patrushev confirmed Russia is ready to collaborate with its Latin American partners.


"An exchange of views was held on regional security issues. Measures to counter foreign interference in the internal affairs of sovereign states were discussed in detail," reads a statement from the Russian Security Council.

"Developing friendly ties with its key partners in Latin America and the Caribbean remains one of Moscow's top international priorities," the Russian official added.

He assured that the region is of vital importance for Russia. "It is these countries that are at the forefront of the fight for Latin America's genuine sovereignty and its full place on the world stage," she said.

"For our part, we are willing to provide full and comprehensive support to our Latin American friends. It is necessary to strengthen our coordination on international platforms. Shoulder to shoulder we must defend the sovereign equality of States, the rule of law, the indivisibility of security, the inadmissibility of interference in internal affairs and opposing the illegal pressure of sanctions," he concluded.

During Patrushev's meetings with the special representative of the president of Nicaragua for affairs with Russia, Laureano Ortega, and the advisor for security issues of the Bolivian president, José Hugo Moldiz.

In these meetings, bilateral cooperation issues in the fields of economy and security were addressed.

https://www.telesurtv.net/news/rusia-di ... -0009.html

Google Translator

[blindpig]

Vladimir Putin’s State of the Nation speech today: an overview

Earlier today Vladimir Putin delivered his annual address to the Federal Assembly, Russia’s bicameral legislature, of which the State Duma is the lower house. In addition to the federal level legislators and administrators, the audience numbering slightly more than 1200 included regional governors, leaders of civil society, i.e. representatives of volunteer organizations having national importance, and a large contingent of active servicemen who have participated in the Special Military Operation.

The speech lasted a little more than two hours. To understand its masterful construction, you had to sit through it to the very end, because in the best rhetorical traditions, Putin came full circle. He opened with a long segment dedicated to those actively fighting on Russia’s behalf in the Donbas and all along the line of contact with the enemy forces, risking their lives every day for the sake of the Motherland. This segment culminated in a moment of silence in memory of those who died in the SMO. And he ended the speech with his vision of how those who have distinguished themselves on the field of battle, those who have led men to heroic feats, will be the new ‘elite’ of Russian society occupying the top positions in government, in business and in other spheres.

The primary audience of the speech was, of course, outside the Gostiny Dvor hall where it was delivered. This was a speech urbi et orbi, with many watching around the world for indications about Russia’s future policies in every imaginable sphere. It was inescapable news even for Russia’s biggest detractors. The BBC, for example, soon afterwards chose to inform its audience about Putin’s remarks with respect to risks of a nuclear war, with respect to Russia’s reaction to the possible introduction in Ukraine of regular army units from Western Europe. Their man in Moscow, Steven Rosenberg, who sat in the special press room outside the main auditorium during the speech, described the address somewhat disparagingly as an electoral campaign speech, given that Russians go to the polls to elect their president in just over two weeks time. More generally, Western analysts will bore down on one or another point in a speech which had a great many points and not convey the feel of the address and what it tells you about Russian society and Russian government today.

That is precisely the mission that I set before myself now: without going into detail on each separate item in Putin’s speech, instead to characterize the priorities of this government today and for the future. And I will not set out the absolute ruble numbers of allocations to this or that ongoing or new national project that Putin detailed. At the present exchange rate of 100 rubles=$1, when Putin speaks of funding a new high priority initiative at 1 trillion rubles, we are talking about $10 billion (small change compared to items in the U.S. federal budget). When he proposes 100 billion rubles for some other worthy cause like renovating rural schools, that translates into a still more paltry $1 billion. Of course, $1 billion in Russia will buy a lot more than $1 billion in the USA, but that is beside the point. What counts is the direction in which his and the government’s feet are pointed.

*****

The unmistakable take-away of Putin’s speech is that Russia is today a social market economy which is striving to raise the length and quality of life of the population. The well-known Russian state promotion of ‘traditional values’ has at its core encouragement of families with three or more children. This is first and foremost presented as a validation of the family as the essential building block of society. Putin freely admits that Russian wages are very low, too low in fact, and many measures in the social programs he has introduced and is proposing to expand in this speech are aimed at putting money in the pockets of those who create large families through subsidies in cash and in kind.

Let me say in passing that there are no restrictions on which families are being encouraged to multiply. It is no secret that Muslims in Russia, as elsewhere, presently have more children than do blue-eyed Slavs. No matter. Putin insists that every citizen is equally ‘Russian’ whatever his or her religious or ethnic identity and this is borne out by the government’s demographic policies.

In past years, those demographic policies focused greatest attention on maternity. The ‘maternity capital’ rewards for the second and further babies will stay in place to 2030 as will the subsidized mortgage loans to help young and not so young families to move into new construction housing that meets their needs. Putin remarked that last year Russia produced twice as much residential housing (in square meters) as did the Soviet Union in its best year at the end of the 1980s.

I did not hear any mention of nurseries in this year’s speech, though Putin did speak about improving elementary and secondary school buildings, about leveling up the salaries of school teachers and doctors across all regions of the Federation.

From Putin’s recitation of new national projects, it is clear that attention is now also being directed to help those kids who have been born on Putin’s watch and are adolescents today. One new national project is entitled Kadry, a word taken over from the French, meaning ‘staff.’ Perhaps it would be better to understand this project as ‘Human Resources’ because it aims to vastly improve vocational training, to introduce secondary school students to factories and other work places and open their eyes to the real world opportunities before them. Money will be allocated in the next six years of a new presidential term to more than double the number of engineering schools in the country. The objective is to ensure that the million job openings for highly trained professionals in industry will find properly prepared candidates.

It is interesting and telling that Vladimir Putin’s attention to business interests came near the very end of his speech. He called for extending the existing temporary suspension of administrative inspections of businesses for abuses of fiscal and other rules. As we know, such inspections were always onerous and were subject to abuse by bribe seekers. Tax regulations will be reviewed to ease the transition from start-up to full-scale businesses. Measures will be taken to strengthen the role of stock exchanges in raising capital for industrial investments. And business will be assisted by continuing major federal infrastructure investments in highways, high speed railways, renovated airports and an expanded national commercial fleet, including service on the Northern Sea Route.

I will not say more. I found the most impressive part of the speech to be people-centric, not Putin’s reiteration of Russia’s stated position with respect to negotiations with the USA over strategic stability and similar foreign policy issues.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2024/02/29/ ... -overview/

Yeah, yeah, talk for the masses, gravy for the bosses. Well, gotta remember Doctorow's petty bourgeoise. Putin leads his capitalist state somewhat more responsibly than the Westerners do. Which does not in any way preclude the screaming need for a return to socialism as soon as feasible.

And after all, there's an election around the corner...

And if that 'ear to the ground' strains to listen it can hear The Internationale.

Postscript to Overview of Vladimir Putin’s State of the Nation address

Putin’s two hour and five minute address was very rich in ideas and my overview of yesterday was incomplete. In what follows below, I propose to direct attention to several further elements of the speech that merit discussion.

It bears mention that during the speech Vladimir Putin explained more than once that many of the new initiatives he was promoting for implementation in his next term in office should he be elected came from his meetings these past several months with ordinary citizens, with businessmen and with civic groups as he traveled across country. The shift from neo-Liberal concepts of economic management that were so dominant before the Kremlin put the economy on a war footing to a more dirigiste approach focused on raising the quality of life for the vast majority of the population today reflects this ‘ear to the ground’ approach.

In the West, it is assumed that only representative democracy can ensure furtherance of the interests of the general population, but that is a myth. We all know how little the views of the electorate influence the setting of foreign policy in the EU, to take just one example, and in these days of self-defeating sanctions on Russia nothing could be more immediately connected with the state of the economy and welfare of the population in the EU than its foreign policy.

Russia’s ‘managed democracy’ under Vladimir Putin benefits from the way The Boss insists on breaking out of his narrow circle of advisors and meeting personally with people in all walks of life to perform his own reality check. For those who doubt my words, I refer you to Jacques Baud, author of The Russian Art of War. Baud tells us that the Russian General Staff is in direct communication with soldiers and officers in the trenches and regularly receives from them tips on how to improve tactics and strategy. Why then should Russia’s civilian leadership be less branché.

As I said yesterday, Putin’s development plans for Russia’s future over the coming six years have many social welfare components. It is important to note that they are not spoken about as ‘expenses.’ No, they are viewed as investments in the country’s future that will pay back handsomely in rubles and kopeks from a citizenry that is healthier, better educated and earning more taxable income. The difference in approach is not seen in the headings of the Treasury ledger, but is now and henceforth will be on the minds of legislators as they weigh appropriations.

On the subject of taxes, yesterday I failed to mention a remarkable proposal from the President that came in the final minutes of the speech, that the flat 15% income tax regime that Putin introduced at the very start of his first term in office be replaced by a progressive tax that takes more from the wealthy few and less from the poorer strata of the population. The objective is to level up, to reduce the enormous disparities in income among the Russian population. This proposal was not fleshed out. I would say it was a trial balloon for what will be a tough debate on taxation principles in the months ahead.

Finally, I turn attention to Vladimir Putin’s plans to create new ‘elites’ in Russian society by promoting Special Military Operation veterans who were distinguished for heroism to leadership positions in government and business. Without saying so explicitly, the idea is to replace the thieves and cunning operators who made their fortunes and consolidated their privileged position in society during the wild 1990s by people who are genuinely patriotic and brave, by people who proved themselves on the field of battle. In particular, these heroes will be offered entrance to the nation’s best institutions of higher learning to prepare them for their future roles in civilian life or in the military, if they wish to continue their careers there.

This idea did not come from nowhere. A similar policy of social mobility was practiced in the USSR in the years following WWII. It also reminds me of the ‘GI Bill’ that entitled U.S. veterans of WWII and the Korean War to get a free higher education, cheap home mortgages and the like. When I entered the world of U.S. multinationals in the 1980s, many of the top executives were precisely former senior military officers.

This very idea of admitting bearers of medals for bravery on the field of battle to top universities without obliging them to pass the usual entry exams has been a subject of discussion on Russian talk shows for the past several months. It stirred up controversy, with special objections raised on the very eve of Putin’s speech when put forward by Vladimir Solovyov. The naysayer was the dean of an international affairs department from Moscow State University who could not accept that persons without the appropriate knowledge base would be admitted to classes. However, it may well be that other, namely political objections underlay this opposition. It would not be an exaggeration to say that university faculty in Russia tend to be more liberal than the general population, and the thought of having to face down patriotic war heroes in class might be intimidating to faculty.

For exactly the same reason the idea enjoys the support of Russia’s more conservative minded legislators who also appear on the Solovyov show. If it is not possible to weed out the less than enthusiastic Putin supporters on faculty, then bringing heroes into the classroom might find liberal faculty biting their tongues.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2024/03/01/ ... n-address/

******

Russia to Develop Measures Against Sweden's NATO Membership


Russian Foreign Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova. | Photo: X/ @Ferreira67Paulo

Published 29 February 2024

On Monday, Hungarian lawmakers approved a bill on Sweden's bid to join NATO, clearing the way for Sweden's accession to the U.S.-led alliance.​​​​​​


On Wednesday, Foreign Affairs Ministry Spokesperson Maria Zakharova said Russia will closely monitor Sweden's actions following the country's accession to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO).

"We will closely monitor what Sweden will do within the aggressive military bloc, how it will implement its membership in practice... and develop our response policy based on this," she said, adding that Moscow will choose which measures it will take, including military-technical ones, to curb threats to Russia's national security.

Zakharova recalled that Sweden's traditional non-alignment policy used to be an important factor in maintaining stability in Northern Europe, adding that the country's NATO membership will further undermine its sovereignty.

Previously, on Monday, Hungarian lawmakers approved a bill on Sweden's bid to join NATO, clearing the way for Sweden's accession to the military alliance.



During the second congress of the International Movement of Russophiles, Zakharova also referred to the West-financed NGOs that are acting as geopolitical instruments and trying to politically destabilize the countries that formerly belonged to the Soviet Union.

"The result of their so-called work is inevitable destabilization of the socio-political and economic situation in these countries, which creates the so-called belt of instability around Russia," she said, as reported by the TASS agency.

"Financial support is rendered to various extremist, political, and religious organizations," Zakharova pointed out, adding that the discredit campaigns of the governments and political forces in such countries seek to prevent their people from developing their own political, religious, and moral values.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Rus ... -0005.html

******

DENMARK FOLLOWS SWEDEN AND CLOSES INVESTIGATION INTO NORD STREAM SABOTAGE
Feb 29, 2024 , 11:07 am .


Gas leak in the Nord Stream 2 gas pipeline, September 28, 2022 (Photo: Swedish Coast Guard)

Last Monday, February 26, Denmark completed its investigation into the explosions in the Nord Stream gas pipelines that occurred in 2022, which transported Russian gas to Germany. After a year and a half of monitoring the case, the police of the Nordic country concluded that there was deliberate sabotage of the gas pipelines, but "the evaluation is that there are not sufficient reasons to initiate a criminal case because the attacks occurred outside their jurisdiction.

A few weeks earlier, Sweden had announced the closure of its investigation into the attacks. The conclusion of the Swedish prosecutors was basically the same: "Swedish jurisdiction does not apply" to the case and for this reason "the investigation must be closed." Swedish prosecutor Mats Ljungqvist led the preliminary investigation and called the action against Russian gas pipelines "serious sabotage."

The Nord Stream 1 and 2 gas pipelines carrying Russian gas under the Baltic Sea were damaged by a series of explosions in the Swedish and Danish economic zones in September 2022, occurring seven months after Russia launched the Special Military Operation in Ukraine. .

In December 2023, Russia pointed out that Denmark's attitude confirmed that it was hiding the truth about the true perpetrators of the terrorist attacks, since it received a refusal from the Danish side to provide legal assistance in the investigation of the Nord Stream explosions.

It caused a lot of suspicion that Denmark has excluded Russia from the investigation into the attacks, even though the Russian energy giant Gazprom is the majority shareholder of the gas pipelines that transported supplies to Europe along the bottom of the Baltic Sea. "In Denmark, Sweden and Germany the rule of law prevails and our investigations can be trusted," Foreign Minister Lars Løkke Rasmussen said in March last year.


Nord Stream (Photo: BBC)

Of the three countries that organized the investigation, Germany remains interested in getting to the bottom of the explosions that ruptured the Nord Stream oil pipelines. Reuters reports that Germany told the UN Security Council that it had found traces of underwater explosives on a sailboat that may have been used to transport the cargo, and that trained divers could have connected the explosives to the pipes.

Kremlin spokesman Dmitri Peskov called Denmark's decision to end the investigation "almost absurd," especially given the fact that "they admit it was sabotage." "It is obvious that during the investigation they began to discover that their closest allies are involved," he argued.

In the recent interview that the American journalist Tucker Carlson did with the president of Russia, Vladimir Putin, the question arose: Who blew up the Nord Stream?

To this question, the Russian president responded: "You, of course (…) I am not going to go into details, but in these cases it is always said: look for whoever is interested. But, in this case, we must look not only for someone who interested, but also someone who can do it. Because there may be many interested parties, but not everyone can reach the bottom of the Baltic Sea and make that explosion. These two components must be connected: who is interested and who can [do it]." , explained the president.

Regarding Germany's silence about the possible involvement of NATO in the explosion of the gas pipelines, despite having suffered a blow to its economy as a result of the sabotage, the Russian leader said that the current German authorities "are not guided by the interests but for the interests of the collective West; otherwise, it is difficult to explain the logic of their actions or inaction.

If the participation of the United States or any other member of the Atlantic alliance against this Russian infrastructure, but critical for the interests of Germany, is proven, we would be demonstrating a forceful blow to the stability, cohesion and credibility of the organization as guarantor of the collective interests of its members. It would be the first time that a member of the alliance affects the direct interests of another member of the organization.

https://misionverdad.com/globalistan/di ... ord-stream

Google Translator

*******

Ryzhkov is buried
March 1, 13:39



In addition to Navalny, Ryzhkov is also being buried today.
One of those involved in the death of the USSR, although he later excused himself with all his might and stated that he fought against it.
But in fact, political and economic decisions fatal to the country were advanced with his complicity or non-resistance.
Yes, he was not a direct internal enemy, like Yakovlev and Shevardnadze, who deliberately destroyed the country led to destruction by Gorbachev, but Ryzhkov certainly made his contribution to the collapse of the USSR. It’s even strange that they are trying to assure that the country’s prime minister under Gorbachev is not responsible for the economic course pursued by the USSR government in the second half of the 80s. Ryzhkov resigned when the main critical damage to the USSR economy had already been done.

Ryzhkov was largely lucky that he openly polemicized with Yeltsin and criticized the “sharp market,” which later created for him a kind of alibi that he was opposed to “Yeltsin’s reforms.” Here, yes, he criticized Yeltsin often. But this does not cancel his activities during the period of work for Gorbachev.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/8998779.html

Google Translator

Western Media Baselessly Accuse Belarus of Holding Fake Elections

Lucas Leiroz

February 29, 2024

The absence of OSCE observers is due to West’s hostilities against Minsk.

On February 25th, the Belarusian people went to the polls to choose their new representatives in Parliament. The national and district legislative elections had massive support from the local people, taking place peacefully and calmly. However, the Western media insists on classifying Minsk as a “dictatorial regime” that carries out “orchestrated elections” to “disguise” a supposed totalitarianism.

Western accusations are marked by the absence of any evidence. The Belarusian government is accused of manipulating the elections to consolidate support in Parliament. Since Belarus is considered an “authoritarian regime” in the West, local elections are automatically considered “invalid”, being seen only as a disguise mechanism to camouflage the supposed dictatorial aspects of the Belarusian state.

Not only that. The West has created the narrative that the 2024 elections are just a tactic for the Belarusian government to “satisfy” Russia. According to the New York Times, Belarus’s intention with the elections is to show Moscow that internal opposition in the country has been eradicated, with all local parties supporting Belarus’ “participation” in Russian military actions in Ukraine.

“For the government, the election on Sunday — the first since Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine, which neighbors Belarus to the south — is important as an opportunity to show Moscow, its ally, that it has snuffed out all domestic opposition and survived economic and other strains imposed by the war. Russia, which has in the past had doubts about Mr. Lukashenko’s durability and reliability, launched its invasion in February 2022 in part from Belarusian territory,” a NYT’s article reads.

This narrative is absolutely illogical. For it to make sense, elections in Belarus should be something rare, with the Russian operation motivating an exceptional call to the polls. However, this is not the reality of the country. There are regular elections in Belarus, with the government fulfilling a democratic program of popular representation. Furthermore, Belarus does not participate in the special military operation. The country allows the transit of Russian troops within its territory, which is natural since Moscow and Minsk share a broad military cooperation treaty within the scope of the Union State. Russian troops could circulate through Belarus whether or not there is a conflict in Ukraine, so the mere fact that some Russian forces entered the operation zone from Belarus does not establish a real participation in the conflict on the part of Minsk.

