Category Archives: Putin

Allister Heath writing in the Telegraph:

Britain is now in grave danger of falling into Vladimir Putins trap. His kamikaze economic war on the West will eventually take down his disgusting coterie of war criminals, but in the meantime it is beginning to inflict immense, permanent damage on the Western way of life, to the great delight of Moscows siloviki hard men.

We risk ending up with calamitous poverty, civil disobedience, a new socialist government by next year, a break-up of the UK, nationalisations, price and incomes policies, punitive wealth taxes and eventually a complete economic and financial meltdown and IMF bailout.The situation in the EU is, if anything, worse.

He says that Britain was right to back Ukraine to the hilt, and must not back away from that commitment. But it's going to cost. More:

Cheap and plentiful energy is essential to our consumerist societies. We cannot be delusional about the scale of the developing catastrophe. Household energy and vehicle fuel costs will jump from 4.5 per cent of household spending in early 2021 to some 13.4 per cent by April next year, much higher than at any time during the past 50 years, including the 1970s, according to Carbon Brief. Households may face a rise in energy costs of 167billion, or 7 per cent of GDP, taking total expenditure to 231 billion, more than government spending on health, and that is before the hit to business is accounted for. The rise for consumers alone is more than the combined defence and education budgets.

He concludes:

Why, oh why, did Britain and Europe allow themselves to become Putins hostages?

Wait ... what?! As Gavin Ashenden puts it:

Except that it wasnt Putins trap, it was NATO & the EU trapping itself with globalist expansion. But so much easier to blame Putin.

If you haven't done so yet, now is the time to read Christopher Caldwell's excellent essay, "Why Are We In Ukraine?" Excerpt:

Russia was never without an excuse to meddle in Ukraine. The Ukrainians are an ancient people. But rather like the Kurds they inhabit a dangerous neighborhood, and for most of their modern history have been unable to found a real nation-state. Under Communism Ukraine became one of the Soviet socialist republics. This was an administrative statehood, not a real sovereignty. Still, it was better than what they got in the decade after Communism fell. Living standards plummeted by 60%. Corruption rose to levels unique in Europe.

The cultural lines between Russia and Ukraine have always been blurry. They are fraternal peoples and arch-foes. They are, it seems, the entities for which the word frenemy was coined. In many parts of the countrynotably the Crimean peninsula, with its ports and its centuries-old Russian naval bases, and in the eastern mining and manufacturing region called the Donbasspeople feel themselves considerably more Russian than Ukrainian. In 1944 Stalin complicated the situation (or, by his lights, simplified it) when he deported the Muslim Tatars who had been resident there, primarily in Crimea, for centuries. Russian has for generations been the lingua franca of business and culture in Ukrainealthough its public use has been suppressed since 2014.

That was a hinge year. Ukrainian diplomats had been negotiating an association agreement with the European Union that would have created closer trade relations. Russia outbid the E.U. with its own deal, which included $15 billion in incentives for Ukraine. President Viktor Yanukovych signed it. Protests, backed by the United States, broke out in Kievs main square, the Maidan, and in cities across the country. By then the U.S. had spent $5 billion to influence Ukraines politics, according to a 2013 speech by State Department official Victoria Nuland. Russia now viewed this activity as having funded subversion and revolt. Like every Ukrainian government since the end of the Cold War, Yanukovychs government was corrupt. Unlike many of them it was legitimately elected. When shootings near the Maidan in Kiev left dozens of protesters dead, Yanukovych fled the country, and the United States played a central role in setting up a successor government.

Meddling with vital Russian interests at Russias doorstep turned out to be more dangerous than orating about democracy. Rather than see the Russophone and pro-Russian region of Crimea transformed from a Russian naval stronghold into an American one, Russia invaded it. Took over might be a better verb, because there was no loss of life due to the military operation. Whether the Russian takeover was a reaction to American crowding or an unprovoked invasion, one thing was clear: In Russias view, Ukraines potential delivery of Crimea to NATO was a more serious threat to its survival in 2014 thanto take an exampleIslamic terrorism had been to Americas in 2001 or 2003. Understanding that Russia would respond accordingly to any attempt to wrest it back, Russias European and Black Sea neighbors tended thenceforth to treat Crimea as ade factopart of Russia. So, for the most part, did the United States. The Minsk accords, signed by Russia and Ukraine, were meant to guarantee a measure of linguistic and political autonomy in the culturally Russian Donbass. (Russia claims the violation of these accords as acasus belli.)