It is also important to emphasize that not only media outlets spread lies about Belarus, but also official channels, such as the U.S. State Department website. According to the Department, the Belarusian elections are “sham” and should not be considered fair and transparent. The statement also highlighted the fact that international observers from the OSCE were not invited to participate in the electoral process, which is why, according to Washington, the elections should be considered invalid.

“The United States condemns the Lukashenka regime’s sham parliamentary and local elections that concluded today in Belarus. The elections were held in a climate of fear under which no electoral processes could be called democratic (…) The regime prevented the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe from observing the elections, further limiting the transparency that is essential to free and fair elections. The United States recognizes the strength, resilience, and courage of Belarus’s civil society and democratic movement, which demand a voice in determining their country’s future. The United States again calls on the Lukashenka regime to end its crackdown, release all political prisoners, and open dialogue with its political opponents. The Belarusian people deserve better,” the Department published.

In fact, OSCE observers were not in Belarus during the elections on the 25th. The reason is simple. The OSCE has quickly become an organization that is not very functional in resolving diplomatic conflicts. OSCE member countries have increased their hostility towards the Republic of Belarus and the Russian Federation, and the organization has not acted appropriately to prevent the growth of tensions.

Currently, several OSCE member countries refuse to recognize the legitimate government of Aleksandr Lukashenko, while endorsing support for the self-exiled dissident Sviatlana Tsikhanouskaya – a public figure linked to several extremist and neo-Nazi groups that operate freely in countries neighboring Belarus. The Belarusian NATO-backed opposition’s links with ultranationalist groups in fact led the government to carry out several arrests, guaranteeing national security and preventing civil conflict. However, the West, which funds these groups and is interested in fomenting chaos in Belarus, continues to insist that Minsk makes “arbitrary arrests”, delegitimizing the Belarusian government’s reasons for being cautious in the face of radical dissidence.

Indeed, it is possible to say that no Western media or official has managed to substantiate their anti-Belarus allegations. Minsk held its elections sovereignly and in official statements local authorities reaffirmed that the aim of the electoral process is to enable popular representation, not to please the West. While lies are spread against the country, the local people seem truly satisfied with the elections and Lukashenko’s policies, having no sign of popular outrage.

Without infiltrated Western agents disguised as the “democratic opposition”, the elections took place calmly, without disturbances and polarization. The results are expected to be announced soon, with parliamentarians being elected for a five-year term. In practice, Belarus is showing the world a model of illiberal democracy, proving that it is possible for countries to follow alternative democratic arrangements without being subservient to Western “rules” and interests.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/ ... elections/

[blindpig]

Putin Learned From His Mistakes and Today Gives Us Precious Lessons

Eduardo Vasco

March 1, 2024
True “multipolarity” will only be viable when there are no more imperial powers, that is, when the current political and economic regimes of the great capitalist powers, the U.S. and Europe, cease to exist.

In his interview with American journalist Tucker Carlson, President Vladimir Putin mentioned a fact that, for those – like me – who didn’t follow international politics 20 years ago, seems surreal.

The Russian leader referred to a meeting he had with then-American President Bill Clinton in the Moscow Kremlin.

“I asked him, ‘Bill, if Russia raised the issue of NATO membership, do you think it would be possible?’” Putin told Carlson. “Clinton replied: ‘It would be interesting, I think so!’” he continued. On the evening of that same day, when the two met again for dinner, Clinton’s opinion had changed radically. “‘I talked to my team. It’s not possible now,’” Clinton told Putin, according to the latter.

“If he had said ‘yes’, the process of getting closer would have started, and, in the end, this could have happened if we saw a sincere desire from the partners,” he explained to Carlson.

A few days after this famous interview that went around the world, the BBC aired an interview with a former head of NATO confirming Putin’s intentions to join the military alliance in the early 2000s. “We had a good relationship”, revealed George Robertson.

The Putin he met “wanted to cooperate with NATO” and “was very, very different from this almost megalomaniac of today”, recalled the historic member of the British Labor Party, staunch defender of Scotland’s slavery under the English yoke – even though he is Scottish – and who doesn’t realize that he lacks absolute morality to criticize the Russian intervention in Ukraine.

With all the arrogance of a British man who still thinks he owns the world, Robertson indicated that the imperialist powers that, under his mandate at the head of NATO, finished attacking Yugoslavia and began the invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq did not want to deal with Russia as an equal, but rather as a vassal within the organization.

Putin may not have fully understood the message at the time. He did not yet realize NATO’s expansionist aspirations. He fought against Chechen Muslim separatists, who carried out terrorist attacks on Russian territory. Therefore, he felt the need to support George W. Bush’s infamous “war on terror”.

In fact, until then relations between Russia and the West had been relatively good since the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Yeltsin was a darling of the “international community”, as had Gorbachev. But the economic devastation caused by the neoliberal shock did not please an important part of the Russian elite, particularly the military.

The political, economic and social crisis was not resolved. By 1998, eight out of ten farms had gone bankrupt and 70,000 state-owned factories had closed. In 1994, a third of Russians lived below the poverty line and, even ten years later, 20% were still in this situation. Russia had lost 10% of its population due to capitalist savagery. The rates of suicide, murder, alcoholism, drug use, sexually transmitted diseases and prostitution had increased exponentially. Huge street demonstrations expressed the population’s discontent, which almost led to the communist party’s return to power. The country’s president was a drunkard and the Chechen War threatened to spread to other regions and balkanize Russia – the division of Yugoslavia occurred in parallel with the Russian crisis.

Putin rose to power as a natural successor to Yeltsin. But the real conditions in Russia (internal and external) forced him to take an opposite path. Internal social pressures were added to the second-class treatment received from Western powers and NATO’s moves towards its border.

He began by stabilizing the internal situation. He renationalized key companies in the gas, oil and aviation sectors, such as Rosneft, Yukos (merged into Rosneft), Gazprom and Aeroflot and created RZD to control the transport system. It also benefited national capitalists (or “oligarchs”, according to the propaganda of international bankers) to the detriment of foreigners. At the same time, he fought the separatists with an iron fist, regained control of the Caucasus, pacified the region and fully unified the country.

Despite officially supporting Putin’s war against the Chechens, the U.S. actually had a dual policy. At the same time, it was in the interest of the imperialist powers to divide Russia to weaken it even more than they did with the fall of the USSR. After all, even if the government of a given country is an ally, it is always preferable to imperialism to reduce its territory to facilitate its domination.

While they did not accept Russia’s integration, the imperialist powers bought Moscow’s former allies and integrated them into NATO. In 1999, the Czech Republic, Hungary and Poland joined the alliance. In 2004, it was the turn of Bulgaria, Slovakia, Slovenia, Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania and Romania. In 2009, Albania and Croatia. Russia was surrounded militarily, with weapons pointed at its territory, by the same people who, at that time, had already devastated Iraq and Afghanistan.

The Orange Revolution in Ukraine in 2004 and the Ossetian War in 2008 reinforced the arguments of those who warned of a real threat to Russia. But apparently these voices were not yet dominant in the Kremlin. Moscow – and also Beijing, by the way – allowed the U.S., UK and French bombings against Libya and the subsequent execution of Muammar Gaddafi, naively believing that Western imperialism would stop there.

But the Russians were learning from recent experience. Putin’s famous speech at the Munich Security Conference in 2007, during which he criticized pseudodemocratic demagoguery, the unipolar model and imperialist expansionism and its wars of conquest, indicated that Russia was already understanding what imperialism is. Putin spoke for the first time to all world leaders about the danger of NATO’s expansion to Russia’s borders. He also mentioned the unfair and extreme inequality in economic relations between rich and poor nations and cited the example of his country.

“More than 26% of oil extraction in Russia is carried out by foreign capital. Try to find a similar example where Russian companies participate so extensively in key economic sectors in Western countries. These examples do not exist. I would also recall the parity of foreign investments in Russia and those that Russia makes abroad. She’s about 15 to one. For a long time we were told more than once about freedom of expression, freedom of trade and equal opportunities, but for some reason exclusively in reference to the Russian market.” – This statement has a meaning that, even today, most people are unable to understand.

Russia definitively changed its position following the complete destruction of Libya. From a belief in collaboration with those who sought to oppress him, he moved to a policy of defense against that oppression. When the U.S., UK and France tried to repeat in Syria what they did in Libya, Moscow and Beijing finally used their veto power in the UN Security Council. They realized that the 2008 crisis would force the imperialist nations to deepen the exploitation of the rest of the countries to save their monopolies and ensure the maintenance of the old and rotten world order. And Russia and China, with their natural resources, large consumer market and, at the same time, economic and military potential, would certainly be major targets of this attack.

However, Russia was not yet up to the task of combating the imminent threats. That’s why it didn’t prevent the 2014 coup in Ukraine. From then on, it learned to adapt its economy to the sanctions imposed by the U.S. and Europe due to the reincorporation of Crimea and accelerated the development and modernization of its military power.

However, at the same time that imperialist aggression increased against small nations – with the partial invasion of Syria by the U.S. and the total invasion of Mali by France and with the coups d’état in Asia and mainly in Latin America – the crisis at the center of the imperialist system was intensifying. It expressed itself mainly on Brexit and political polarization in the U.S. The crisis that began in 2008, instead of being overcome, showed signs of returning. The imperialist forces showed signs of weakness.

Finally, the sudden expulsion of the United States by the Taliban in Afghanistan, in 2021, opened the path that Russia so longed for to respond to the suffocation imposed on it. The military intervention in the war in Ukraine (war which began in 2014) completes two years demonstrating to the world that Russia has learned the lesson of the last 30 years. Vladimir Putin’s government no longer trusts imperialism and is trying to counterattack it. And as they watched, dumbfounded, as the Russian army turned on NATO and said “no” to its capture of Ukraine to attack Russia, the people of the world discovered that it is time to do as the Russians – and before that, the Afghans – did. The spectacular operation Storm of al-Aqsa and the heroic war of resistance of the Palestinians against the Zionists was only possible because the Taliban opened the way and the Russians expanded it, shaking the entire world imperialist system.

There is no doubt that other oppressed nations will follow Russia’s example. In fact, since 2022 Moscow has been attracting a growing number of supporters to its proposal to combat Western hegemony.

Putin thought he could participate as equals in the division of the world, as Stalin had thought. But the imperialist club has been closed to new members for a long time. Because Putin is smarter than Stalin – and almost all contemporary national leaders – he abandoned the prospects of cooperation with NATO and (thank God!) turned into a “megalomaniac”, in the words of George Robertson.

There is only one obstacle left to be overcome for Russians to receive an A on their homework: Russia’s complete independence from the great capitalist powers. This, in fact, is the biggest obstacle. There is still an important influence of the old imperialist order on the Russian economy, politics and society, despite the spectacular advances of recent years.

This level of independence can only be achieved with a victory over the imperialist powers. That is, a victory over the world domination of imperialism. True “multipolarity” will only be viable when there are no more imperial powers, that is, when the current political and economic regimes of the great capitalist powers, the U.S. and Europe, cease to exist. When the international capitalist system is overcome, thus ending the era of exploitation of one nation by another. Unfortunately, this no longer depends on Russia. But its action against this international order is a precious support to other peoples, which accelerates the process of decomposition of this old order and encourages us to believe that another world is possible.

https://strategic-culture.su/news/2024/ ... s-lessons/

******

VLADIMIR PUTIN’S ADDRESS TO THE FEDERAL ASSEMBLY (TRANSCRIPT)
MARCH 1, 2024

Kremlin website, 2/28/24( The Russian site is blocked by our freedom-loving government...Transcript at link.)

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2024/03/vla ... ranscript/

[blindpig]

MARCH 4, 2024 BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR
Putin’s nuclear warning is direct and explicit


Russian President Vladimir Putin addressed the Federal Assembly, Moscow, February 29, 2024

The spectre of Armageddon has been raised often enough during the 2-year old war in Ukraine that the reference to it in Russian President Vladimir Putin’s state of the union address on Thursday had a familiar ring about it. Therein lies the risk of misjudgement on the part of the western audience that Putin was only “crying wolf”.

Three things must be noted at the outset. First, Putin has been explicit and direct. He is giving advance notice that he is obliged to respond with nuclear capability if the Russian statehood is threatened. Eschewing innuendos or dark hints, Putin actually made a sombre declaration of epochal significance.

Second, Putin was addressing the Federal Assembly in front of the crème de la crème of the Russian elite and took the entire nation into confidence that the country may be pushed into a nuclear war for its self-preservation.

Third, a specific context is sailing into view precipitated by foolhardy, impetuous western statesmen who are desperate to stave off an impending defeat in the war, which they began in the first instance, with the stated intention to destroy Russia’s economy, create social and political instability that would lead to a regime change in the Kremlin.

In reality, the US Secretary Lloyd Austin’s prognosis on Thursday at a Congressional hearing in Washington that “NATO will be in a fight with Russia” if Ukraine was defeated is the manifestation of a predicament that the Biden Administration faces after having led Europe to the brink of an abysmal defeat in Ukraine engendering grave uncertainties regarding its economic recovery and de-industrialisation due to the blowback of sanctions against Russia.

Plainly put, what Austin meant was that if Ukraine loses, NATO will have to go against Russia, as otherwise the future credibility of the western alliance system will be in jeopardy. It’s a call to Europe to rally for a continental war.

What French President Emmanuel Macron stated earlier last week on Monday was also an articulation of that same mindset, when he caused a storm by hinting that sending ground troops to help Kyiv was a possibility.

To quote Macron, “There is no consensus today to send ground troops officially but … nothing is ruled out. We will do whatever it takes to ensure that Russia cannot win this war. The defeat of Russia is indispensable to the security and stability of Europe.”

Macron was speaking after a summit of 20 European countries in Paris where a “restricted document” under discussion had implied “that a number of NATO and EU member states were considering sending troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis,” according to Slovak Prime Minister Robert Fico.

Fico said the document “sends shivers down your spine,” as it implied that “a number of NATO and EU member states are considering sending troops to Ukraine on a bilateral basis.”

Fico’s disclosure would not have come as surprise for Moscow, which has now put on the public domain the transcript of a confidential conversation between two German generals back on February 19 discussing the scenario of a potential attack on the Crimean Bridge with Taurus missiles and possible combat deployment by Berlin in Ukraine belying all public denials by Chancellor Olaf Scholz.

Aptly enough, Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov called the transcript “a screaming revelation.’‘ Interestingly, the transcript reveals that American and British servicemen are already deployed in Ukraine — something Moscow has been alleging for months — and such other details too.

This is a moment of truth for Russia. After learning to live with the steady upgrade of western weaponry supplied to Ukraine, which now includes Patriot missiles and F-16 fighter jets, after having signalled vainly that any attack on Crimea or any attack on Russian territory would be regarded as a red line; after gingerly sidestepping the US-UK participation in operations to bring the war home to Russian territory — Macron’s belligerent statement last week has been the proverbial last straw for the Kremlin. It envisages western combat deployment to fight and kill Russian soldiers and conquer territories on behalf of Kiev.

At the speech on Thursday, which was almost entirely devoted to a hugely ambitious and forward-looking road map to address social and economic issues under the new normalcy Russia has achieved even under conditions of western sanctions, Putin held out a warning to the entire West by placing nuclear weapons on the table.

Putin underscored that any (further) crossing of the unwritten ground rules will be unacceptable — that while the US and its NATO allies provide military assistance to Ukraine but do not attack Russia’s soil and do not directly engage in combat, Russia would confine itself to using conventional weapons.

Quintessentially, the thrust of Putin’s remarks lies in his refusal to accept a fate for Russia in existential terms arranged by the West. The thinking behind it is not hard to comprehend. Simply put, Russia will not allow any attempt by the US and its allies to reshape the ground situation by impacting the front lines with NATO military personnel backed by advanced weaponry and satellite capabilities.

Putin has put the ball firmly in the Western court to decide whether the NATO will risk a nuclear confrontation, which of course is not Russia’s choice.

The context in which all this is unfolding has been pithily framed by the leader of a NATO country, Hungary’s prime minister Viktor Orban, while addressing a forum of top diplomats in Antalya in the Turkish Riviera in the weekend when he stressed that “Europeans, along with the Ukrainians are losing the war and have no idea of how to find a way out of this situation.”

Orban said, “We, Europeans, are now in a difficult position,” adding that European countries took the conflict in Ukraine “as their own war” and realise belatedly that time is not on Ukraine’s side. “Time is on Russia’s side. That is why it is necessary to stop hostilities immediately.”

As he put it, “If you think that this is your war, but the enemy is stronger than you and has advantages on the battlefield, in this case, you are in the losers’ camp and it will not be an easy task to find a way out of this situation. Now, we Europeans, along with the Ukrainians, are losing the war and have no idea of how to find a way out of this situation, a way out of this conflict. This is a very serious problem.”

This is the crux of the matter. In the circumstances, the bottom line is that it will be catastrophic speciousness on the part of the western leadership and public opinion not to grasp the full import of Putin’s stark warning that Moscow means what it has been saying, namely, that it will regard any western combat deployment in Ukraine by NATO countries as an act of war.

To be sure, if Russia faces the risk of military defeat in Ukraine at the hands of NATO forces on combat deployment and Donbass and Novorossiya regions are at risk of being subjugated once again, that would threaten the stability and integrity of Russian statehood — and challenge the legitimacy of the Kremlin leadership itself — wherein the question of using nuclear weapons may become more open.

To drive home the point, Putin glanced through the Russian inventory that buttresses its nuclear superiority today, which the US cannot possibly match. And he further de-classified some top-secret information: “Efforts to develop several other new weapons systems continue, and we are expecting to hear even more about the achievements of our researchers and weapons manufacturers.”

https://www.indianpunchline.com/putins- ... -explicit/

******

Armenia Freezes Participation in Collective Security Treaty Organization, Further Poisoning Ties With Russia
Posted on March 4, 2024 by Conor Gallagher

Armenian Prime Minister Pashinyan has told the national assembly that Armenia is “freezing” its participation in the Russia-led Collective Security Treaty Organization.

Prime Minister of Armenia Nikol Pashinyan announced in the National Assembly that CSTO is a threat to the national security of the Republic of Armenia.

He noted that Armenia has de facto frozen contact with the CSTO, and if this process continues, it will also be officially… pic.twitter.com/RWnZJOz6nE

— 301 (@301arm) February 28, 2024

He first delivered the news to media in his main new benefactor country, telling France 24 on Feb. 22. “As for what comes next, we shall have to see,” he said. Indeed.

Pashinyan added that as of now there’s no discussion to close Russia’s base in Gyumri in northwestern Armenia as that is subject to another treaty. But a permanent exit from the CSTO would appear imminent considering the anti-Russian course Armenia has been on for months now.

Why Is Armenia “Freezing” Participation in the CSTO?

Pashinyan and Armenian nationalists continue to scapegoat Russia for the country’s recent defeats.

“The Collective Security Treaty has not fulfilled its objectives as far as Armenia is concerned, particularly in 2021 and 2022. And we could not let that happen without taking notice,” Pashinyan said.