Anyone who watched the first Trump impeachment in 2019 will know that U.S. Ukraine policyand the personnel carrying it outdid not change, in its essence, between the Obama and Trump administrations. Through steady deliveries of weaponry and military know-how, the failed state of 2014, defended by a ramshackle collection of hooligans and oligarch-sponsored militias, was transformed by 2021 into the third-largest army in Europe, fully interoperable with that of the United States. Ukraine, with a quarter-million men under arms, was outmanned only by Turkey and Russia. The real caesura came not with Trumps arrival but with his departure. In the first weeks of 2021, Joe Biden committed his administration to a considerably more aggressive Ukraine policy. Last November 10, Blinken signed a strategic partnership that not only reasserted the Bush Administrations commitment to admit Ukraine into NATO, but also reopened contested sovereignty questions, including that of strategically vital, culturally Russian Crimea.

The Mearsheimer account culminates with an implicit question: What did youthinkRussia would do?

Similarly, when Western leaders responded to Putin's invasion with an open attempt to destroy the Russian economy -- I quoted some of the statements by EU figures here yesterday -- what did they think Russia would do? It's incredible that seemingly intelligent people in the West live under the illusion that because Russia's invasion of Ukraine is illegal and immoral, that Russia should sit back and allow the West to destroy its economy without retaliating.

Viktor Orban said from the beginning of this conflict that the West had better pursue peace, because it cannot afford the cost of an energy war. "Putin symp!" they all screamed. But Viktor Orban was right.

I don't know what it was like in the United States this spring and summer; I've been in Europe for almost the entirety of the Russia-Ukraine war. But I well remember that here in Europe at least, there were widespread condemnations of all things Russian. When I arrived in Vienna in early June, you could see handbills around the city saying that you cannot love Dostoevsky or Tchaikovsky without also loving Putin -- that is to say, they were calling for a total boycott of all things Russian, even Russian culture. We didn't even see such madness during the Cold War, when Russia was ruled by an imperialistic totalitarian regime far worse than the Putin government (which is bad enough). All things Russian were hysterically demonized, and Russians who may not even have supported the war were treated like trash.

So, how can we be surprised that Russia is using its energy weapon against the West? Again: we in the West have been waging economic war on Russia since the invasion (as well as sending Ukraine weapons and intelligence). You may think that waging economic war was and is the right thing to do morally, but you surely cannot be such a hypocrite as to say that Russia has no right to do what it's doing to the West now -- and you surely cannot be such a fool as to believe that this was not inevitable.

If Viktor Orban could see this coming back in February, when the war started, why couldn't every other European leader? Why couldn't Washington?

To be clear: none of this excuses Putin's invasion of Ukraine. The loathing of Putin and Russia over this invasion, though, made it impossible for very many people in positions of leadership to think clearly about what was at stake in this conflict. It caused them to believe, somehow, that the West was invulnerable, and could do what it wanted to Russia, with impunity.

Well.

And now Britons and Europeans who don't understand why they have to be broke and cold in the dark, and live through the destruction of their economies and livelihoods, for the sake of Ukraine, are probably not going to be in the mood to be told that objecting to the idiotic leadership that got their countries into this mess means they are nothing but a pack of Putin symps who love dictatorship.

I wish Allister Heath would go visit this coffeeshop in Ireland and explain to its owner why this is necessary, to stand for Ukraine:

Subscribe Today Get weekly emails in your inbox

Here, via an Irish newspaper, is a photo of Poppyfields Cafe. Take a good look -- it will surely be closing soon. Maybe Geraldine Dolan can tweet "Slava Ukraini" from the unemployment line this winter.

View post:

Putin's Last Laugh - The American Conservative

The deceased was no mere exile. A Latvian-born U.S. citizen, Rapoport moved back to the U.S. in 2012 after making a fortune in Moscow but running afoul of the Russian government. Settling in Washington, he rubbed elbows with mover and shakers, living in a Kalorama manse that his family later sold for $5.5 million in 2016, when it became the home of Ivanka Trump and Jared Kushner. By then, Rapoport had relocated again, setting up shop in Kyiv, where he became a frequent contact of U.S. media.