At the risk of oversimplification, following the USSR collapse, Azerbaijan joined the Armenian nationalists’ enemy list and were equated with Turks as the two new countries fought over their border and Nagorno-Karabakh. Although Armenia won control of the territory, it came at a high cost. Yerevan had no other choice but to fully embrace Russia as security guarantor. The Armenian democratic movement did not view Moscow as a friend, but it needed protectorate status in order to ensure victory.

So Armenia emerged from the conflict with the Nagorno-Karabakh exclave (internationally recognized as Azerbaijan territory), mostly surrounded by enemies, and reliant on Russia for protection (it’s also reliant on Russia economically).

In the 2020 war in which Armenia was outmatched by Azerbaijan, the peace was brokered by Russia, and Moscow had since been attempting to work with both sides to implement parts of that agreement and resolve the Nagorno Karabakh issue. When Pashinyan complains about the CSTO not fulfilling its objectives for Armenia he is referring to article 4 of the Collective Security Treaty, which establishes that an aggression against one signatory would be perceived as an aggression against all. In Pashinyan’s view Moscow should have fully backed Armenia even if that meant going to war with Azerbaijan. Instead Moscow worked to restrain Azerbaijan, which possessed the military advantage, and sent 2,000 peacekeepers. Russia enjoys close ties with Azerbaijan and would prefer instead a lasting Russia-brokered peace that preserves Moscow’s dominant role in the region.

There was also little need for Russia to intervene forcefully on behalf of Armenia. It was previously conventional wisdom that the Armenian fear of being overrun by its neighbors Azerbaijan and Türkiye cemented Yerevan’s reliance on Moscow for protection and meant it couldn’t turn West, but that was upended last year when PM Pashinyan began to undertake the gambit while still at odds with Azerbaijan and Türkiye.

It should also be noted that Armenia’s “loss” of Nagorno Karabakh was entirely self-inflicted. And it came under the guidance of the West.

Against the backdrop of the Ukrainian war and the new Cold War, mediating countries began to compete for the status of the main moderator of the Armenia-Azerbaijan negotiations. Yerevan began to favor the West, and talks mostly moved to Western platforms. It was during those meetings that Armenia agreed to officially recognize Nagorno-Karabakh as part of Azerbaijan.

Once Armenia did so (and PM Pashinyan declared so publicly), the die was cast. The region was (and is) recognized as Azerbaijani territory by the international community but was overwhelmingly populated by ethnic Armenians. Roughly 100,000 of them fled to Armenia after Azerbaijan blockaded the region for months and then moved militarily to assert control in September – an operation that resulted in hundreds of deaths.

Despite moving the negotiation process under the guidance of the West and publicly recognizing Nagorno-Karabakh as Azerbaijani territory, the Pashinyan government has sought to lay all the blame for its loss at the feet of Russia. And Pashinyan now largely refuses to participate in summits with Russia.

While all of this has been happening, there has also been a step-by-stp poisoning of ties with Russia from Armenia’s side, including the following:

Not allowing the head of the Russian Society for Friendship and Cooperation with Armenia into the country.
A visit by Pashinyan’s wife to Kiev along with a shipment of humanitarian aid, the first sent by Armenia to Ukraine since the outbreak of the war.
In October, Armenia joined the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court. The ICC, which much of the world views as no more than a political tool of the West, has an outstanding arrest warrant for Putin for alleged war crimes in Ukraine. That now means that if Putin were to visit Armenia he should face arrest there. Moscow called the ratification by Yerevan a “hostile act.” It’s certainly interesting timing on Armenia’s part considering the statute came into effect all the way back in 2002.
Armenia hosted military exercises with the US late last year.
There have been media reports that Armenia will supply weaponry to Ukraine, although those haven’t been reliably confirmed.
Pashinyan’s announcement on the freezing of CSTO participation came after he met with US Secretary of State Antony Blinken and the head of MI6, Richard Moore, on the sidelines of the Munich Security Conference. Pashinyan’s office released only a brief notice of the gathering without mentioning anything that was discussed, so we can only guess.

Germany is also reportedly dangling a bunch of money to entice Yerevan to take anti-Russia steps, such as purging the government and armed forces of anyone harboring friendly views towards Moscow.

Faced with Armenia’s situation of conflict with neighbors and reliance on Russia, it seems it had roughly three options:

Continue the Russia-led peace process and work to carve out some mutually beneficial arrangement with its neighbors.
Do “a” but use a flirtation with the West to apply some pressure on Russia and maybe get some better terms in agreement. Instead Armenia opted for…
Torpedo relations with Russia (and we’ll have to see what happens with Iran) while turning fully to the West. And do this despite the current relative decline of the West in terms of power – at a time when even POLITICO now recognizes that the West destroyed Yugoslavia and now Ukraine has been chewed up and is in the process of being abandoned. There are many differences between Ukraine and Armenia, but the similarities in the anti-Russia path are starting to add up. We’ve seen this show before, and what’s unfolding in Armenia is like watching a slow-motion car crash.
From the West’s perspective it makes sense: use Armenia to apply pressure on Türkiye, Russia, Azerbaijan, or just foment chaos in the region. But that strategy implies the willingness to risk devastation for Armenia. The question is, what is in it for Armenia? Or what’s in it for the Armenian officials like Pashinyan who saw the West’s sinking ship, and decided to climb on board?

What Comes Next?

Neocon think tanks in Washington like the RAND Corporation and Middle East Media Research Institute have long advocated for stirring up trouble in the South Caucasus as another way to weaken Russia and Iran and potentially cause a rift between the two.

So far, the opposite is happening. It is bringing all the other regional players closer together and further isolating Armenia.

The spook-run Middle East Media Research Institute gloats that Russia doesn’t uphold its end of the Collective Security Treaty Organization (CSTO), which is made up of Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan, Russia, and Tajikistan. Presumably Washington will now tell other former Soviet states that Russia cannot be trusted.

The West is also attempting to play games in Azerbaijan in an effort to create headaches for Russia, but Baku appears less willing to play along. For example, when the new US ambassador to Azerbaijan, Mark Libby, was hastily dispatched to the country in December, one of his first actions was to visit the Alley of Martyrs dedicated to those killed by the Soviet Army during Black January 1990. Azerbaijanis weren’t falling for it.

Back to Armenia. By openly embracing the West (and potentially inviting Western forces into Armenia), Yerevan is also straining ties with its other regional backer: Iran whose President Ebrahim Raisi told Armenia’s Deputy Prime Minister Mher Grigoryan on Feb. 15 that the intervention of “outsiders” in regional disputes would only exacerbate issues. It was a clear reference to the US and the EU. From the Armenian Mirror-Spectator:

Armenian opposition groups say Tehran’s stance is another reason why Yerevan should exercise caution in its dealings with the West. They argue that unlike the West, Iran could intervene militarily to prevent Azerbaijan from opening an extraterritorial corridor to its Nakhichevan exclave through Syunik, the only Armenian region bordering the Islamic Republic.

Armenia is now in a precarious position, having said no thanks to its security guarantor while Azerbaijan and Türkiye are eager to take more Armenian land to open a corridor connecting the two countries.

Aside from Armenia insisting on EU involvement, the main roadblock to any deal between Baku and Yerevan remains the Zangezur Corridor – a transportation connection between Azerbaijan and its Nakhchivan exclave wedged between Armenia, Turkiye, and Iran.



On January 10, Aliyev stated that, if this corridor remains closed, Azerbaijan refuses to open its border with Armenia anywhere else. Armenia says the border issues must be resolved as part of any peace deal.

The nine-point ceasefire agreement signed under Russian mediation that ended the 2020 war included a stipulation that Armenia is responsible for ensuring the security of transport links between the western regions of Azerbaijan and the Nakhichevan Autonomous Republic, facilitating the unhindered movement of citizens, vehicles and cargo in both directions. Azerbaijan and Turkiye have latched onto that point, insisting they have the right to set up transportation links through southern Armenia.

Baku wants travel of people and cargo between Azerbaijan and Nakhchivan to be free of inspection and customs and expects Yerevan to agree to the deployment of Russian border guards along the corridor.

Moscow agrees with the deployment of its border guards, even if it doesn’t see eye to eye on the customs issue (it wants the Russians to conduct the security checks).

As the Caucasus sit at the key crossroads of East-West and North-South transportation routes, any alteration to its ecosystem would have far-reaching consequences. Armenia is likely banking on that fact in order to secure outside help. Will it be enough?

France and India are currently the two biggest backers of Armenia, which is spending a boatload in the process. Armenia has almost doubled its defense spending since 2022 when it was roughly $750 million. It is now around $1.5 billion.

France, which is the home to the largest Armenian diaspora community in Europe, is sending 50 Arquus Bastion armored personnel carriers, Thales-made GM 200 radars, and Mistral 3 air defense systems. There are also discussions to send CAESAR self-propelled howitzers, as well as 50 VAB MK3 armored vehicles manufactured by Renault Trucks Defense.

“Yerevan is looking to those partners who truly provide security,” French Armed Forces Minister Sébastien Lecornu said on a recent trip to Armenia. Just how much security France can provide is an open question. After all, AFP just reported the country (and all of Europe) is facing a gunpowder shortage, as well as a range of other problems.

India, which doesn’t want to see Türkiye-Azerbaijan control of trade routes in the Caucasus due to their close ties with Pakistan, is also upping its support for Armenia, supplying PINAKA multi-barrel rocket launchers, anti-tank munitions, anti-drone systems, and other ammunition to Armenia. It was India’s first export of PINAKA and announced New Delhi’s stance on the Armenia-Azerbaijan conflict.

Meanwhile, Armenia continues to bring its armed forces up to NATO standards and increase interoperability. Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov recently outlined Russia’s concern. From TASS:

“I hope, Yerevan is aware that any deepening of cooperation with the alliance may result in its losing sovereignty in the sphere of national defense and security,” Russia’s top diplomat said…

“This cannot but cause our concern. We have repeatedly drawn the attention of our Armenian colleagues to the fact that NATO’s true goal is to strengthen its positions in the region and create conditions for manipulation based on the ‘divide and conquer’ scheme,” Lavrov concluded.

Being stuck in the middle can be lucrative in the new not-so-Cold War if one plays their cards right. Türkiye is one example where President Recep Tayyip Erdoğan thrives at extracting concessions from both sides, but it can also be risky (see: 2016 Turkish coup attempt).

There is little evidence that Pashinyan is as skilled a player, and if NATO attempts to use Armenia to destabilize Azerbaijan and/or Turkiye like it exploited Ukraine against Russia, the results could be devastating for Armenia. And it’s highly unlikely NATO would be riding to the rescue.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/03 ... ussia.html

******

The North-South Transport Corridor Isn’t Russia’s Only Geo-Economic Project In Central Asia



ANDREW KORYBKO
MAR 4, 2024

Altogether, the pros of Russia’s two lesser-known geo-economic projects in Central Asia far outweigh the cons, which is why the Ministry of Transport is pursuing the International Transport Corridor and Southern Transport Corridor in spite of their respective obstacles.

The North-South Transport Corridor (NSTC) figures most prominently in discussions about Russia’s geo-economic projects in Central Asia due to the involvement of India and Iran, but there are two other ones that few are aware of but which the Ministry of Transport just updated everyone about. These are the “International Transport Corridor” (ITC) and the “Southern Transport Corridor” (STC) that’ll crisscross the region upon completion via the North-South and East-West axes respectively.

The first will connect Belarus with Pakistan via Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Afghanistan, while the second will connect Russia and Kyrgyzstan (possibly also China as well) via the Caspian Sea, Turkmenistan, and Uzbekistan, the last of which is the indispensable connectivity partner for both. Despite being more ambitious and efficient due to its unimodal nature, the ITC will likely struggle to be completed in full because of continued Pakistani-Taliban tensions, but a workaround exists via the NSTC.

Provided that Iranian-Pakistani relations keep improving after their tit-for-tat strikes in January ended with mutual de-escalation statements and the resumption of diplomatic ties that were briefly broken by Islamabad, then Pakistan can utilize the NSTC to trade with Russia. This route’s Central Asian branch via Turkmenistan can also be used by Pakistan if it takes advantage of that country’s planned infrastructure investments, which its new leader envisages turning his “hermit kingdom” into a regional transport hub.

As for the STC, this clumsy multimodal corridor serves the purpose of preemptively safeguarding from potential Kazakh treachery in the event that Astana capitulates to Western pressure to obstruct Russia’s trade with the other four Central Asian Republics. This scenario is credible enough that Moscow decided to pioneer this trans-Caspian route just in case, which could utilize China’s planned railway with Kyrgyzstan and Uzbekistan to reduce costs and eventually connect with the People’s Republic as well.

Nevertheless, the comparatively greater costs and longer time that it takes to trade across the Caspian than across Kazakhstan will likely hamper its growth prospects. For that reason, the STC is expected to remain as a backup plan that won’t be employed all that frequently since existing trade across Kazakhstan is much more efficient for all parties. If Astana capitulates to Western pressure, however, then trade across the STC would surge to the benefit of Turkmenistan’s fledgling logistics industry.

Having briefly analyzed the pros and cons of Russia’s two lesser-known geo-economic projects in Central Asia, a few supplementary points become apparent. First, the STC is Russia’s workaround for trading with the rest of the region if Kazakhstan treacherously betrays it and ruins the INC’s prospects, while the NSTC serves a similar purpose for facilitating Pakistan’s trade with Central Asia and Russia if ties with the Taliban remain tense and ruin the INC’s prospects from that direction.

The second point is that Russia can partially rely on Chinese infrastructure in Central Asia just like Pakistan can partially rely on Indian infrastructure in Iran. This insight shows that the use of connectivity infrastructure isn’t exclusively reserved for those who finance, construct, and/or host it but can be employed by anyone just like the Suez and Panama Canals for example. The outcome is that Eurasian integration will proceed apace and accelerate multipolar processes in the supercontinent.

And finally, Russia’s saintly tolerance for Pakistan’s reported arming of Ukraine and dillydallying on years-long strategic energy talks could be partially explained by Moscow wanting to tap into its massive market potential via the INC/NSTC upon the stabilization of that country’s crises. That’s why it turns a blind eye to both as opposed to giving Islamabad a tongue-lashing for the first and de facto freezing the aforesaid talks in order to invest its limited resources in negotiating deals with more interested partners instead.

Altogether, the pros of Russia’s two lesser-known geo-economic projects in Central Asia far outweigh the cons, which is why the Ministry of Transport is pursuing them in spite of their respective obstacles. Both are still in their infancy and will therefore take some time to fully enter into operation, but it’ll be well worth it once they’re completed since they’ll accelerate multipolar processes. The supercontinent will then continue its geo-economic integration and become more difficult for the West to divide-and-rule.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-nort ... rridor-454

******

Germany is preparing for war with Russia
March 3, 4:37 p.m



Germany is preparing for war with Russia (c) Medvedev

PS. On this significant day, I would like to remind you that some of the characters who contributed to the liquidation of the GDR and the destruction of the USSR are still alive. What is happening is also the work of their hands.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9002811.html

Italics added.

Google Translator

[blindpig]

Prohibit paying royalties to foreign agents
March 5, 15:45



Prohibit paying royalties to foreign agents

Within a few days of its adoption, the law banning advertising by foreign agents has shown its effectiveness.

Some have already announced the closure of the project, others are reducing the staff of their editorial offices. It is predicted that as a result of the law coming into force, foreign agents will lose from 50 to 80% of all their advertising income. And this, according to experts, amounted to about 5 billion rubles last year.

Recently, there have been proposals to prohibit the payment of remuneration for copyright and related rights to foreign agents - artists, musicians, writers - all those who are engaged in discrediting our Armed Forces, badmouthing the country, as a rule, living abroad.

It is unacceptable to feed the scoundrels who are slinging mud at Russia by transferring money to them at the expense of our citizens.

What do you think?

(c) Volodin

It’s strange that such a discussion exists at all. If these characters are labeled as actual enemies of the people, then we can only talk about ways to confiscate 100% of their material and financial assets in Russia and block any, even the smallest, earnings in Russia. Not 70%, not 80%, not 90%. From the point of view of law and logic, it should be 100%. And the task of the State Duma is to adjust the legislation to suit these tasks.

Yes, the current law banning advertising by foreign agents is excellent, one of the best over the past year. But it is still not enough - we need to push it to the end.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9006574.html

Google Translator

*****
Should Russia Demote Ties With The EU After Its Ambassadors Snubbed Lavrov?



ANDREW KORYBKO
MAR 5, 2024

Russian policymakers would do well to reflect on Medvedev’s advice, which is quite sensible this time.

Former Russian President and incumbent Deputy Chair of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev lambasted the ambassadors of the EU states in a tweet on Monday for declining Foreign Ministry Sergey Lavrov’s invitation to attend a meeting to discuss foreign meddling in the upcoming elections. This top diplomat revealed that they sent a letter to him two days before the meeting with their decision, which local media cited the EU mission as justifying on the basis of them not wanting to be “lectured”.

In response, Russia’s previous leader wrote that “This goes totally against the very idea of existence of diplomatic missions and assignments of ambassadors. In reality, all these ambassadors should be kicked out of Russia, and the level of diplomatic relations should be demoted.” While Medvedev has cultivated a reputation as a “hardliner” since the start of the special operation and sometimes shares what can objectively be described as unrealistic proposals, this particular suggestion makes a lot of sense.

After all, Lavrov himself said right after sharing this anecdote, “Can you imagine diplomatic relations with countries whose ambassadors are afraid to attend a meeting with the minister of a country they are serving in?” His remark is all the more relevant when considering that he was preparing to share proof with them of “the mechanisms of interference they use, about projects to support our non-systemic opposition. In general, about what embassies have no right to engage in.”

Russian diplomats have been expelled from the EU en masse on vague espionage pretexts in the past without any proof having been shared with their respective ambassadors of their allegedly illegal activities, yet the EU expects that Moscow won’t touch its own despite the evidence at hand. Even more insulting is the fact that all the EU ambassadors thought that they could snub Russia’s top diplomat without consequence even though they’d surely expel a Russian ambassador if he dared to snub theirs.

That’s not even to mention the fact that the EU is participating in NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine, including via the dispatch of weapons and even in some cases troops like German Chancellor Olaf Scholz inadvertently revealed last week, which led to an undeclared but thus far limited hot war. For Russia to still retain the same level of diplomatic relations with them requires a saintly level of tolerance for disrespect that risks harming the country’s reputation in the eyes of some foreign supporters.

To be clear, Russia has the right to formulate policy according to whatever its credentialed experts deem necessary to advance its objective national interests, so potentially keeping ties at the same level after this latest provocation should be interpreted as intending (key word) to advance this “greater good”. Nevertheless, there’s also no denying that some of its foreign supporters might perceive it as a sign of weakness, which could lead to them re-evaluating how they assess Russia and its policies.

On the one hand, doing nothing other than summoning those ambassadors for a tongue-lashing (which they might not even show up to receive given the precedent that they just established) or sending a letter of discontent to their embassies could keep dialogue channels open. This would in turn enable them to be relied upon in the event of a crisis or even simply to maintain the low-level of post-sanctions trade between them, both of which do indeed advance some of Russia’s objective national interests.

On the other hand, however, crisis communications could be handled directly between their top diplomatic, military, and/or political representatives if needed without having to go through the ambassadorial level. As for their low-level of post-sanctions trade, this doesn’t require the ambassador’s involvement since it’s conducted via both sides’ respective businesses, which can interact with one another in the event of disputes. Russian interests therefore wouldn’t be harmed if they were expelled.

It's ultimately up to Russian policymakers to decide the best course of action for their country after what just happened, which its foreign supporters should respect even if they don’t agree with it. What’s most important is to understand the imperatives behind whatever policy they promulgate, which can be constructively critiqued but shouldn’t be exploited to discredit the country. Prior to arriving at their decision, policymakers would do well to reflect on Medvedev’s advice, which is quite sensible this time.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/should-r ... s-with-the

Russia’s “Outreach”/“BRICS Plus” Invite To Pakistan Shouldn’t Ruffle India’s Feathers



ANDREW KORYBKO
MAR 5, 2024

Russia only intends to signal prestige by inviting the leaders of three friendly organizations like the SCO and didn’t do this just to invite Pakistan or suggest that Moscow supports Islamabad’s request to expedite its membership bid.

Chairman of the Pakistani Defense Committee Mushahid Hussain Sayed’s trip to Russia last month and his expression of hope for its support in obtaining expedited membership in BRICS during this year’s Kazan Summit made some in India wonder their strategic partner will approve their rival’s request. In response to the new Pakistan Ambassador to Russia’s similar such hopes last November, it was assessed that “Russia Will Only Extend Perfunctory Support For Pakistan’s Membership In BRICS”.

The basis upon which the preceding prediction was made is that Russia won’t risk offending its decades-long special and privileged Indian strategic partners with whom it’s jointly accelerating tri-multipolarity processes in the two years since the special operation started. This expectation still holds even after Russian Presidential Aide Yury Ushakov told TASS on Monday that his country will invite the CIS, Eurasian Economic Union (EAEU), and SCO states’ leaders to this year’s “Outreach”/“BRICS Plus” Summit.

Seeing as how Pakistan is an SCO member, returning Pakistani Prime Minister Shehbaz Sharif will probably appear at that event upon receiving the promised invitation, thus possibly prompting a renewed wave of speculation about whether Russia backs his country’s expedited membership bid. India’s feathers shouldn’t be ruffled by this development, however, since Russia only intends to signal prestige by inviting the leaders of those three organizations and didn’t do this just to invite Sharif.

To explain, Ushakov told TASS that the “[‘Outreach’/’BRICS Plus’] is an ad hoc platform, where the leaders of states keen to make their own constructive contribution to the discussion of crucial issues on the international and regional agendas are invited to the BRICS summits.” Host countries can invite whoever they want, such as members of regional integration organizations like South Africa’s invitation to all the African Union’s ones last year, which established the precedent that Russia plans to follow.

The CIS and EAEU are indisputably Russian-led organizations, while some have claimed in recent years that the SCO is de facto a Chinese-led one, but Russia’s invitation to its leaders to attend this year’s “Outreach”/“BRICS Plus” Summit is gently intended to challenge that notion. By doing so, Moscow is reassuring Delhi that their shared organization doesn’t have a leader no matter what others have claimed, with Russia regarding itself as an equal member on par with China and all others.

The EAEU includes Russia, Armenia, Belarus, Kazakhstan, and Kyrgyzstan, while the CIS counts those five as members alongside Azerbaijan, Tajikistan, and Uzbekistan, with Turkmenistan being an associate. Extending invitations to the SCO leaders is therefore redundant since most of the aforesaid countries comprise the bulk of this group whereas China, India, and Iran are already part of BRICS. The BRICS is Pakistan, which is why some speculate that this invite was aimed at signaling support for its BRICS bid.

The reality is that declining to redundantly invite the SCO leaders could have been maliciously spun by hostile forces as suggesting that “Russia recognizes that China leads the SCO and is therefore tacitly ceding influence within it to the People’s Republic”. That isn’t true whatsoever at all as was earlier explained, but the only way to preemptively avert that predictable information warfare provocation was to redundantly invite the SCO leaders and therefore let returning Pakistani Prime Minister Sharif attend.

Far from having their feathers ruffled, Indians should appreciate the signal being sent by Russia through these means since it shows that their decades-long special and privileged strategic partner is sensitive to false claims that the SCO has become a de facto Chinese-led group. India’s redoubling of ties with Russia since the special operation started was aimed at preemptively averting that country’s potentially disproportionate dependence on China, and this latest move proves that its policy succeeded.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/russias- ... lus-invite

(Actually, as things now stand the world depends upon Chinese leadership if so-called 'multipolarity' is not to mutate into full-scale imperialist competition.)

******

Russia Signals Nordic Response Military Manoeuvres as Provocative


Forces of Norway and Finland in Military Maneuvers, Feb. 24, 2024 | Photo: X/ @CTE_Off

Published 4 March 2024 (15 hours 40 minutes ago)

The military exercise will take place from 4 to 15 March 2024 and has the participation of more than 20,000 soldiers from 13 NATO member countries.


Russia described as provocative the military exercises carried out by NATO in Arctic areas of Norway, Finland and Sweden.

These maneuvers are part of the so-called 'Nordic Response 2024'. The Kremlin warned that military incidents could be triggered.

According to Russian Deputy Foreign Minister Alexander Grushko, Russia is following the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) Nordic Response 24 exercises, in which new members Finland and Sweden participate.

He also specified that, "The military is monitoring them; all necessary means are available. Our political stance is well known: we think these exercises are demonstrative and provocative in nature".


"Any military exercise, especially near the battle line, increases the risk of military incidents. Therefore, from the point of view of guaranteeing Russia’s defense capacity, all the necessary measures are being taken," the senior diplomat underlined.

The military exercise will take place from 4 to 15 March 2024 and has the participation of more than 20,000 soldiers from 13 NATO member countries.

The objective of the exercise is to test the state of the Nordic countries' defense systems against nearby threats such as Russia.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Rus ... -0019.html

Wildfires Ravage Russia's Southern Primorye Territory


Russian firefighters at the Primorye territory, March 4, 2024. | Photo: X/ @bdleonanda

Published 5 March 2024 (3 hours 36 minutes ago)

The Khasansky village is battling a fire covering 3,000 hectares, while the flames have consumed 4,000 hectares in Gvozdevo.


On Tuesday, local media reported that wildfires that swept Russia's southern Primorye Territory over the weekend has expanded to 7,400 hectares, while a new fire breaking out in the Land of the Leopard National Park.

Over the past weekend, large-scale wildfires ignited in the Khasansky District of southern Primorye. As of Monday morning, the firefighters had increased to 300 persons.

"As of this morning, three active fires have been registered that have continued since the previous day, with a total area of 7,400 hectares, and three have been localized," said a representative of the Ministry of Civil Defense and Emergency Situations.

The village of Khasansky is currently battling a fire covering 3,000 hectares, while in Gvozdevo, the flames have consumed 4,000 hectares.


"In the specially protected natural areas, a fire is raging near Andreevka, covering 400 hectares, and it has been contained," said the official.

The Land of the Leopard National Park has confirmed that the fire is affecting the protected territory. The day before, a fire of 400 hectares was extinguished in the park. About 120 Amur leopards are living in the park.

"All measures must be taken to prohibit the burning of dry grass, lighting fires in these municipalities, identifying those who violate the fire safety regime and holding them accountable," Primorye region Governor Oleg Kozhemyako said, as reported by The Moscow Times.

https://www.telesurenglish.net/news/Wil ... -0002.html

[blindpig]

KREMLIN MEETING ON ECONOMIC ISSUES
MARCH 5, 2024 NATYLIESB



Kremlin website, 2/12/24

The meeting was attended by Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin, First Deputy Prime Minister Andrei Belousov, Deputy Prime Minister – Chief of the Government Staff Dmitry Grigorenko, Presidential Aide Maxim Oreshkin, Finance Minister Anton Siluanov, and Central Bank Governor Elvira Nabiullina.

President of Russia Vladimir Putin: Good afternoon, colleagues,

As we agreed, today we will discuss the current situation in the Russian economy, including the 2023 economic performance, current trends in key industries, and of course, we will review further plans to strengthen manufacturing, finance, foreign trade, and the economy in general. I suggest we look into both the tasks at hand and the long-term priorities until 2030.

As I have already said, last year’s economic growth surpassed forecasts. Our calculations indicated Russia’s GDP growth at 3.5 percent, but according to the latest data, it is even 3.6 percent. It is higher than the global average, which is three percent. The economies of the developed countries are growing at a rate of 1.5 percent.

It is very important that this dynamic has been reached, primarily, on the basis of our internal capacities. Thus, industrial output has grown by 3.5 percent over the year, and the processing industries by 7.5 percent.

Double-digit growth is seen in sectors like computer manufacturing, aircraft production, shipbuilding, and the production of furniture, electrical equipment, and vehicles. For your reference: computers and peripherals saw an increase of 32.8 percent, while vehicles, particularly aviation equipment and ships, experienced growth of 25.5 percent. Furniture production increased by 20.7 percent, the leather and leather goods sectors, by 12.3 percent, while motor vehicles, trailers, and semi-trailers recorded a growth rate of 13.6 percent.

In turn, the real economy’s positive performance and the business sector’s confident work are making public finances more resilient. Last year, the federal budget deficit amounted to 1.9 percent of the country’s GDP. At the same time, non-oil-and-gas revenues increased by about 25 percent. In the fourth quarter, they exceeded projected estimates by almost 500 billion rubles. In January 2024, they soared by about 85 percent compared to 2023 levels. This once again confirms the growing role of the non-resource, processing sectors.

In January, the federal budget deficit totalled 308 billion rubles. Mr Siluanov, as far as I understand, this is much less than last year, is that right?

Minister of Finance Anton Siluanov: Yes, Mr President, definitely. We spent a lot of money in January 2023, and, of course, we posted a much higher deficit. We made substantial advance payments while financing multiple expenditures; and the deficit was therefore much higher.

Vladimir Putin: My data shows that it has dwindled by 1.3 trillion rubles on 2023. This is a serious indicator.

Speaking of regional budgets, we have balanced most of them. Last year, we recorded a small deficit totalling 0.1 percent of GDP. In January, total budget revenue of all Russian regions exceeded expenditure by 14 billion rubles.

I would also like to note that, according to current data, nationwide economic activity remains high. The situation is developing in accordance with the Government’s expectations and those of expert circles. For example, consumer demand remains strong, just about as high as in the fourth quarter of 2023. It is very important that this has a positive effect on the mood and plans of national businesses.

Of course, we should pay special attention to inflation and measures for curbing it. In late January, annual inflation was 7.2 percent. Of course, we know that consumer prices increased by 7.4 percent in 2023. This means that inflation is beginning to subside. I would like to note the joint actions of the Government and the Bank of Russia in this connection.

At the same time, against the backdrop of the increase in the Central Bank’s key interest rate – of course, this was predictable – lending slowed. Thus, in January, the corporate lending portfolio shrank by 0.2 percent, while the retail lending portfolio, on the other hand, increased slightly – by the same 0.2 percent. I know that my colleagues are closely monitoring these parameters. Of course, we will talk about this today as well.

The parameters I mentioned, of course, affect the growth rate of our economy both in the short term and in the long term. There are pluses and minuses to everything – I won’t go into detail now, we understand it well. I will only repeat: it is extremely important to maintain a balance between the overall goals of development, increasing investment and lending, preserving employment, and ensuring price stability.

I would also like to note that in the coming years, given the challenges facing the Russian and the entire global economy, we need a proactive, incentive-based policy that will enable us to unlock Russia’s industrial, agricultural, transport and high-tech potential at a new level and to create and revamp production facilities with modern, well-paid jobs in all constituent entities of the Federation.

We are now entering the final stage on our socioeconomic action plan for the next six years. Among other things, it will cover such key areas as investment support, ensuring technological sovereignty, upgrading and building infrastructure, comprehensive development of populated areas, and much more. At the same time, our main goal, our unconditional priority, is to improve the incomes and quality of life for our citizens and the well-being of Russian families.

Once again, I would like to emphasise that in implementing all the plans outlined, it is important to maintain the stability of public finance and adhere to the same principles of macroeconomic stability as in previous years, which, in fact, allowed us to overcome today’s challenges with such dignity. I ask my colleagues to proceed from these basic considerations.

Let’s move on to the discussion.

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2024/03/kre ... ic-issues/

******

Are Medvedev’s “Strategic Borders” More Like A “Buffer Zone” Or A “Sphere Of Influence”?



ANDREW KORYBKO
MAR 6, 2024

While it’s true that both “buffer zones” and “spheres of influence” are countries where another wields influence, the first focuses exclusively on the security sphere whereas the second involves other ones like economics and politics.

Former Russian President and incumbent Deputy Chair of the Security Council Dmitry Medvedev spoke at the World Youth Festival on Monday about what he considers to be the difference between geographical and strategic borders. According to RT, he regards the first as internationally recognized lines while the second are areas where “those who could afford it, wanted to control the development of the situation near their own borders, and also projected their influence as far as possible.”

Medvedev said that “It’s always been this way” and invoked the Roman Empire as an example, but before critics react in a knee-jerk way by condemning him as an “imperialist”, they should know that this is actually a reasonable approach that doesn’t automatically translate into “imperialism”. To explain, “strategic borders” are essentially “buffer zones” where a country exerts its influence to ensure that its legitimate security interests aren’t endangered, which isn’t the same as a “sphere of influence” per se.

While it’s true that both “buffer zones” and “spheres of influence” are countries where another wields influence, the first focuses exclusively on the security sphere whereas the second involves other ones like economics and politics. It’s possible for a country to have a “sphere of influence” within which it exerts political influence but not security influence such as the role that Armenia now plays for the West, but it’s not a “buffer zone” unless the influence is exclusively concentrated in the security sphere.

With that in mind, a “sphere of influence” could include those three spheres, but it’s a “buffer zone” if influence is only being exerted in the security sphere, and specifically in a defensive way by neutralizing latent threats instead of posing threats to others. The problem with “buffer zones”, however, is that “mission creep” sometimes compels countries to establish a “sphere of influence” over whatever other country it may be and thus behave in “imperialist” ways if this isn’t supported by the local majority.

Furthermore, earlier supported “buffer zones” could be reconceptualized as “spheres of influence” in the local majority’s minds, which could lead to them agitating to join a hostile bloc and thus voluntarily enter into another country’s “sphere of influence” at the other’s security expense. The locals could also reappraise their relations with the country that established a previously popular “sphere of influence” over them as “risky” and agitate to become a “buffer zone” instead so as to de-escalate tensions.

Both processes could either be entirely organic or started/accelerated by information warfare, and each concerns the changing role that locals perceive their country playing in the security dilemma between much larger ones. This term refers to two or more countries distrusting the other to the point where each regard the other’s supposedly defensive moves as being secretly driven by aggressive intentions, respond in kind on the same pretext of defending themselves, and so on and so forth till tensions spiral.

Sometimes a country or group thereof like the Baltic States are deemed by another such as Russia to be within its “strategic borders” but that second country can’t advance its legitimate security interests there due to the other(s) being part of a rival military alliance. In such cases, the security dilemma will continue worsening until it either leads to hot conflict, a “new normal” in the two competing parties’ ties, or creative diplomacy leads to a breakthrough for de-escalating their dilemma.

Russia’s security guarantee requests from December 2021 in the run-up to what ultimately became its ongoing special operation were aimed at comprehensively resolving its security dilemma with NATO per the proposal for returning to the 1997 NATO-Russia Founding Act. This would have led to the withdrawal of foreign military forces from those countries that joined NATO after the end of the Old Cold War but was rebuffed by the US after it miscalculated that Russia wouldn’t militarily react to defend its interests.

NATO’s clandestine expansion into Ukraine, which Medvedev correctly described as “an inalienable part of Russian strategic historic borders”, crossed a national security red line that prompted Russia to respond after diplomacy failed to resolve this unprecedented phase of their long-running dilemma. The primary purpose was to demilitarize Ukraine and restore its constitutional neutrality, which would be maintained via denazification in order to prevent the return of those who’d try to reverse this status.

In other words, Russia sought to turn its this part of its “strategic borders” into a “buffer zone” through military means once diplomatic ones proved insufficient, which would partially safeguard its legitimate security interests after it was unable to do so in the Baltics due to NATO’s formal expansion there. It didn’t initially plan to expand its geographical borders but eventually did so to preserve its hard-earned gains after all that was unexpectedly sacrificed for that land over the preceding six months.

As Medvedev said, Ukraine is a “special case” and therefore not representative of the way in which Russia plans to address other security dilemma-related issues, so the fearmongering that’s become popular about a “Russian invasion of the Baltics” is discredited. Those three countries’ membership in NATO places them under the US’ nuclear umbrella, unlike non-member Ukraine, hence why Russia doesn’t countenance military means for resolving the first dilemma but employed them for the second.

With respect to the ongoing conflict’s end game, while some have cited supposedly leaked reports to speculate that Russia envisaged establishing a “sphere of influence” in Ukraine as defined in this analysis, that’s not a realistic outcome after all that’s happened over the past two years. Rather, the most that Russia will likely achieve is its security-centric objectives – whether in whole or more probably in part – while the West retains its political and economic influence over this quasi-“buffer state” in that scenario.

Even in that case, however, it shouldn’t be spun as a defeat like the West would predictably do seeing as how some of Russia’s aforementioned goals would have still been achieved within part of its historical “strategic borders”. Additionally, Russia’s victory in the “race of logistics”/“war of attrition” with NATO destroyed a large amount of that bloc’s stockpiled equipment and exposed the weakness of its military-industrial complex, both of which advance Moscow’s legitimate security interests.

Circling back to what Medvedev just talked about, this concept played a crucial role in shaping how Russia sought to resolve one aspect of its security dilemma with NATO, which was primarily aimed at creating a “buffer zone” through military means instead of a “sphere of influence”. The connection between these three concepts, both theoretical and practical, deserves detailed study by experts once the special operation ends to see how they can be applied to other security dilemmas elsewhere.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/are-medv ... rders-more

******

5 billion for Kolomoisky
March 6, 0:52



A Russian court seized the assets of the Ukronazi oligarch Benny Kolomoisky for state income - real estate in Moscow, 500 land plots in Russia worth ₽6 billion and the value of shares in companies worth ₽5.1 billion.

The court in Adygea, at the request of the Prosecutor General's Office of the Russian Federation, seized almost 500 agricultural land plots worth more than ₽6 billion, buildings and six premises in the center of Moscow, and in addition, 100% shares in the Yuzhgazenerji and Catering - South companies, the value of which exceeds ₽5.1 billion.

Benya, what about face? Don’t you already want “$10,000 for a Muscovite”?

https://t.me/SergeyKolyasnikov/57058 - zinc

Not bad, although very late.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9006631.html

*******

MARCH 6, 2024 BY M. K. BHADRAKUMAR
Is ground beneath Biden’s Russia policy shifting?