In the eyes of Rapoports political allies, the history of untimely deaths of Kremlin critics makes the polices initial no-foul-play conclusion seem naive. He was a well-known critic of Putin in the West and had been an effective critic, Browder says. He was also an open supporter of [the jailed opposition leader] Alexei Navalny. And he had all these connections in the elite of Washington, D.C. The immediate response of the Washington, D.C. police, I think, is a premature and unhelpful conclusion.

Nothing adds up, says David Satter, a longtime Moscow correspondent in Soviet and post-Soviet times who in 2013 became the first U.S. reporter booted from Russia since the Cold War. Satter, now a frequent Wall Street Journal contributor and the author of several books about Putins Russia, had stayed with Rapoport in Kyiv. This is why it has to be investigated. But everything we do know is very, very strange.

Rapoports death has been the subject of major coverage overseas, but is oddly off the radar in Washington, where there has been little major media attention. Its a strange and possibly telling omission from our midterm-absorbed citys water-cooler conversation: A number of high-profile figures are implying that a foreign government may have killed an American citizen in the capital of the United States. Even if their conjectures are overblown, it ought to be news.

The suspicions, Browder says, began when the news of Rapoports death first broke on the Telegram channel of a former editor of Russian Tattler, via a convoluted story that claimed Rapoports dog was let loose with a suicide note and cash attached to him. Because intelligence services often put out information through gossip sites, the location raised antennae. How the hell did she [the ex-Tattler editor] learn about Dans alleged suicide? asks Vlad Burlutsky, a Russian expat who met Rapoport through his work supporting Navalny.

In a Russian media interview, Rapoports wife denied the story about the note and the suicide, saying her husband had been making plans and that she expected to be in Washington to see him. (The police report also makes no mention of a note or a dog.)

Ive talked several times to Alyona, his widow, and she says she is absolutely certain that its not a suicide, says close friend Ilya Ponomarev, the only member of the Russian Duma to vote against the annexation of Crimea and now a strident Putin critic also living in Kyiv.

Ponomarev says hes less certain. But he fears a repeat of what happened in 2015, when Putins former media czar died in odd circumstances in Washington and, in his view, U.S. authorities soft-pedaled the investigation. I would not be surprised that it would be the same thing, that people dont want to deal with some crazy Russians, he says. (Alyona Rapoport did not respond to my messages, and has only been quoted in a single Russian media story since confirming his death on Facebook.)

The case for suspicion involves some more basic practical questions: What was up with the wad of cash? Why would Rapoport have been making plans for the next few days? Why was he wearing a hat?

But mainly the suspicion has to do with Russia. Theres an old saying that anyone can commit a murder but it takes brains to commit a suicide, says Satter. The version of suicide is for the irrelevant people who will simply accept it and move on without raising questions.

Born in the USSR, Rapoport came with his parents to the U.S. at age 11, settling in Texas. After graduating from college, he moved to Russia in the wild post-Soviet days, settling in Moscow after a stint in Siberia. He made his fortune there as a stockbroker, eventually opening Soho Rooms, one of the citys top nightspots. But in 2012, he announced that he was leaving Russia, declaring on Facebook that life there had become unbearable and disgusting.

In Washington, Rapoport and his Russian-born wife settled into the exclusive Kalorama neighborhood, enrolling a child at Maret, a top local private school. Acquaintances here describe a frenetic, intense personality, someone with ups and downs. He dabbled in the dining industry here, too, says Winston Bao Lord, a tech entrepreneur whose investments are largely in the hospitality space. He met Rapoport, who at the time had some money invested in an Alexandria restaurant, to pitch an idea that never panned out. Lord says Rapoport was a jocular social presence. He was a big partier when I knew him, Lord says. He was a confident guy that felt very strongly about his views.

Rapoport appeared occasionally in the media with Kremlin-critical posts. In 2018, the open-source investigative platform Bellingcat reported that Rapoport was behind the Facebook page of David Jewberg, purported to be a senior Pentagon analyst. The entirely made-up Lieutenant Colonel Jewberg was frequently quoted in Russian and Ukrainian media (and by some of Rapoports Washington friends) as a real U.S. defense insider. Mostly in Russian, the posts were critical of the Obama administrations insufficiently aggressive stances toward Russia and Facebooks alleged pro-Russia bias.

Dan is likely the most intelligent person Ive ever met, says Yuri Somov, who struck up a friendship with Rapoport in Washington. And Ive met people like Kissinger and Greenspan. Im a professional interpreter. He was incredibly intense and very much larger than life, but in a good way. Somov describes himself as apolitical, but says his friend was different: He was a romantic. He believed things could be changed and he believed he could be a part of those changes.