In a surprise development, US Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland to retire from the foreign service
The resignation of the US Undersecretary for Political Affairs Victoria Nuland, the third highest ranking diplomat in the Biden administration, came as a bolt out of the blue on Monday.

An easy explanation could be that it rankles that she was overlooked for promotion as Deputy Secretary, a job she coveted in 2021 as the Biden presidency began, and instead Kurt Campbell, President Biden’s key advisor on China, recently moved in.

The effusive praise Secretary of State Antony Blinken showered on Nuland, 62, over her premature retirement from the foreign service is usually reserved for funerals.

It is a cold war legacy that Russia hands in the US foreign service tend to hold strong views on their area of expertise. George Kennan was frequently full of regrets that his espousal of a containment strategy against the Soviet Union, as outlined in his famous 5400-word ‘Long Telegram’ from the Moscow embassy — followed by a second legendary contribution via an article published in Foreign Affairs under the pseudonym “X” — was completely misunderstood and turned into a militarised program of confrontation.

Already by 1948 Kennan began to be dissatisfied with the diplomatic career and in the more than fifty years he lived after quitting, he was a frequent critic of US foreign policy. A splendid revelatory biography of Kennan recently A Life Between Worlds by Frank Costigliola presents a picture of a man of extraordinary ability and ambition whose idea of containing the Soviet Union helped ignited the Cold War but who himself spent the next half century trying to extinguish it.

Always prescient, Kennan in the 1990s warned that the eastward expansion of NATO would spur a new cold war with Russia. In a cable sent in August 1948 as director of policy planning, Kennan addressed the big question that is resonating today: in the case of a Soviet collapse, should the US favour maintaining the territorial integrity of the Soviet empire or strive towards its partition.

Kennan advised that while advocating Ukraine’s independence, the US should be exceptionally careful. He recognised the power of Ukrainian identity and counselled Washington not to oppose an independent Ukraine, but to be extra careful not to be viewed as the power advocating for it, given Russian sensitivities!

To my mind, Victoria Nuland’s decision to throw in the towel as a career diplomat may be in a similar matrix as Kennan’s disillusionment that his advice was ignored by the Truman administration. This needs some explaining.

The general impression of Nuland is of an inveterate ‘hawk’ and Russophobe fired up by neoconservative ideology and American exceptionalism who precipitated the Russian intervention in Ukraine and is largely responsible for fuelling the ongoing war. Of course, there is no denying that Nuland played a key role in the regime change in Kiev 10 years ago.

But what lies buried in the debris and all but forgotten today is that Nuland also promoted the Minsk Agreements as the way out of the impasse in Donbass where explosive violence erupted in 2014 as ethnic Russian separatists with support from Russian hinterland rejected the contrived usurpation of power in Kiev by Ukrainian ultra-nationalist forces.

No doubt, after the new government was established in Ukraine, Nuland became one of the main curators of the country’s politics, in particular, the processes that took place between Kiev and Moscow. Nuland was very active regarding Minsk agreements and in early 2016 met several times with then Russian presidential aide Vladislav Surkov and discussed plans for the implementation of the political part of the agreements regarding the special status of Donbass within Ukraine.

However, once Donald Trump came to power in January 2017, the momentum was lost, as the well-known cold warrior Kurt Volker was brought in as special envoy for Ukraine to replace Nuland who quit the government post. Two years later, Volker too resigned the envoy role after becoming ensnared in the Ukraine-related scandal that consumed Trump’s presidency eventually.

At any rate, as the November 2019 presidential election (which Biden won) was approaching, Nuland went on record that it would be necessary to resume the work on the Minsk agreements. To quote her, “I think we should start serious negotiations on the implementation of the Minsk agreements… I hope that we will be invited to become a party to this process if and when the United States returns to considering Ukraine as an important pledge for the future of democracy. I hope that this will happen after our elections in (2019) November.”

Nuland also noted that she did not know any other way to get Russia to withdraw from Ukraine other than the Minsk document, which after all, President Putin himself signed. However, as it happened, Biden’s Russia policies took an entirely different trajectory.

The only plausible explanation would be that as a strong believer in Trans-atlanticism throughout his career, Biden prioritised the reversal of Trump’s benign neglect of the NATO alliance system (which was also crucial for his containment strategy toward China) and it was tactically advantageous to cast Russia in an enemy image to give new ballast to the US’ transatlantic leadership, which had got weakened under Trump.

Meanwhile, the inclusion of Hillary Clinton’s nominees in Biden’s foreign policy team in key positions also meant the injection of a heavy dose of Russophobia into the US policies. The rest is history.

Suffice to say, Nuland has had a big role in the life of Ukraine and we can only guess the massive dimensions of it. Indeed, she publicly celebrated the sabotage of the Nord Stream gas pipeline, which broke the umbilical cord tying Germany to a geopolitical alliance with Russia. Last month, after a sudden visit to Kiev, Nuland promised some nasty surprises waiting in store for the Kremlin in the Ukraine war.

Was it the idea of combat deployment in Ukraine by NATO countries she was referring to? There are no easy answers. Well, belatedly at least, White House has intervened twice to assert that putting American troops on the ground in Ukraine is a no-go area.

The point is, it is entirely conceivable that Nuland’s exit could be a reflection of the collapse of the whole architecture of the US’ Ukraine strategy, which she designed.

The Russian Foreign Ministry spokesperson Maria Zakharova has emphatically stated that the development is to be attributed solely to the failure of the US’ anti-Russia policies: “They [American side] won’t tell you the reason. But it is simple: the failure of the anti-Russian policies of the Biden administration. Russophobia, which was proposed by Victoria Nuland as the main US foreign policy concept, is making the Democrats sink like a stone. Well, with them already being at the bottom, it’s not letting them go up.”

All things considered, therefore, there could be added meaning to the intriguing remark yesterday by the head of Russia’s foreign intelligence Sergey Naryshkin promising his CIA counterpart William Burns that he will scrupulously observe their mutual agreement not to allow any leaks about their communication. “It was our mutual agreement not to allow leaks not only about the nature, about the issues that are being discussed or will be discussed in our face-to-face meetings, in telephone conversations, but also about them happening. I am standing by this agreement,” Naryshkin said. [Emphasis added.]

It could be coincidental that Naryshkin was messaging to Burns on a tumultuous day marking the news that Victoria Nuland is stepping down — and within a week of Putin’s unusual nuclear warning to the US. But it will be extraordinary for a seasoned politician and intelligence chief to speak up fortuitously.

https://www.indianpunchline.com/is-grou ... -shifting/

[blindpig]

Was Russia’s Top Figure Skater Drugged at 2022 Beijing Olympics as Part of Campaign to Turn World Opinion Against Russia?
By Rick Sterling - March 6, 2024 0


[Source: sportingnews.com]


The U.S. scored a public relations coup with Kamila Valieva’s humiliation

In the winter of 2021-22, while figure skaters were competing in North America and Europe and preparing for the Beijing Winter Olympics, the tensions around Ukraine were building.

NATO-trained Ukrainian troops were intensifying attacks on the border of the breakaway Donetsk and Lugansk provinces of eastern Ukraine. Russia was building up its forces on the international border.

In December 2021, Russia proposed treaties with the U.S. and NATO, only to be brushed aside. Neo-cons running U.S. foreign policy seemed to be intentionally provoking Russia. Perhaps they wanted Russia to invade Ukraine, seeing that as a way to defeat Putin and break up Russia, just as the Soviet Union had broken up? As Hillary Clinton said, “Afghanistan is the model.”

On February 7, three days into the Beijing Olympics and after the Russians had won the team skating event, news emerged that one of the Russian skaters had previously tested positive for a banned substance. It soon emerged that the skater in question was the brilliant Kamila Valieva.

The charges created one of the biggest international sports controversies of the past 50 years. A single positive test for a banned medication upended the 2022 Beijing Olympics and resulted in bitter accusations. Although the controversy started more than two years ago, the decision by the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) was only issued in early February.

The dispute over Valieva’s doping test is a reflection of global political contention and the politicization of sports. This article shows how the CAS decision was biased and unfair. It will also show how Western media have misreported the situation and how it is likely tha CIA and/or other U.S. intelligence agencies intentionally created this situation to prevent Russian achievements at the Beijing Olympics and “unbalance” the adversary.

Russia’s expected medal sweep in figure skating was intentionally sabotaged. The victim was Kamila Valieva. The target was Russia. Disrupting the first Winter Olympics to be held in China was a bonus.

What Happened
The key skating milestone are:

October 30, 2021 – In her debut as a senior, then 15-year-old Kamila Valieva wins first place at the Skate Canada International. Her performance leaves the audience and commentators in awe. Her urine sample is “clean” (no prohibited chemicals).

November 27, 2021 – Valieva wins the Rostelecom Cup [another event in the International Skating Union (ISU) Grand Prix]. She posts the highest score ever recorded. Her urine sample is clean.

December 25, 2021 – Valieva wins the Russian Figure Skating Championships in St. Petersburg. Her urine sample is sent to a certified laboratory in Sweden.

January 15, 2022 – Valieva wins gold at the European Figure Skating Championship. Her urine test is clean.

February 4, 2022 – Olympic Games begin in Beijing, China.

February 6, 2022 – Valieva participates in women’s short program of team event; she performs flawlessly, earning first place.

February 7, 2022 – Valieva wows the audience in women’s free skate (long program) of team event, again winning first place. Urine sample is clean.

February 7, 2022 – More than a month late, Stockholm laboratory reports an “Adverse Analytical Finding” for Valieva’s sample which they received six weeks earlier. They report the presence of a tiny amount of trimetazidine (TMZ) in Valieva’s urine sample.

February 8-15, 2022 – News of the positive doping test rapidly circulates and soon dominates Olympic coverage. Media and most Western athletes presume Valieva’s guilt and urge her removal from the Games. Because she is just 15 years old – a minor— the Court of Arbitration for Sport (CAS) decides that Valieva should be allowed to continue competing at the Beijing Olympics with the consequences of the positive test to be determined later.

February 17, 2022 – Under enormous pressure, Valieva, after winning the short program two days earlier, falls apart in the free skate (long program). Team skating medal awards are postponed due to uncertainty whether Valieva will be disqualified. The U.S. team, which won 2nd place in the team event, is angry over the postponement of the medal ceremony.

January 13, 2023 – After a long delay, the Russian Anti-Doping Agency (RUSADA) determines that Valieva bore “no fault or negligence” for the single positive test.

February 21, 2023 – World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Skating Union (ISU), both Western-dominated organizations, appeal to CAS to have Valieva banned and all her results after December 25, 2021, annulled.

September 26, 2023 – CAS begins hearing regarding the Valieva positive test.

February 7, 2024 – CAS announces its decision and reasoning. The panel rules that Valieva committed an Anti-Doping Rule Violation (ADRV), is banned for four years and must forfeit all any titles, awards, medals, profits, prizes, and appearance money starting on December 25, 2021.


Kamila Valieva competing at the Beijing Olympics in all her grace. [Source: bizday.ro]

The CAS Decision
Confirming that this was a judgment call, the CAS decision was a split 2-1. CAS explained its decision as follows: “The Athlete did not discharge her burden of proving…that her ADRV was not intentional on the balance of probabilities.”

The panel said it was not proven that Valieva intentionally ingested the banned substance. “The Appellants have not established that the Athlete committed the ADRV intentionally, and…there was no evidence that she had acted intentionally.”

CAS also said that “the Panel most certainly has not concluded that Ms. Valieva is a cheat or that she cheated on 25 December 2021 at the Russian National Championships or that she cheated when she won gold at the Beijing Olympics (or at any other time).”

The panel acknowledged that the punishment may be considered “harsh” given that they did not establish that she committed the ADRV intentionally. That is certainly correct considering the punishment was the same as if she had cheated and the punishment is widely seen as confirming guilt.

Critique of the CAS Decision
1. The panel was biased.
The panel was comprised of adjudicators from the U.S., UK and France. Valieva’s legal team appointed French attorney Mathieu Maisonneuve. The appellants, World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and International Skating Union (ISU), appointed American attorney Jeffrey Mishkin. The CAS Appeals Division appointed the president of the panel, James Drake. He is a citizen of the UK and Australia who studied and worked in the United States.

CAS rules say that the president of a panel should be selected considering the criteria of “expertise, diversity, equality and turnover of adjudicators.” Drake was a poor choice for both equality and diversity. Two of the adjudicators have strong connections to the U.S. which is hostile to Russia and whose figure skating team stood to benefit if Valieva were disqualified.

James Drake was panel president in two previous cases involving Russian athletes, canoeist Alexandra Dupik and track athlete Natalya Antyukh. Both cases were decided against the appealing Russian athletes. With Drake as president, this had the appearance of a Kangaroo Court.

2. The panel created a straw man to knock down.
The panel exaggerated the importance of the theory that Kamila accidentally imbibed TMZ through her contact with her “grandfather.” Mr. Solovyov was called her grandfather but was actually the father of a previous partner of Kamila’s mother. Since the mother was working, Mr. Solovyov acted as driver and guardian for Kamila who trained three hours in the morning, went home for lunch and rest, then trained three hours in the afternoon. Presumably Solovyov was being compensated for his help to the family. Solovyov was taking heart medication, including TMZ, due to previous heart attacks.

After the surprise news that Valieva tested positive for the heart medication TMZ, Kamila and her mother speculated that Kamila may have imbibed TMZ from drinking from the same glass or by consuming a strawberry dessert that grandfather made with a cutting board on which there were TMZ particles from his medication.

Media and the panel poured skepticism on this theory, especially when the grandfather declined to provide basic information or verification. It appears the stress of the situation may have resulted in Solovyov—who had previous heart attacks—not wanting to be further involved. The appellants and panel pounced on this. In the panel’s report there are 96 references to “grandfather,” 75 references to “dessert,” 43 references to “strawberry,” and 98 references to “Solovyov.” The panel effectively said they were skeptical of the “grandfather” explanation and that is all there is.


Valieva and her “grandfather” bottom right. [Source: nypost.com]

In contrast, Valieva’s legal team put forward the “grandfather” contact as one of three possibilities. Another theory was that some food or permitted supplement that Valieva consumed was contaminated with TMZ. This happened to a Russian bobsledder at the 2018 Pyeongchang Winter Olympics.

The third theory was sabotage. This is the most likely cause of the positive doping test, as shown below.

3. The panel minimized what was most important: Valieva had no motive to take a banned substance.
As shown at international events in October and November 2021, Kamila Valieva was at the peak of her profession. She was the best figure skater in the world. She was not only winning figure skating competitions, she was setting all-time records. She was training six hours per day under a very successful coach. She was well-schooled in the dangers of anti-doping violations.

Since 2016 Russian athletes have been widely accused of being the worst violators of doping standards. Ugly and unproven accusations, such as from WADA’s Richard McLaren, have been widely broadcast. When Russian athletes are exonerated, it is ignored in the West. The probability that Kamila Valieva would risk her reputation and career to intentionally take a banned medication prior to an event where she would certainly be tested is near zero.

Adding to the unreality of this case, the medication TMZ is of no benefit to a figure skater. It is for people with heart trouble, not young athletes. When it has been used by athletes, it is for endurance sports where heart palpitations may occur. As heart specialist Dr. Benjamin Levine at the University of Texas Southwestern Medical School said, “The chance that trimetazidine would improve her performance, in my opinion, is zero…The only chance would be for it to hurt her.”

One of the side effects of TMZ is dizziness, the worst thing for a figure skater. The panel dismissed the significance by glibly saying, “It is enough to say that not all side effects manifest in all people.”

Dr. Levine noted that it is the legs, not the heart, that get tired in figure skating. If one looks at Valieva’s performances, it is clear she is in fine physical condition and not even breathing hard at the end of them. The trace amount of TMZ detected in her system a single time would have no effect at all. Dr. Levine notes that the U.S. equivalent of trimetazidine, ranolazine, is not prohibited.

The legal challenge for Valieva’s team was to show that she did not intentionally take the banned substance. The CAS panel minimized the fact that Valieva had every reason and motive not to take a banned substance. Her dedication to the sport and talent is obvious. It should also have been obvious that this sole positive case for a trace amount of TMZ is odd and itself suspicious.

4. The panel minimized the problems and violations of the Swedish laboratory
According to WADA’s International Standard for Laboratories, “Reporting of “A” Sample results should occur in ADAMS [the Anti-Doping Administration and Management System] within twenty (20) days of receipt of the Sample. The reporting time required for specific occasions may be substantially less than twenty (20) days.”

So the laboratory in Sweden took twice as long as it should have under normal circumstances. But the circumstances were not normal. The European Figure Skating Championships were in January and the Winter Olympics in February.

Why was this failure ignored? Media have reported the delay was due to staffing shortages caused by Covid 19. However, the CAS report describes a different reason for the extreme delay: There were two incidents of “unsatisfactory quality control” plus the need to find a “new confirmation method.” A Swedish scientist and chemical analysis expert gave his confidential assessment: “It is obvious that they were not prepared for the task and had even to develop a new procedure.” Despite the reporting failure and quality control issues at the Swedish laboratory, there was no criticism or comment by the panel or in the media.

The report says there were “lengthy submissions in relation to the conduct of the Stockholm Laboratory in its analysis and reporting of the AAF” but they do not say more.

5. Valieva’s legitimate medications and supplements were distorted.
WADA and ISU made much of the 60 medications and supplements that Valieva was authorized to take. Evidently this was a list of all the permissible medications that she could take if she or her doctor wished. As it turned out, she only took a few. There is nothing devious about these supplements. Many professional and amateur athletes use them. Here are the ones she was taking:

“Carnitine is naturally present in many foods—especially foods of animal origin—and is available as a dietary supplement…Carnitine plays a critical role in energy production.”

“Hypoxen provides a reduction in oxygen consumption with significant physical exertion, improved tissue respiration, a decrease in mental and physical fatigue, and the successful implementation of labor-intensive physical operations.”

“Supradyn is a brand name for a multivitamin and mineral supplement.”

“Ecdysterone is the main compound in spinach extract.”

How and Why Kamila Valieva Was Sabotaged
Since 2014, the U.S. and Western allies have imposed sanctions, waged information war, and treated Russia as an enemy. The U.S. does not hide its animosity toward and goal to weaken Russia. The 2019 RAND Corporation report titled “Overextending and Unbalancing Russia” is an example. Commissioned by the U.S. Defense Department, the report discusses tactics and strategies to “weaken Russia.”

The report recommends, “Undermining Russia’s image…diminishing Russian standing and influence…Western efforts to damage Russia’s international prestige can be effective if broadly implemented. Further sanctions, the removal of Russia from non-UN international forums, and boycotting of international events are largely within the power of Western states to unilaterally implement and would damage Russian prestige…the loss of international sporting events or access to key forums is likely to deepen concerns within Russia that the current regime might not be effectively pursuing policies that are returning Russia to glory.”


[Source: rand.org]

International sports, with the Olympic Games being paramount, are an important part of a nation’s image abroad and at home. With its goal of “undermining Russia’s image,” the U.S. establishment had a motive in preventing Russians from winning at the Olympics. Figure skating is one of the most widely watched Olympics events and a Russian sweep of the medals, with Valieva leading the way, would impress the viewing public and enhance Russia’s image. It is impossible to look at Valieva’s skating and not be impressed with her artistry and skill.

At the end of October 2021, the CIA knew that Valieva was likely to win the figure skating gold. Commentators at Skate Canada International made that clear. That may be when the decision was taken to sabotage Valieva. All they had to do was ensure she had one positive doping test. There are numerous ways they could have done this. They might have surveilled Kamila and her guardian grandfather for a couple of weeks, learned when and where he went shopping, then sabotaged the fruit he purchased.

Or perhaps they contaminated her lipstick or cosmetics with TMZ. Chemicals can enter the body through the skin. Her cosmetics are kept in a locked case, but how hard would it be for a trained CIA agent to unlock it? Cracking locks is standard training. This is clearly within their means. What is more likely, they could have replaced a legitimate pill with a look-alike pill contaminated with TMZ. The CIA has their own chemical laboratory.

As to the opportunity, the Russian National Championships were a good occasion with less athlete security as mentioned by Valieva during the hearing. Or perhaps the agents entered her house in Moscow or St. Petersburg hotel room when she was not there. With a small team of trained people, this would not have been difficult. Based on the very low amount of TMZ in her sample from December 25, 2021, the swap may have occurred in Moscow before she left.

Was It Incompetence or Worse at the Stockholm Lab?
One remaining question has to do with the extraordinary delay in reporting the Adverse Analytical Finding (AAF) by the Swedish laboratory. Some experts have questioned why there is not a time limit. In this case, the finding was extremely late and test analysis involved multiple errors and a “new confirmation method.” Why was this allowed?

The late report was hugely disruptive to the Beijing Olympics. Instead of being sorry, the Biden administration may have been pleased. They had already criticized the Olympics and were carrying out a so-called diplomatic boycott.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi tried to get world leaders to support a boycott with the accusation that China was committing “genocide.” Trying to derail the Olympics, another U.S. official earlier suggested the Beijing Olympics should be “postponed.”


[Source: youtube.com]

Mission Accomplished
The positive doping test for the Russian skater distracted from the other events at the Games, undercut the Russian figure skating team achievements, renewed allegations of excess doping in Russia and disrupted China’s first Winter Olympics. For the U.S. foreign policy establishment, in a cold war with both China and Russia, this was a victory.

From the comfort of studios and sidelines, jingoistic athletes and commentators derided Kamila, assumed she was guilty, and said she should not be competing. Pretending to “defend” her, many critics accused Valieva’s coaches and doctors of “child abuse.” Like the athlete herself, Kamila’s coach and doctors had no reason to encourage a banned substance. They had a very good reason and motive not to allow that.

Unfortunately, the World Anti-Doping Agency (WADA) and some athletic federations have become part and parcel of Western hybrid warfare against “adversaries” like Russia and China. WADA has expended enormous resources and efforts to ban top athletes from China and Russia.

The International Skating Union “welcomed” the decision to ban the now 17-year-old Kamila Valieva for four years. Top U.S. men’s figure skater Nathan Chen said that Valieva’s banning was a “win for clean sport.” On the contrary, it was a win for dirty politics, the politicization of sport and undermining the Olympic charter and its honorable ideals.

The news had the desired effect of provoking hostility and Russophobia. It is a shame that so few announcers and athletes expressed any skepticism. They immediately assumed her guilt and condemned Valieva’s coach, Eteri Tutberidze and doctors.


Nathan Chen [Source: houstonchronicle.com]


Eteri Tutberidze [Source: en.24smi.org]

This was done with crocodile tears of concern for “child abuse.” When Valieva faltered under the immense pressure, commentator Christine Brennan fumed, “You could not help but see the results of the abuse of a child…. This is one of the greatest talents we have ever seen…Shame on Russia. Shame on those coaches for putting her in this position.” Patrick McEnroe opined, “Russians—are you happy now?…An absolute disgrace.”

Kamila had no idea why she tested positive for the banned substance because she was secretly sabotaged. How could she prove that she did not intentionally ingest the banned substance? Arbitrators Drake and Mishkin came to their decision because of national and political bias.

Only a Temporary Win
On February 8, 2022, as Kamila’s positive test was stealing the show in Beijing, U.S. President Joe Biden was in Germany. With the tensions around Ukraine building, he threatened that, if Russia intervened in Ukraine, “There will no longer be a Nordstream pipeline….we will bring an end to it.” Around the same time, the Ukraine military and Azov militias escalated their attacks on the Donbas, perhaps preparing for a major attack. On February 24, Russia crossed the border and, thus, the Ukraine war began. Supporting the belief that the U.S. and West intentionally provoked and prolonged the war hoping to “weaken Russia,” the U.S. and UK effectively stopped peace negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow early in the conflict.

The Ukraine war continues with horrendous loss of life. Russia seems to be slowly winning and the end is hopefully in sight.

Kamila Valieva appears stronger than ever. She is no longer a girl, but a young woman skating in performances with tons of support. She is honored in Russia as the Olympic champion she is.

Provoking the Ukraine war and sabotaging the best figure skater in the world can at best be temporary victories for the U.S. and Western elites.

https://covertactionmagazine.com/2024/0 ... st-russia/

******

Some additional thoughts to bring good cheer

Yesterday evening I tuned in to the Vladimir Solovyov talk show hoping to hear a serious discussion of the causes and significance of Victoria Nuland’s resignation, which caught so many of us unawares earlier in the day. However, in the first fifteen or twenty minutes, the discussion rambled in all directions about the coming attack on Russia from Europe, about how Russia had always defeated the European attackers in decades and centuries past, about how escalation of the Ukraine war to nuclear exchange remains a distinct possibility, greater than during the Cuban Missile Crisis of 1962, etc. That is to say, the discussion was stuck in the same rut as in days past, as if nothing had happened in the USA just hours earlier worth mentioning.

At first, I thought that perhaps the show was taped before the news of Victoria Nuland’s resignation reached Russia. After all, the Solovyov show is regularly pre-recorded in the afternoon Moscow time. However, a few minutes later one of the panelists mentioned in passing Nuland’s departure from State, so they all did know about it. I was puzzled by the clear failure of the windbag panelists and of Solovyov himself to recognize what was in front of their noses.

Today’s late morning edition of the Sixty Minutes talk show paid more attention to Nuland, though the moderator, Olga Skabeeva, expressed the same deep pessimism as had Solovyov about the still existing risks of war. She directed attention to Macron’s speeches last week in Paris and again yesterday in Prague about Europe sending to Ukraine regular military detachments for one purpose or another. His latest proposal was to install NATO troops along the Ukraine-Belarus border, replacing the 150,000 or so Ukrainian soldiers there now and releasing them for repositioning along the line of confrontation with the Russians.

Fortunately, there was one panelist on hand to address these layman anxieties, a panelist named Yevgeny Buzhinsky, Lt. General in the Reserves, who appears regularly on both Sixty Minutes and on the Evening with Vladimir Solovyov show. The difference is that whereas he is constantly interrupted by Solovyov with irrelevant and often frivolous questions, Skabeeva mostly let him say his words of comfort to their audience without hectoring. Indeed, on shows like Sixty Minutes you can say almost anything you like, so long as you finish off your remarks with assurances that “we will win” in Ukraine.

Buzhinsky told Skabeeva directly ‘to calm down,’ ‘to relax’ because all of Russia’s former ‘partners,’ now ‘opponents’ if not ‘enemies’ appreciate full well that the game is up now that the Russians took Avdeevka, the fortress city which the Americans had deemed invulnerable. Moreover, following Putin’s remarks in his State of the Union address, Pentagon officials now see that they face a very serious Russian response to any dispatch of troops to Kiev, to any use of long range missiles to strike within the Russian Federation.

At this point it bears mention that Buzhinsky likely had ample opportunity to take readings on his Western officer counterparts from his eighteen years of service in responsible positions within the International Treaty Administration of the RF Ministry of Defense. He is a graduate of the prestigious Frunze Military Academy and holds a Ph.D. in military sciences. In retirement, Buzhinsky is today a member of several NGO think tanks on international security issues.

‘But what about the dimwit, Biden, does he understand the risks of challenging Russia?’ Skabeeva asked.

Dementia or no, Biden has gotten the message, per Buzhinsky. And in any case, those around him understand and under long-existing procedures no one leader can on his own press the mythical ‘red button.’ This was demonstrated back in the final days of Nixon’s tenure when the Pentagon boss instructed his subordinates not to follow any orders coming from Nixon that he did not countersign.

In short, Buzhinsky argued that there will be no dispatch of NATO forces to Ukraine. Apart from France, he said, the only countries agreeing to participate directly in the conflict are the Baltic States, each of which has no more than 5,000 or 10,000 men at arms in total. As for the Czech republic, whose president yesterday seemed to approve Macron’s call to dispatch troops, that is all empty rhetoric since the Czech units serving in NATO have a very narrow mission relating to chemical warfare, and have no suitable troops ready for service in Ukraine. What they all want is for the United States to send troops, and Biden has more than ten times explicitly said that there will be no American troops in Ukraine.

Skabeeva persisted, making reference to what one or another Western leader has been saying. At this point, Buzhinsky cut her off with a bit of old Russian folk wisdom: “у языка нет костей”. Literally this translates as “a tongue has no bones.” In proper English, we would say “talk is cheap.”

I suspect that Buzhinsky’s confidence that the situation on the Western front is under control as Russia advances was helped along by news of Nuland’s departure. At any rate, his habitual restraint was not evident today.

*****

For those who have never watched Russia’s talk shows broadcast in Russian to the domestic audience, allow me to explain that for decades they have been a source of entertainment as well as information for a broad swath of the population. Shouting matches were not only tolerated by the audience but were eagerly expected.

From my own experience as an invited guest panelist on most national channels in 2016, I understood that the same dozen experts from universities and think tanks were spending the greater part of the day serving on various shows. Their availability to appear in the studio on short notice to comment on breaking news was a factor in their being ‘in the pool.’ I assume that they got some modest compensation.

Back in 2016, before the isolation of Russia from the Western world that came with Covid and then with the sanctions relating to the Special Military Operation, there was always one or another panelist from the USA or elsewhere in the West to play the special role of devil’s advocate and take a verbal lashing from the host and/or other panelists. It was rumored that one of these foreigners, a certain journalist named Michael Bohm, was earning over $100,000 per year from his guest appearances on multiple channels each weekday. Bohm is a gifted linguist who made good use of Russian folk expressions. He was also a reliable purveyor of the CIA narrative on any issue. Those days of invitees from ‘unfriendly nations’ are, of course, long past.

I referred to the panelists on the Solovyov show last night as ‘windbags’ but that is not true every evening. Some days he has a strong collection of experts. And on others, like the evening following Vladimir Putin’s State of the Nation Address, Solovyov assembled a powerful group of legislators to comment on the speech, including Alexei Pushkov, Senator from the ruling United Russia party, committee chairman in the upper chamber of the legislature; Alexander Babakov, Duma member who works closely with the Just Russia party of Sergei Mironov; and a Duma committee chairman from the Communist Party. All had been picked up by the cameras scanning the audience in the Gostinny Dvor hall during the live transmission of Putin’s speech.

*****

I close this essay with some remarks on Victoria Nuland’s resignation.

A former CIA analyst who should know better yesterday speculated that perhaps she left due to health problems given that she is grossly overweight.

However, saying that Nuland left for health reasons is the same as saying that Navalny died of natural causes. It is to ignore coincidental timing of her departure with other relevant developments all of which establish circumstantial evidence pointing in other directions.

This same analyst suggested an alternative explanation that does take timing into account: that Nuland was reacting to a speech made last week by Vice President Kamala Harris directly criticizing Israel for its ongoing atrocities in Gaza. This would have suggested to Nuland that her control over U.S. policy amounting to full support for Israel whatever it does is coming to an end.

However, I find the notion that anything said by Kamala Harris would cause Nuland to depart is not persuasive. This rhino skinned ideologically driven lady needed a kick in the ass to leave, not a pout over diminished influence going forward.

And the kick in the ass had to be the fiasco over the Bundeswehr plot for using the Taurus to attack Russia. Let us remember that Nuland had been working in cahoots with Pentagon officials over a year ago to get long range American missiles delivered to Kiev, and she was said at the time to be acting in opposition to the more cautious approach of her boss, Antony Blinken. It is easy to imagine Nuland reaching out to Bundeswehr generals for the same purpose over recent months. And then thanks to the audio tapes released by the Russians, this plot was exposed and the threads all led back to her. Thus, the kick in the ass administered corporate style, which means she was released with all honors and surely with additional compensation against the legally binding obligation to keep her mouth shut.

©Gilbert Doctorow, 2024

https://gilbertdoctorow.com/2024/03/06/ ... ood-cheer/

******

Israel’s Partial Compliance With The US’ Anti-Russian Demands Risks Ruining Ties With Moscow



ANDREW KORYBKO
MAR 7, 2024

Israel isn't planning to send early warning systems to Ukraine out of solidarity but is really trying to curry more favor with the US as its war with Hamas reaches the endgame, though Tel Aviv is disguising its true intentions as a signal of displeasure with Moscow's balancing act between Israel and Hamas.

Israel’s Permanent Representative to the UN announced late last month that his country is “working to provide Ukraine with early warning systems”, which was followed by a hardline lawmaker promising that “Israel will take a more aggressive stance against Russia.” This came after the new Israeli Ambassador to Russia caused a scandal in early February by misportraying Russia’s regional policy, which readers can learn more about in this analysis here that hyperlinks to nearly two dozen relevant pieces about it.

Russian Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova reacted to this development by lamenting “The fact that people in the region, especially Israeli politicians, perceive and follow the path imposed on them by the 'exceptionalists' - the US”, which has “exacerbated and brought closer this catastrophic situation in the region, given it an eerie momentum, provoked it.” Although Israel is still legally considered a “friendly” country by Russia, that could soon change depending on what it does.

So long as it refrains from sending offensive arms, however, then it might not make that list. Even if it does, then Russia might still keep it off of there for now in order to explore whether diplomacy can result in reaching a “new normal” between them before tensions spiral out of control, similar in spirit to why Russia didn’t designate Turkiye despite it sending Ukraine attack drones. Relations with Ankara remained manageable and mutually beneficial for the most part so ties with Tel Aviv might end up the same way.

Nevertheless, this shift in Israel’s approach towards NATO’s proxy war on Russia through Ukraine – which is already an undeclared but limited hot war after German Chancellor Olaf Scholz inadvertently revealed that Western troops are secretly on the ground there – isn’t being done out of solidarity with Kiev. Rather, it superficially appears to due to Israel’s displeasure with Russia’s balancing act between it and Hamas but is really an attempt by Tel Aviv to curry favor with Washington as its war with Hamas reaches the endgame.

Two detailed reports from American media in late November can be interpreted as an evolution of the Biden Administration’s pressure campaign against Prime Minister Benjamin “Bibi” Netanyahu. The Washington Post informed their audience how he let Qatar fund Hamas, while the New York Times claimed that Israel was allegedly aware of Hamas’ sneak attack plans more than a year before its early October sneak attack. Both are damning and could fuel more protests against him once the conflict ends.

About those, the Biden Administration was already implicated in the unprecedented nationwide ones that rocked Israel last spring, which were analyzed here as being motivated by its ruling liberal-globalists’ ideological opposition to the self-professed Jewish State’s conservative-nationalist government. Anticipating a repeat of those events upon the conclusion of another ceasefire ahead of Ramadan, it’s very possible that Bibi sought to preempt more meddling by agreeing to send those systems to Ukraine.

In his mind, this desperate move could potentially alleviate some of the expected grassroots pressure upon him in that scenario by influencing the US to exercise a greater degree of self-restraint by not involving itself as much in any forthcoming round of Color Revolution unrest. The public pretext upon which these early warning systems are being sent is Israel’s displeasure with Russia’s balancing act between it and Hamas in order to deflect scrutiny from his real motives.

After all, there’s no credence to the claim that Russia supported Hamas’ sneak attack, whether militarily or politically. The Kremlin has repeatedly condemned it as an act of terrorism but also condemned Israel’s collective punishment of the Palestinians in response. Moscow’s hosting of Hamas’ political wing is solely intended to revive peace talks and secure the release of the hostages, the latter task of which “is under the personal control of the president of the Russian Federation” according to a senior diplomat.

However much Israel might dislike this policy due to its desire that all countries take its side over Hamas’ per the zero-sum choice that it’s pressured them to make, this could continue to be conveyed through conventional diplomatic means instead of escalating matters by unilaterally sending such systems to Kiev. The reason why Israel’s export of this early warning equipment is so concerning to Russia is because it could lead to “mission creep” whereby air defense systems and possibly offensive arms soon follow.

Any significant Israeli-backed improvement of Ukraine’s air defense capabilities could lead to a symmetrical Russian-backed improvement of Syria’s, though this analysis here argues that Moscow won’t risk a wider war to stop Tel Aviv’s increasingly frequent strikes against Damascus. At any rate, these two might slip into a dangerous security dilemma since each might accuse the other of obstructing their strikes against what they consider to be legitimate military targets in those neighboring nations.

The consequences could see Russia and Israel ramping up their respective strikes in Ukraine and Syria so as to more effectively break through these new defenses there. That won’t change the military-strategic dynamics of the Ukrainian Conflict but could risk a worsening of the West Asian Crisis if Iran feels comfortable enough to attack Israel from Syria under its host’s Russian-supplied umbrella. In that event, Israel could either react with a ground operation or might even launch one preemptively.

From Bibi’s self-interested political perspective, widening the war to Syria in any ground or special forces capacity could perpetuate the West Asian Crisis to his domestic and international benefit. On the home front, he’ll likely be able to exploit that move to remain in power and avoid (possibly politically driven) corruption charges, while the foreign one could see the US alleviating potentially impending Color Revolution pressure upon him due to Israel more directly containing Iran in Syria per their joint interests.

It's unclear whether he’s gamed everything out this far, and even if he did, it can’t be taken for granted that events will evolve in that direction and not be offset by some hitherto unpredictable variables. Regardless of whatever his plans may be and however far he’s looking into the future, the fact of the matter is that Israel’s partial compliance with the US’ anti-Russian demands risks ruining ties with Moscow, and this could quickly reverberate throughout West Asia depending on the scenario trajectory.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/israels- ... e-with-the

As the hydrophobic junkyard dog of the West the Zionist state should be shunned by all civilized people. Russia's historical and emigrant ties are no excuse.

******

MARK GALEOTTI: RUSSIA’S NUCLEAR DOCTRINE HAS BEEN EXPOSED
MARCH 6, 2024

Emphasis by bolding is mine. – Natylie

By Mark Galeotti, The Spectator, 2/29/24

Secret documents have been leaked that reveal Russian scenarios for war games involving simulated nuclear strikes. They shed light on Moscow’s military thinking and its nuclear planning in particular, but ultimately only reinforce one key factor: if nuclear weapons are ever used, it will be a wholly political move by Putin.