Washington, Somov says, was probably not Rapoports natural milieu. In 2016, after divorcing, he left town, moving to Kyiv, where the tumultuous scene might have represented an opportunity for someone whose first experience was in crisis-racked post-Soviet Moscow. His ex-wife and kids stayed here. He was too different from the world of U.S. business, Somov says. He probably felt closer to home in Ukraine than in the U.S.

Somov, who says hes been devastated by Rapoports death, is among those who thinks the suicide story is completely plausible.

Not every unexplained death in Russia is the KGB or the GRU bumping someone off, says Fiona Hill, the former senior Russia specialist at the White House, who met Rapoport through Somov.

Rapoport had remarried in Kyiv to a Ukrainian virologist; theyd started a new family. After the war began, Rapoport relocated his wife and child to Denmark but stayed in Ukraine and then came to Washington this summer, shipping his dog as well. Missing them, friends say, left him distraught.

He was having to start over again for the third time in 10 years, Somov says. We did not meet up, which I will regret for the rest of my life because he probably needed me. When he asked me, lunch tomorrow? after not seeing each other for several years, I should have read between the lines. I must have asked him something, but I remember the answer, which is still in my phone: It has been a very difficult three months. From him, particularly, thats saying a lot. More than notable, it was extraordinary. No matter how things worked, he kept up appearances.

Ponomarev also says Rapoport didnt seem great when they barbecued in Washington during a visit this summer. He said Rapoport had cut way back on drinking after his second marriage, but was drinking heavily when they met up. It was very clear he was depressed that he was not with his family, he says. Still, it didnt seem desperate. I cannot exclude that it was a suicide, but in general nothing pointed in this direction when we met. If I would feel like something like this could happen, I would talk to him more.

But for a number of people in Rapoports anxious political circles, its hard to put stock in coincidences. He was making plans for the future. He had plans for the next week and the week after, says Jason Jay Smart, a Kyiv-based American political consultant who says he spoke weekly with Rapoport over the past half-decade. Its not something someone who was planning on jumping off a building would do.

And theres history to make Russian skeptics suspicious of Washington authorities investigative chops. In 2015, Mikhail Lesin, a former media aide to the Russian president, died in Washingtons Dupont Circle Hotel. Initially reported as a heart attack, the medical examiner later determined that he had died of blunt force trauma. But the report was later amended to say that the death had been an accident, the injuries sustained possibly from falling off a bed after he returned to his hotel room extremely drunk. Prosecutors closed the case. That was outrageous, Ponomarev says.

Closer to Rapoport but further from politics his partner in Soho Rooms died in an apparent suicide after his own fall from a building, in Moscow in 2017. One Rapoport friend speculated that foul play could be business-related rather than political, though Satter says the two arent so easily separated. Even if it was just business interests, that doesnt mean the Russian intelligence service wasnt involved, he says. They often use these disputes.

The Russian embassy did not respond to a request for comment by deadline.

The FBI says it does not comment about whether it is investigating alongside the locals. And the medical examiners report, alas, may not be here to clear things up anytime soon: All unnatural deaths, even open-and-shut suicides, get sent for a report. They can take up to 90 days.

In the meantime, people who find the death fishy as well as people who merely find it heartbreaking can probably see evidence in Rapoports final Facebook post, three days before his death. It was a photo of Marlon Brandos Apocalypse Now character, accompanied by the characters haunting last words: The horror, the horror.

See the original post:

A Putin Critic Fell from a Building in Washington. Was It Really a Suicide? - POLITICO

Putins Decree Promising Increase Military Recruitment Could Just Be Lip Service Last Thursday, Russian President Vladimir Putin responded to his militarys ongoing struggle to increase its control over regions of southeastern Ukraine by signing a decree that pledged to increase the size of his military by 137,000 troops.

The order didnt specify how he planned to achieve it, but appeared to confirm reports that Russia has lost a substantial number of troops to dead or injury since the beginning of the Ukraine invasion roughly 80,000 by the Pentagons latest estimations.

However, if British officials are to be believed, the decree could simply be lip service. Without a clear plan, Putins decree may have set an impossible task for his government officials to achieve.