The impressive twenty-nine documents scooped by the Financial Times date back to the period of 2008 (when Vladimir Putin was technically just prime minister but still effectively in charge) to 2014 (after the sudden worsening in relations with the West following Ukraine’s Revolution of Dignity and the annexation of Crimea). Although this means that they are a little dated, they nonetheless chime with our understanding of Russian doctrine today. As a result, they give a useful sense not only of the circumstances in which Moscow might use nuclear weapons, but also the degree to which China — for all the mutual expressions of friendship — is still regarded as a potential threat by the Russian military.

They spell out a series of criteria for the use of tactical or non-strategic nuclear weapons (NSNW), with yields of “merely” Hiroshima-level, compared with the kind of larger warheads which could level whole cities. All of them, in keeping with the state nuclear policy adopted in 2020, allow for the first use of nuclear weapons as a response to a serious and material threat to the state. Quite what this means seems to range from a significant invasion onto Russian soil to the loss of 20 percent of the country’s nuclear missile submarines. Overall, their use is envisaged in situations where losses mean that Russians forces could “stop major enemy aggression” or a “critical situation for the state security of Russia.”

Although the nuclear threshold looks a little lower than we might have previously thought, we need to be cautious about drawing too concrete a set of conclusions from the war game scenarios — not least because of how old the plans are. It is essentially a given that major Russian exercises will include a simulated nuclear strike for training ground purposes. To this end, they may be massaged to ensure such an outcome.

Yet there are two specific sets of questions that the FT‘s scoop does raise. The first relates to Ukraine. Could, for example, a major Ukrainian incursion into territories Moscow claims to have annexed trigger a nuclear response? The honest answer is that — in theory — it could, as these are now considered Russians. However, we have to be clear that any use of NSNWs would be a political one: it will be Putin, not some doctrinal flow chart, that makes the decision.

The documents are also interesting in the light they shed on Moscow’s relationship with Beijing. It should hardly be a surprise that the Russians wargame a clash with China. First of all, that’s what militaries do: prepare for even unlikely circumstances. Secondly, they’re not necessarily that unlikely, especially as nationalists in and outside the Chinese government periodically question the “unfair treaties” imposed on it in the nineteenth century, including the 1858 Treaty of Aigun and the 1860 Treaty of Peking. The latter, for example, saw some 390,000 square miles surrendered to Russia. Finally, there is a deep-seated suspicion of China within many of the security elite.

These documents post-date the 2001 Treaty of Good-Neighborliness, Friendship and Cooperation between China and Russia. In recent years, the Sino-Russian relationship has strengthened, but even so this is more than anything else because the enemy of my enemy is my strategic partner. It is a deeply pragmatic relationship, though. Beijing uses Moscow’s desperation for oil and gas sales to force down the price, while Russia’s security services have been stepping up their hunt for Chinese spies (and finding them).

There remain fears that Beijing might some day seek to take the under-populated Russian Far East for their land, their resources, and their historical importance. Even before the Ukraine invasion, there was no meaningful way Russia’s thinly-stretched forces in the Far Eastern Military District could stop such an attack, and thus it is no surprise that in the exercise notes, NSNWs are to be deployed “in the event the enemy deploys second-echelon units.”

Of course, both Moscow and Beijing have disputed the authenticity of these documents. However, they are not so much proof that Russian nuclear policy is more permissive than we had assumed but a reminder of the political aspect of their use. At sea, the Russians are more quickly willing to use NSNWs, not least because of the presumed lower risk for civilian “collateral damage.” On the eastern front, they are an essential equalizer when facing a more populous and rapidly-arming frenemy. In the west, they are an information weapon, a threat to brandish in the hope of scaring electorates into demanding Kyiv be forced into an ugly and unequal peace to avert potential escalation. The real unknown is quite what Putin thinks about using them in his Ukraine war, and that is not something we can find in any doctrines or documents, alas.

https://natyliesbaldwin.com/2024/03/mar ... n-exposed/

Putin Putin Putin! Jfc, as knowledgeable people have pointed out Putin at least was the Russian top echelon leader most friendly to the West and a replacement is likely to be more hardline. But if you find this unsettling imagine what the Pentagon 'games'.... that'll ruin your day and sleep.

[blindpig]

Russia Thwarted ISIS-K’s Plot To Trigger Inter-Religious Discord



ANDREW KORYBKO
MAR 9, 2024

Provocations of this kind could exacerbate preexisting divisions by lending false credence to Islamophobic radicals that want a so-called “Russia for Russians”.

The FSB busted a branch of the Afghan-based ISIS-K terrorist cell on Thursday that was plotting to attack a Moscow synagogue, which could have triggered inter-religious discord had the attack not been thwarted. Russia is an historically cosmopolitan civilization-state whose people have a strong sense of national unity, but there’s always the chance that provocations of this kind could exacerbate preexisting divisions by lending false credence to Islamophobic radicals that want a so-called “Russia for Russians”.

The late Navalny had at one time embraced that toxic ideology, which is strictly suppressed by the security services per Article 282 of the Russian Criminal Code, but it regrettably continues to circulate among some fringe elements of society. Last October’s incident at the Makhachkala Airport in Russia’s autonomous Muslim-majority Republic of Dagestan, which readers can learn more about here if they hadn’t followed it at the time, threatened to breathe fresh life into this fascist movement.

The optics were such that it appeared as though some local Russian Muslims had embraced extremist views, the impression of which lent false credence to the previously mentioned Islamophobic radicals that want a so-called “Russia for Russians” by allowing the separation of its majority-Muslim regions. The authorities quickly clarified that foreign social media channels operated by intelligence agencies were responsible for manipulating these people, but some damage was still done to perceptions about them.

Had ISIS-K’s latest plot not been stopped, and Jews were slaughtered in their synagogue like some of the aforesaid manipulated locals implied an intent to slaughter rumored Jewish arrivals at the airport several months back, then reactionary Islamophobic sentiment could have spiked among some in society. The incident could also have upset Russia’s delicate Israeli-Hamas balancing act if Tel Aviv exploited it as the pretext to send lethal arms to Ukraine on the false basis that Moscow isn’t dong enough to protect Jews.

Unlike in late October, this thwarted attack in early March is connected with a foreign terrorist group, and it came less than two weeks after Defense Minister Shoigu warned about Afghan-emanating terrorist threats. ISIS-K had already bombed the Russian Embassy in Kabul in September 2022, but this month’s attempted attack in Moscow is the first time that it targeted that country’s soil directly, and it might not be the last time either.

Nevertheless, Taliban spokesman Zabihullah Mujahid rebuked Shoigu by claiming that “Two and a half years of Taliban rule has proven that no threat from Afghanistan targets anyone”, but now he has egg on his face after the FSB claimed that the terrorists were linked to an Afghan-based ISIS-K cell. This shows that Afghanistan is still a safe haven for international terrorism despite the Taliban’s best efforts to stamp out these threats. If it wasn’t for America’s sanctions, then they might have been more successful.

Altogether, the takeaways from this incident are that: 1) continued US sanctions impede the Taliban’s anti-terrorist efforts; 2) which in turn lead to Afghanistan continuing to pose a threat to everyone; 3) ISIS-K is now refocusing on Russia; and 4) it’s planning attacks that are designed to maximally trigger inter-religious discord; but 5) the latest was stopped due to the FSB’s diligence. Looking forward, more threats are expected to materialize, and those that aren’t stopped might have an outsized political impact.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/russia-t ... to-trigger

******

‘Back to the Future’: Russia Honors Anti-Colonial Past as the West Backs Neo-Nazis
MARCH 8, 2024


Monument of Motherland Calls in Mamayev Kurgan memorial complex in Volgograd. Photo: AP/Dmitriy Rogulin.

By John Miles – Mar 7, 2024

The more things change, the more they stay the same in terms of US foreign policy, says one analyst.

The modern political divide between Russia and the West often evokes memories of the Cold War and even World War II, according to author and human rights lawyer Dan Kovalik.

The writer and activist appeared on Sputnik’s The Critical Hour program on Wednesday to discuss Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov’s recent remarks at the Forum of Supporters of the Struggle Against Modern Practices of Neocolonialism.

“Over the last three decades, there’s been a model of globalization engineered by the US and its closest allies which has proved to be untenable,” said Lavrov in a speech delivered in Moscow. “Western countries have led humanity not to prosperity, but to one of the most acute international crises since the Second World War. The conflict space in the world is expanding and a deep split between the West and the countries of the global majority is emerging.”

“Russia has for a long time tried to play ball with the West,” claimed Kovalik, agreeing that the rhetoric emerging from Moscow and Beijing has become more strident in recent years. “But it finally dawned on them that the West didn’t want to be friends with them. So now you do hear people like Lavrov and [Security Council of Russia Deputy Chairman Dmitry] Medvedev, as you say, kind of taking the gloves off and saying it like it is.”

The lawyer pointed to Israel’s military operation in Gaza as well as the conflict in the Donbass, which The New York Times recently admitted was fomented in part by the CIA’s decade-long presence in Ukraine. Both crises risk the eruption of a major world war, he claimed.

Host Garland Nixon claimed Russia is embracing the anti-colonial or even “anti-imperialist” legacy of the Soviet Union in recent years, noting the USSR fostered strong ties with Africa and Latin America. The Soviet Union was an ally of South Africa’s anti-apartheid cause as well as popular movements in Latin American countries like Chile and Cuba.

Kovalik noted Russia released a white paper recently specifically mentioning the foreign policy legacy of the Soviet Union. “Russia’s proud of that past, it’s part of their legacy, and they continue to carry that forward,” he said. “And so you even see Putin, for example, hosting various Palestinian factions in Moscow, trying to get them together to agree to work as one. That is some old-timey, Soviet-like diplomacy there.”



Meanwhile, US foreign alliances increasingly recall unflattering aspects of the West’s history, including the 20th-century emergence of fascism in Europe. Earlier this week, it was announced the Ukrainian city of Nikopol had renamed a street in honor of Pyotr Dyachenko, a Ukrainian SS officer who was decorated with the Iron Cross by Nazi leader Adolph Hitler.

The incident follows the well-publicized recognition of Yaroslav Hunka by the Canadian Parliament last year, a Ukrainian World War II veteran who was revealed to have fought in a Nazi-aligned military unit. Western countries have continuously backed Ukraine’s post-Maidan government, which even the NATO-aligned Atlantic Council has admitted is significantly influenced by neo-Nazi militants.

The United States has also backed reactionary elements in Syria as it was recently announced the country has appointed a former Daesh* chief as a commander in the US-backed Syria Free Army. The US has spent billions of dollars supporting fundamentalist elements in Syria in an attempt to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad.

“We live in a time in which, again, Western governments are unabashedly honoring Nazis,” claimed Kovalik. “As Russia honors its Soviet past, the West is now honoring its Nazi past.”

“My friends would say we would be very reluctant to make this analogy before October 7th, but I would say that the West is now supporting a Nazi-like regime in Israel at this point,” Kovalik added. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has presided over the killing of more than 30,000 Palestinians in Gaza in recent months, the vast majority of them women, children, and innocent civilians.

Host Garland Nixon agreed. “If you look at Ukraine and you look at Israel, what you find in both instances [is] you have one ethnicity – although in Ukraine they just won’t admit it – but you have one group who feels that the other group is inferior, maybe ethnically, however you want to call it, and they have a desire to wipe them out and have actively made a kinetic effort to wipe them out.” Neo-fascist troops fighting for Ukraine have referred to their foes as “Asiatic hordes,” employing racist terminology likening Russians to “orcs.”

“What we’re seeing right now in Gaza is open genocidal warfare akin to the Holocaust,” claimed Kovalik bluntly. “You’re starting to see images out of Gaza of these emaciated bodies who look like people who’ve been in a Nazi concentration camp. And, of course, they have been in a Nazi-like concentration camp, and that’s called Gaza.”

“It’s ‘back to the future,” the activist concluded. “We’re back to the old Cold War days.”

*ISIS (also known as Daesh/ISIL/IS/Islamic State) is a terrorist group banned in Russia and many other countries.

https://orinocotribune.com/back-to-the- ... neo-nazis/

******

Anti-Stalinist pedophile declared righteous
March 9, 14:35



In Europe, the “Righteous Among the Nations” were awarded. A convicted pedophile who exposed Comrade Stalin received an award from Russia.

False righteous people of the world

In 2012, the European Parliament decided to establish the European Day of the Righteous Among the Nations on 6 March. On this occasion, the Italian “Garden of the Righteous” was opened in Milan in 2003. It is modeled after the Israeli one: there, too, trees are planted in honor of people who saved human lives or preserved the memory of victims of persecution.

And as some media reported, “Yuri Dmitriev, a researcher of Stalin’s repressions from Karelia, was awarded the title of “Righteous Among the Nations” yesterday in Milan. The award ceremony took place without Dmitriev himself. In the spring of 2022, he was sent by the Russian authorities to a maximum security colony in Mordovia.”

In addition to Yuri Dmitriev, Righteous Among the Nations trees will be planted this year in honor of the Italian writer who was imprisoned in a fascist prison Altiero Spinelli, the Italian-Argentine journalist Vera Vigevani Harakh, and the Iranian human rights activist Nargiz Mohammadi, winner of the 2023 Nobel Peace Prize. To appreciate the absurdity of the situation with Dmitriev, you need to at least briefly talk about three other people awarded the honorary title. Information about them is easy to find on the Internet.

***

Altiero Spinelli, who died in 1986, spent many years in fascist prisons and concentration camps. Starting back in 1927, when, because of his leftist views, he was arrested in Milan and sentenced to prison. He was released only in 1943, after the overthrow of dictator Mussolini. The latter, we note, became possible only after the victories of the troops of the anti-Hitler coalition, one of the leaders of which was Joseph Vissarionovich Stalin.

Later Altiero Spinelli was known as a deputy, writer and political thinker. We just focus on the fact that for many years he was in prison solely because of his political views.

***

Argentinean Vera Vigevani Harach is one of the founders of the Mothers of Plaza de Mayo movement. The Russian reader, who knows only about the fascist dictatorship of the Chilean General Pinochet, needs to explain that in neighboring Argentina in the 70s everything was even worse. There, opponents of the dictatorship were dealt with without trial, simply by kidnapping them. They were tortured, the girls were raped, then killed, and their bodies were often dumped in the ocean. At this time, about 30,000 Argentines disappeared without a trace.

And during the dictatorship, 14 women took to the Plaza de Mayo in the center of Buenos Aires. The spontaneous action turned into a nationwide movement - the “Mothers of Plaza de Mayo”, which still exists and is engaged in restoring historical justice.

By the way, someone may have a question: did the humane West then introduce economic sanctions against the Chilean and Argentine junta? After such and such human rights violations. Of course not! On the contrary, they were helped! They fought against the “communist threat”, and from the point of view of Western, liberal values, it is possible to kill, torture, and rape...

***

And Nargiz Mohammadi is an Iranian activist who won the 2023 Nobel Peace Prize “for her struggle against the oppression of women in Iran.” Iran is considered our ally in foreign policy, but within this clerical state there are very strict rules, periodically causing protests by urban youth or women. One way or another, Nargiz Mohammadi is in prison precisely for his views and political activities, and not for anything else.

Well, now let’s return to Petrozavodsk resident Yuri Dmitriev, “a researcher of Stalin’s repressions.” A former mechanic who received his first prison sentence back in Soviet times, under the article on causing grievous bodily harm. And now sentenced to a long prison term on purely criminal, “pedophile” charges. A lot of articles have been written about his case. But we have to remind you that in his case there are a large number of obscene photos of his adopted daughter, and all of them are recognized by Dmitriev’s lawyer and Dmitriev himself as authentic. As they also recognized other depraved actions of the “researcher of Stalinist repressions” in relation to the child.

The defense simply gave completely absurd explanations for these actions. Allegedly it was a “health diary” and a “test for enuresis.” Hand on heart, in order to believe in these justifications, you need to completely turn off common sense and a sense of decency...

Yuri Dmitry was promoted as the “discoverer of Sandarmokh.” However, it was not he who discovered Sandarmokh; this is a long-established fact. The search for a burial place in the Medvezhyegorsk region began long before him and was carried out by local residents. There is an old publication about this, the author of which is a journalist who was included in the list of foreign agents last year, so it is difficult to accuse him of bias. (You can read the link - “He took out a gun and asked why we were digging without his knowledge.”)

Yuri Dmitriev is only the creator of the myth associated with Sandarmokh, and this myth is not always confirmed by facts. For example, his publications stated that residents of Karelia convicted in 1937 and 1938 were also buried in Sandarmokh. Their relatives were also informed about this in the nineties. People believed. But today there are simply no documents or excavation results that would somehow prove this fact!

So yesterday's event in Milan is an absolutely political action. Of course, political struggle and moral standards are difficult to combine. This is true... But from the point of view of facts, awarding the title “Righteous Among the Nations” to a criminal who committed disgusting acts against a child is a cynical insult to the memory of the victims of fascism and the victims of the same Argentine junta. And an insult to the memory of those people who really suffered for nothing in 1937...

(c) A. Stepanov

https://mustoi.ru/kak-sudimyj-slesar-ko ... ikom-mira/ - zinc

Taking into account the course towards the legalization of pedophilia in the West, honoring the forger Dmitriev is of course not surprising.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9013628.html

Google Translator

[blindpig]

From Isolation to Containment: Washington’s Economic War Against Russia Gets a Rebrand
Posted on March 11, 2024 by Conor Gallagher

Foreign Affairs came out last week with a piece authored by a team from the influential Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS) that argues for a sustained strategy of “containment” against Russia.

It’s a climb down (at least on the part of the US; judging from comments coming from Europe, they might keep looking to go all in despite a weak hand) from the goal of isolating Moscow and the “ruble is rubble” heyday of the economic war but still seeks to maintain the separation of Europe and other US-dominated states from Russia while drawing more nations to the West’s side.

The CSIS crew are recycling a 75-year-old strategy from George Kennan that no longer fits the geopolitical realities of the world in 2024. One of the few updates the same one we’ve been hearing about for a while, which is that Washington will lean more on its European allies:


A strategy of containment can enable the United States to deter Russia in Europe while still dedicating more resources to deterring China in Asia.

On the bright side, the CSIS crew keeps Kennan’s idea that containment seeking to avoid direct conflict between the US and Russia. On the other hand, it’s telling how little there is that is new in the Foreign Affairs piece, which is filled with bromides like the fact containment “will require different tools, such as support for governance reform and trade.” The path laid out in Foreign Affairs differs little from Washington’s current policies and those it has more or less followed since Kennan first proposed them. While the strategists at Washington think tanks tinker with Kennan’s post-WWII strategy, Russia is busy charting a new course for itself with Asia, Africa, and the BRICS.

Moscow weathered the shock and awe sanctions and is now in certain ways benefitting from the West’s economic warfare.

Russia posted a GDP growth of 3.6 percent in 2023 after contracting 1.2 percent in 2022. The International Monetary Fund expects the economy to continue growing and rise 2.6 percent in 2024. real wages in Russia grew by 7.8 percent in 2023. Compare that to the G7 nations:



Whether it’s called “isolation” or “containment,” Russian transport and logistics continues to be a major target of the sanctions, which means much of this geopolitical struggle revolves around transit and trade.

With Europe wholly dominated by the US, the Foreign Affairs piece argues that “post-Soviet Eurasia and the rest of the world will be more central.” It’s two years into the economic war against Russia, and this realization is dawning on the thinkers at CSIS – that there is a “rest of the world” outside of the West.

That rest of the world is the reason why Russia not only survived the West’s economic war, but in many areas is actually flourishing. And if the West wants to now try to thwart all these trade links and “contain” Moscow, it has a lot of catching up to do.

Russia’s sea corridors are thriving under Western sanctions, which helped provide the impetus for their implementation. Moscow recently updated the public on its progress on its land corridors, and the same is happening there – especially in the region Foreign Affairs notes is of great importance: “post-Soviet Eurasia.”

The West had a lot of high hopes that the former Soviet states in Central Asia would join the isolation effort. That never came to pass, and the Central Asian states have arguably only grown more integrated with Moscow (and Beijing).

Central Asian Transportation Corridors

Let’s use the all-important Kazakhstan as an example. It plays a major part in transit flow between Russia and China, and that role is set to only grow.

The Russian Ministry of Transport is implementing memorandums of understanding with Kazakhstan and several other countries on the creation of two new transport corridors: The International Transport Corridor (ITC) and the Southern Transport Corridor (STC).

The ITC connects Belarus with Pakistan via Russia, Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, and Afghanistan. Russia, China, and Kazakhstan also just announced an initiative to improve their transport and logistics infrastructure, including a direct transport link connecting Xi’an with Moscow.

Kazakhstan is central to the plans of both Russia and China (as the Foreign Policy Reserch Institute notes, “for China a war over Taiwan would cause a severe economic disruption for Beijing, and the country would need to turn to Central Asia for energy and to keep important supply chains open.”). Those supply chains are now rapidly expanding throughout Central Asia as we see how countries grow closer together in order to defend themselves from Western belligerence.



It’s not hard to see why both Beijing and Moscow are planning for the West to do everything it can to disrupt Asian integration. As Foreign Affairs noted, “A strategy of containment can enable the United States to deter Russia in Europe while still dedicating more resources to deterring China in Asia.”

The STC is an example of a plan to hedge against these types of “deterrence.” The route, which will connect Russia, Turkmenistan, Uzbekistan, Kyrgyzstan, and China via the Caspian Sea, could be viewed as a contingency plan in case the shorter Kazakhstan connection is disrupted.

Kazakhstan seems solidly onboard with its central role in Russian and Chinese plans at the moment, but it is also of great interest to the West for the very same reason.

Back in September, Kazakhstan’s president reassured the German chancellor that his country was going to implement sanctions against Russia; the very next day he stated that Kazakhstan was going to further develop trade relations with Russia.

It seems that in the end Kazakhstan sided with its economic interests – as did the rest of the Central Asian countries – after Western sanctions backfired yet again. As former Indian diplomat M.K. Bhadrakumar writes:

The economic performance of the region in 2023 registered an impressive GDP growth of 4.8%. And Russia contributed to this success story. The Ukraine war led to the vacation of western firms from the Russian market, which created new opportunities for regional states. At the same time, the conditions under sanctions prompted Russian firms and capital and Russian citizens to relocate their businesses to the Central Asian region.

Central Asian entrepreneurs haven’t missed the lucrative opportunities to source Western goods and technology for the Russian market — walking a very tight rope by ensuring compliance with Western sanctions, while also nurturing their interdependence and integration with Russian markets. The recovery of the Russian economy and its 3.6% growth last year created business opportunities for Central Asian countries.

International North-South Transport Corridor

This route gets a lot of attention, but there are still problems, and its full completion is years away.

The INSTC refers to the use of several routes through the Caucasus-Caspian region and onto Iran and India: Trans-Caspian – through the Russian ports of Astrakhan, Olya, Makhachkala; Eastern – direct railroad connection through Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan and Turkmenistan with access to the Iranian railroad network; and Western (Astrakhan – Makhachkala – Samur, and further on through Azerbaijan to Astara station).

The INSTC, which formally opened in 2002, is meant to provide a shorter route than the Suez Canal from Russia and central Asian countries to Iran, the Persian Gulf, India, and Pakistan. The project was largely a dud, but Western sanctions on Iran and Russia (with those on the latter leading to an explosion in trade with India), is revitalizing the route.

The INSTC still has issues to overcome. For one, there is US meddling at key points in the Southern Caucasus that appears designed to throw a wrench in these trade connection plans. There is also the problem of infrastructure in Iran, which is difficult to overcome due to sanctions. Moscow and Tehran are working to overcome these issues, but it will take time as Lana Rawandi-Fadai details at Modern Diplomacy:

On May 17, an intergovernmental agreement was signed in Tehran between Russia and Iran on the construction of the 162 km long Resht-Astara railway line, which is scheduled for completion by 2027. As a result of this route being launched, the transit of freights over the western corridor of the North-South ITC can be increased to the level of 30 million tons, whereas the overall cargo traffic of the ITC will have to increase from 15 million tons today to 41-45 million tons by 2030, and reach 100 million tons in the longer term. Russia is going to invest 1.3 billion euros in the construction of this line. Once the above-mentioned section of the railroad is completed, a through railroad corridor will be formed from Russia to the southern ports of Iran, which will open direct access to the Persian Gulf for Russian freights.

The ultimate goal is to have another route connecting India and Russia with Iran playing a central role. In the meantime, seaborne trade between Russia and India continues to explode. Over the first eight months of fiscal year 2023/24 ending in March, India’s total exports to Russia rose 46.2 percent. imports climbed 54.8 percent.

In late 2022, Russia shared with India a list of hundreds of items it wanted to import including axles, crankshafts, fasteners, pistons, bumpers, bearings and welding materials. India is now delivering on that request.

India’s engineering items exports to Russia recorded grew 88 percent in December, while for the April-December period they jumped 130 percent.

The ever-tightening US sanctions has complicated Russia-India trade, but they have yet to put much of a dent in its rise. India had been paying for Russian oil in rupees – a non-convertible currency with little value outside India, which was causing consternation in Moscow, but now that India is delivering more engineering items and Russia is able to use those rupees to pay for them, that issue has dissipated.

Asia Financial describes some more of the efforts from New Delhi and Moscow to work around Western sanctions:

Russian officials and oil executives have pressed Indian buyers to pay in Chinese yuan, which for Russia is a more useful currency.

For India, using the yuan is highly sensitive, although Indian private refiners have switched back to the yuan due to the lack of other options since the clash earlier this year, the sources said.Indian state refiners have turned to the UAE dirham, but that has been complicated by additional clearing requirements as Washington’s tougher line makes other governments wary.

From October, several UAE banks have tightened control over Russia-focused clients to ensure compliance with the price cap, according to five oil trading and bank sources. At least two UAE banks have introduced price cap compliance declarations for the clients involved in Russian crude, oil products and commodity trading, the sources said. They declined to name the banks.

Who’s Isolating Containing Who?

It’s worth taking a quick look at another of Russia’s key trading partners (and NATO member). Trade between Türkiye and Russia has exploded since the West unleashed its economic war against Russia, but hit a speed bump recently, however, following the US’ stronger threat of secondary sanctions in December. Trade was down significantly in both January and February, yet still well above the pre-war average. Türkiye’s exports to Russia in February fell 33 percent year on year while imports from Russia fell 36.65 percent to $1.3 billion.

It is likely the decline will only prove to be temporary as the two countries devise a plan to get around the threat of sanctions. From Reuters:

“It has become difficult to make some energy payments to Russia, especially after the new sanctions (threat) at the end of December. Some payments were disrupted,” a Turkish source familiar with the payments issue said.

“The originally agreed upon method had to be changed or the payment had to be postponed, but the shipment continued. There may be problems on a cargo-by-cargo basis,” the source said.

So again, while the threat of secondary sanctions is causing Russia and other countries to recalibrate, it will not change the overall trend. Far from strengthening US power, these will likely speed up the US decline as they provide encouragement for other countries to reduce their economic dependence on the US. The West is caught in the paradox where the more it tries to isolate Russia, the more lucrative it is to be an intermediary country.

And the more ridiculous and heavy-handed the West’s demands to choose a side become. If we go back to the example of Kazakhstan, imagine how absurd it must be to have US Secretary of State Antony Blinken or French President Emmanual Macron show up asking the country situated to essentially destroy its economy in order to help Washington and Europe isolate or contain Russia. (And the conversation and outcome will likely be much the same, with China in Russia’s place, as the US turns its attention to Beijing.)

On the other hand, the Russian approach has not pressured countries to choose sides and accepts ‘neutral’ stances on the war.

The folly of the West’s strategy seems to be dawning on an increasing number of Western analysts. Here is Alexander Libman, professor of Russian and East European politics at Freie Universität Berlin, who is representative of the trend. He bemoans the inability of the West to isolate Russia for its “unprovoked aggression”, but admits that isolation is impossible:

India and China import commodities from Russia precisely because Western sanctions force Russia to sell these commodities at a discount; Türkiye, the UAE and the countries of the Eurasian Economic Union benefit a lot from the rerouting of trade flows between EU and Russia through their territory. For Chinese companies (e.g., automakers), the exit of Western firms from Russia, along with Western sanctions, became an excellent (and historically unique) tool to acquire new markets: Russia is now the largest importer of Chinese cars in the world.

Certainly, the threat of new sanctions makes some companies from these countries to rethink their engagement with Russia; however, others will then come to take their place, attracted by even more lucrative economic opportunities. This does not mean that this “shadow integration” of Russia into the global world is in any way efficient or superior to how the Russian economy worked before the war. The costs of arbitrage are substantial – meaning that imports to Russia are getting more expensive (or are of lower quality) and Russian exports are sold at a lower price. However, the new model works. …

There are limits to the effectiveness of even the most severe secondary sanctions the West could impose against those willing to trade with Russia. At the very least, these limits are determined by the monitoring capacity not only of the West, but of national governments. In the worst case, Russia’s shadow integration into the world economy could trigger the emergence of alternative payment systems and trade routes that are entirely outside Western control – this would be a substantial blow to Western statecraft in the long run.

Yet, Libman ends his reality check not with calls to abandon such a self-destructive strategy, but with a new rallying cry for the downtrodden Russophobes: that Moscow will likely “self-isolate” through its own missteps. The projection, as it often is with Western analysts, is strong here, but this hope is gaining traction. Here’s a piece from RAND on March 4: “Moscow’s History of Unforced Errors Is the West’s Hidden Advantage.”

This appears to be a variation of the years of media and think tank pieces denigrating the Russian military as drunks fighting with shovels; this idea that Russian officials and diplomats who have outmaneuvered their Western counterparts every step of the way will suddenly forget how to tie their shoes is some magical thinking.

Regardless, the Foreign Affairs piece argues for a subtle shift from shock-and-awe isolation to a longer containment strategy coupled with the hope Russia will self-implode. Key to that plan is that the US execute its long-planned shift of focus to China while leaving Europe to handle point on Russia.

This leads to a series of questions, including:

Is there any reason to believe the latter strategy will work better than the first?
Is the West even capable nowadays of executing a long term plan on such a scale?
Is Europe capable of directing the containment of Russia?
Which side is showing more cracks in its foundation and is more likely to crumble? For example, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius recently declared that Europe must prepare for a decades-long conflict with Russia. When one takes a close look at the current state of Germany, can keep from coming apart in ten months, let alone ten years?
And lastly, would a US containment policy do more to contain the West than it would Russia?
As Foreign Affairs and others try to update Kennan’s strategy for the decades to come, it’s worth remembering that Kennan himself opposed the militarized form his strategy took on. Often overlooked in his writings on containment were the passages that called on the US to do work at home in order to “measure up to its own best traditions and prove itself worthy of preservation as a great nation.”

That element is being ignored in Europe and the US yet again in the most recent iteration of the containment strategy.

https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2024/03 ... brand.html

******

Monument to Prigozhin and Utkin
March 10, 2:16 p.m



A monument to Prigozhin and Utkin, which will be installed on the territory of the memorial cemetery for fighters of the Wagner PMC in Goryachiy Klyuch.
Instead of surnames, call signs and personal badge numbers are engraved on the pedestal.

https://colonelcassad.livejournal.com/9016219.html

Google Translator

A good place for it, rather than on public property. Much like the Confederate statues here.

[blindpig]

The Russian-Chinese-Iranian Naval Drills Send An Important Message But Shouldn’t Be Exaggerated



ANDREW KORYBKO
MAR 12, 2024

A lot of well-intentioned folks look to influential members of the Alt-Media Community for guidance in understanding the complex processes associated with the global systemic transition, but these leading figures tend to exaggerate developments for clout, to push an ideology, and/or to solicit donations.

The latest Russian-Chinese-Iranian naval drills are taking place this week near the Islamic Republic’s port of Chabahar under the observance of Azerbaijan, India, Kazakhstan, Oman, Pakistan, and South Africa, whose envoys were invited to attend these exercises. The message being sent is that civilizationally dissimilar countries can cooperate in furtherance of shared security interests in the global commons, which is important but shouldn’t be exaggerated like the Alt-Media Community (AMC) is prone to do.

These three civilization-states are engines of the emerging Multipolar World Order, but they aren’t each other’s “allies” like the AMC frames them as, nor have they formed a “military bloc”. They’re strategic partners and are jointly cooperating to accelerate the global systemic transition away from unipolarity, but that’s different than being “allies” or part of a “military bloc” with the mutual defense obligations that those terms imply. In fact, some sensitive differences still between Russia and the other two.

This analysis here from the end of December hyperlinks to nearly two dozen analyses documenting the closeness of Russian-Israeli relations, which obviously worries Iran, while this one here from the same time confirms that Russia and Iran agreed to disagree about disputed Gulf islands. As for the Russian-Chinese dimension, this analysis here from last May draws attention to their range of differences, which include Kashmir, the South China Sea (specifically the Philippines and Vietnam), and China’s latest map.

Despite Russia’s sensitive differences with Iran and China, however, all three are willing to look beyond them in pursuit of the greater geopolitical good by responsibly managing their disagreements and prioritizing constructive cooperation with one another instead. This important message is meant to set an example for others to follow, which is clearly a lot easier said than done, but it’s still significant to note some of the countries that Iran invited to observe these ongoing drills.

Its relations with Azerbaijan were previously strained but have been on the upswing since Baku’s one-day anti-terrorist operation in mid-September liberated the rest of its illegally Armenian occupied lands. As for India, relations are excellent, but declining to invite it while carrying out exercises near the Indian-controlled port of Chabahar could have prompted suspicions of its intentions. And finally, Pakistan’s participation in an observance capacity shows that ties are improving after January’s tit-for-tat strikes.

The AMC tends to have negative views of Azerbaijan and India due to the Karabakh Conflict and false claims of India being the West’s “Trojan Horse” in BRICS but generally support Iran, so hopefully they’ll reconsider their attitudes towards those aforesaid two after Iran invited them to observe these drills. They should also question whether it’s worth discrediting themselves by describing these drills as exercises between “allies” who’ve formed a “military bloc” after those notions were just debunked.

A lot of well-intentioned folks look to influential members of the AMC for guidance in understanding the complex processes associated with the global systemic transition, but these leading figures tend to exaggerate developments for clout, to push an ideology, and/or to solicit donations. Simply put, they betray their audience’s trust for self-interested reasons, but nobody should be fooled by their fantastical claims after this piece just pre-bunked them to prevent others’ perceptions from being manipulated.

https://korybko.substack.com/p/the-russ ... nian-naval

******

Find out what the presidential elections in Russia will be like


Early and postal voting for the presidential elections in Russia opened on February 26 and would last until March 14. | Photo: EFE
Published March 12, 2024 (5 hours 49 minutes ago)

Russia's Central Election Commission indicated that it will make public the results of the presidential elections no later than March 28.

Russia is getting ready to hold the presidential elections at the end of this week in which the current president, Vladimir Putin, will seek to be re-elected as president of the Eurasian country until 2030.

According to the Central Electoral Commission (CEC), the electoral process will take place from Friday, March 15 to Sunday, March 17; being the first Russian presidential election to take place over three days.

Although the vast majority of votes will be cast starting March 15, early and mail-in voting opened on February 26 and would last until March 14 to allow certain residents in remote areas of 37 regions to vote. of Russia, as well as in the regions recovered by the Russian army in eastern Ukraine.


Approximately 70,000 people are eligible to vote in remote areas of Russia's Far Eastern Federal District, according to state news agency TASS. The region accounts for more than a third of Russia's total territory, but only has about 5 percent of its population.

Russia's CEC indicated that it will make public the results of the presidential elections no later than March 28, according to what was reported by the vice president of the electoral body, Nikolay Bulayev.

For the first time since 2008, there will be only four options to occupy the country's presidency: Leonid Slutsky of the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), Vladislav Davankov of New People, Nikolay Kharitonov of the Communist Party of the Russian Federation (KPRF) and the current Russian President Vladimir Putin, who is running for a fifth term.


According to current Russian legislation, if in the March 17 round of elections no candidate receives a majority of the votes, then a second round will take place exactly three weeks later, on April 7, 2024.

In order to be a presidential candidate, candidates must be at least 35 years old, have resided in Russia for at least 25 years and not have foreign citizenship or a residence permit in a foreign country, either at the time of the election or in any other country. previous moment.

https://www.telesurtv.net/news/rusia-co ... -0009.html

Russian military plane crashes near Moscow, killing 15


Eight crew members and seven passengers were on board the plane. | Photo: TASS
Published March 12, 2024 (2 hours 34 minutes ago)

Up to fifteen people are feared dead after a Russian military transport plane crashed shortly after takeoff on Tuesday.

A Russian military transport plane caught fire and crashed this Tuesday in the Ivanovo region, northeast of Moscow, the Russian Defense Ministry reported, confirming that 15 people were killed in the event.

Images circulating showed the IL-76 plane descending toward the ground with one of its engines on fire. Other images showed a plume of black smoke rising from the crash site.

The note from the Defense Ministry states that "At approximately 1:00 p.m. Moscow time, an IL-76 military transport plane crashed during takeoff of a scheduled flight in the Ivanovo region."


Eight crew members and seven passengers were on board the plane.

"According to reports from the scene, the cause of the disaster was a fire in one of the engines during takeoff of the plane," the Ministry of Defense added.

Russian Telegram channel Shot said several bodies had been recovered from the crash site, citing an anonymous source. This has not been officially confirmed by Russian officials.

The accident comes weeks after an IL-76 plane carrying 65 Ukrainian prisoners of war crashed in a Russian region bordering Ukraine.

The Ivanovo region is located more than 700 kilometers from the border with Ukraine.

https://www.telesurtv.net/news/accident ... -0013.html

Google Translator