U.K. Officials Say Decree Unlikely to Make Meaningful Progress: Analysis

In a daily intelligence update published on Sunday, the United Kingdoms Ministry of Defence expressed skepticism over President Putins decree and described Putins plans to increase the size of his military as unclear.

On 25 August 2022, the Russian Presidential Administration issued a presidential decree increasing the established strength of the Russian armed forces to 1,150,628, an increase of nearly 140,000, the update reads, adding that the Russian government was instructed to provide funding to achieve the increase.

The update then described Putins plans as unclear, speculating that Putin may be planning to recruit more volunteer contract soldiers, or to increase the annual targets for the conscription draft.

In any case, under the legislation currently in place, the decree is unlikely to make substantive progress towards increasing Russias combat power in Ukraine, the British intelligence officials continued, pointing to Russias loss of tens of thousands of troops, the few new contract servicemen currently being recruited, and the fact that conscripts are not technically required to serve outside of Russian territory without undergoing four months of training.

If that last point becomes a stumbling block for the Kremlin, theres no reason to say Putin wont declare Ukraine as Russian territory which already appears to be the purpose of the war to force those troops to serve. This is purely speculation, however, and a more straightforward solution for the Kremlin would be to find a way for those troops to undergo the necessary training and potentially find a way to speed up that training so troops can be deployed before the years end.

Ukrainian soldiers stand on top of a tank, amid Russias invasion of Ukraine, in the frontline city of Lyman, Donetsk region, Ukraine April 28, 2022. REUTERS/Jorge Silva

Russian Troops Fear Returning Over Possible Ukraine Deployment

As Putin prepares to increase the size of his military, likely to boost his chances in Ukraine, Russian troops already serving abroad are reportedly fearful of returning home over the likelihood that they will be sent to Ukraine.

As many as 1,000 Russian troops are presently serving in Kazakhstan, and reports this weekend revealed how Russian military personnel in the country are fearful of returning home over the likelihood of being deployed to serve in a conflict that carries a more significant risk of death.

Jack Buckby is a British author, counter-extremism researcher, and journalist based in New York. Reporting on the U.K., Europe, and the U.S., he works to analyze and understand left-wing and right-wing radicalization, and reports on Western governments approaches to the pressing issues of today. His books and research papers explore these themes and propose pragmatic solutions to our increasingly polarized society.

See more here:

Putin Has No Clue How to Increase the Size of His Military - 19FortyFive

Vladimir Putin is determined to shape the future to look like his version of the past. Russias president invaded Ukraine not because he felt threatened by NATO expansion or by Western provocations. He ordered his special military operation because he believes that it is Russias divine right to rule Ukraine, to wipe out the countrys national identity, and to integrate its people into a Greater Russia.

He laid out this mission in a 5,000-word treatise, published in July 2021, entitled, On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians. In it, Putin insisted that Belarusians, Russians, and Ukrainians areall descendants of the Rus, an ancient people who settled the lands between the Black and Baltic Seas. He asserted that they are bound together by a common territory and language and the Orthodox Christian faith. In his version of history, Ukraine has never been sovereign, except for a few historical interludes when it triedand failedto become an independent state. Putin wrote that Russia was robbed of core territory when the Bolsheviks created the Soviet Union in 1922 and established a Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic. In his telling, since the Soviet collapse, the West has used Ukraine as a platform to threaten Russia, and it has supported the rise of neo-Nazis there. Putins essay, which every soldier sent to Ukraine is supposed to carry, ends by asserting that Ukraine can only be sovereign in partnership with Russia. We are one people, Putin declares.

This treatise, and similar public statements, make clear that Putin wants a world where Russia presides over a new Slavic union composed of Belarus, Russia, Ukraine, and perhaps the northern part of Kazakhstan (which is heavily Slavic)and where all the other post-Soviet states recognize Russias suzerainty. He also wants the West and the global South to accept Russias predominant regional role in Eurasia. This is more than a sphere of influence; it is a sphere of control, with a mixture of outright territorial reintegration of some places and dominance in the security, political, and economic spheres of others.

Putin is serious about achieving these goals by military and nonmilitary means. He has been at war in Ukraine since early 2014, when Russian forces, wearing green combat uniforms stripped of their insignia, took control of Crimea in a stealth operation. This attack was swiftly followed by covert operations to stir up civil disorder in Ukraines eastern and southern regions close to the Russian border. Russia succeeded in fomenting revolt in the Donbas region and sparking an armed conflict that resulted in 14,000 deaths over the next eight years. All these regions have been targeted for assault and conquest since February 2022. Similarly, in Belarus, Putin took advantage of internal crises and large-scale protests in 2020 and 2021 to constrain its leaders room for maneuver. Belarus, which has a so-called union arrangement with Russia, was then used as the staging ground for the special military operation against Ukraine.

The Russian president has made it clear that his country is a revisionist power. In a March 2014 speech marking Crimeas annexation, Putin put the West on notice that Russia was on the offensive instaking out its regional claims. To make this task easier, Putin later took steps that he believed would sanction-proof the Russian economy by reducing its exposure to the United States and Europe, including pushing for the domestic production of critical goods. He stepped up repression, conducting targeted assassinations and imprisoning opponents. He carried out disinformation operations and engaged in efforts to bribe and blackmail politicians abroad. Putin has constantly adapted his tactics to mitigate Western responsesto the point that on the eve of his invasion, as Russian troops massed on Ukraines borders, he bragged to some European interlocutors that he had bought the West. There was nothing, he thought, that the United States or Europe could do to constrain him.

So far, the Wests reaction to the invasion has generally been united and robust. Russias aggressive attack on Ukraine was a wake-up call for the United States and its allies. But the West must understand that it is dealing with a leader who is trying to change the historical narrative of the last hundred yearsnot just of the period since the end of the Cold War. Vladimir Putin wants to make Ukraine, Europe, and indeed the whole world conform to his own version of history. Understanding his objectives is central to crafting the right response.

In Vladimir Putins mind, history mattersthat is, history as he sees it. Putins conception of the past may be very different from what is generally accepted, but his narratives are a potent political weapon, and they underpin his legitimacy. Well before the full invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022, Putin had been making intellectual forays into obscure periods of the past and manipulating key events to set up the domestic and international justification for his war. In 2010, at the annual meeting of the Kremlin-sponsored Valdai International Discussion Club, Putins press spokesman told the audience that the Russian president reads books on Russian history all the time. He makes frequent pronouncements about Russian history, including about his own place in it. Putin has put Kyiv at the center of his drive to correct what he says is a historical injustice: the separation of Ukraine from Russia during the 1922 formation of the Soviet Union.

The presidents obsession with Russias imperial past runs deep. In his Kremlin chambers, Putin has strategically placed statues of the Russian monarchs Peter the Great and Catherine the Great, whoconquered what are today Ukrainian territories in wars with the Swedish and Ottoman empires. He has also usurped Ukraines history and appropriated some of its most prominent figures. In November 2016, for example, right outside the Kremlin gates, Putin erected a statue of Vladimir the Great, the tenth-century grand prince of the principality of Kyiv. In Putins version of history, Grand Prince Vladimir converted to Christianity on behalf of all of ancient Rus in 988, making him the holy saint of Orthodox Christianity and a Russian, not a Ukrainian, Figure. The conversion means that there is no Ukrainian nation separate from Russia. The grand prince belongs to Moscow, not to Kyiv.

Since the war, Putin has doubled down on his historical arguments. He deputized his former culture minister and close Kremlin aide, Vladimir Medinsky, to lead the Russian delegation in early talks with Ukraine. According to a well-informed Russian academic, Medinsky was one of the ghostwriters of a series of essays by Putin on Ukraine and its supposed fusion with Russia. As quickly became clear, Medinskys brief was to press Russias historical claims to Ukraine and defend Putins distorted narratives, not just to negotiate a diplomatic solution.

Putins assertions, of course, are historical miasmas, infused with a brew of temporal and factual contradictions. They ignore, for example, the fact that in 988, the idea of a united Russian state and empire was centuries off in the future. Indeed, the first reference to Moscow as a place of any importance was not recorded until 1147.

On the eve of the invasion, Putin gave a speech accusing Bolshevik leader Vladimir Lenin of destroying the Russian empire by launching a revolution during World War I and then separating, severing what is historically Russian land. As Putin put it, Bolshevik, Communist Russia created a country that had never existed beforeUkraineby wedging Russian territories such as the Donbas region, a center of heavy industry, into a new Ukrainian socialist republic. In fact, Lenin and the Bolsheviks essentially recreated the Russian empire and just called it something else. They established separate Soviet Socialist Republics for Ukraine and other regions to contrast themselves with the imperial tsars, who reigned over a united, Russified state and oppressed ethnic minorities. But for Putin, the Bolsheviks decision was illegitimate, robbing Russia of its patrimony and stirring zealous nationalists inUkraine, who then developed dangerous ideas of independence. Putin claims he is reversing these century-old strategic mistakes.

Narratives about NATO have also played a special role in Putins version of history. Putin argues that NATO is a tool of U.S. imperialism and a means for the United States to continue its supposed Cold War occupation and domination of Europe. He claims that NATO compelled eastern European member countries to join the organization and accuses it of unilaterally expanding into Russias sphere of influence. In reality, those countries, still fearful after decades ofSoviet domination, clamored to become members.

But according to Putin, these purported actions by the United States and NATO have forced Russia to defend itself against military encroachment; Moscow had no other choice, he claims, but to invade Ukraine to forestall it from joining NATO, even though the organization was not going to admit the country. On July 7, 2022, Putin told Russian parliamentary leaders that the war in Ukraine wasunleashed by the collective West, which was trying to contain Russia and impose its new world order on the rest of the world.

The more that Russia tries to erase the Ukrainian national identity, the stronger it becomes.

But Putin also plays up Russias imperial role. At a June 9, 2022, Moscow conference, Putin told young Russian entrepreneurs that Ukraine is a colony, not a sovereign country. He likened himself to Peter the Great, who waged the Great Northern War for 21 years against Swedenreturning and reinforcing control over land that was part of Russia. This explanation also echoes what Putin told U.S. President George Bush at the April 2008 NATO summit in Bucharest: Ukraine is not a real country.

The United States was, of course, once a colony of Great Britain. So were Australia, Canada, India, Ireland, and numerous other states that have been independent and sovereign for decades. That does not make them British or give the United Kingdom a contemporary claim to exert control over their destinies, even though many of these countries have English as their first or second language. Yet Putin insists that Ukraines Russian speakers are all Moscows subjects and that, globally, all Russian speakers are part of the Russian world, with special ties to the motherland.

In Ukraine, however, his push has backfired. Since February 24, 2022, Putins insistence that Ukrainians who speak Russian are Russians has,on the contrary, helped to forge a new national identity in Ukraine centered on the Ukrainian language. The more that Putin tries to erase the Ukrainian national identity with bombs and artillery shells, the stronger it becomes.

Ukraine and Ukrainians have a complicated history. Empires have come and gone, and borders have changed for centuries, so the people living on modern Ukrainian territory have fluid, compound identities. But Ukraine has been an independent state since 1991, and Putin is genuinely aggrieved that Ukrainians insist on their own statehood and civic identity.

Take Putins frequent references to World War II. Since 2011, Putin has enshrined the Great Fatherland War as the seminal event for modern Russia. He has strictly enforced official narratives about the conflict. He has also portrayed his current operation as its successor; in Putins telling, the invasion of Ukraine is designed to liberate the country from Nazis. But for Putin, Ukrainians are Nazis not because they follow the precepts of Adolf Hitler or espouse national socialism. They are Nazis because they are zealous nationalistsakin to the controversial World War IIera Ukrainian partisan Stepan Bandera, who fought with the Germans against Soviet forces. They are Nazis because they refuse to admit they are Russians.

Putins conjuring of Ukrainian Nazis has gained more traction domestically than anywhere else. Yet internationally, Putins assertions about NATO and proxy wars with the United States and the collective West have won a variety of adherents, from prominent academics to Pope Francis, who said in June 2022 that the Ukraine war was perhaps somehow provoked. Western politicians and analysts continue to debate whether NATO is at fault for the war. These arguments persist even though Putins 2014 annexation of Crimea came in response to Ukraines efforts to associate with the European Union, not with NATO. And the debate has gone on, even though when Finland and Sweden applied to join the alliance in June 2022, despite months of threats from Russia, Putin told reporters that Kremlin officials dont have problems with Sweden and Finland like we do with Ukraine. Putins problem, then, was not NATO in particular. It was that Ukraine wanted to associate with any entity or country other than Russia. Whether Ukraine wanted to join the European Union or NATOor have bilateral relations with the United Statesany of these efforts would have been an affront to Russias history and dignity.

To Putin, Ukrainians are Nazis because they refuse to admit they are Russians.

But Putin knows it will be difficult to negotiate a settlement in Ukraine based on his version of history and to reconcile fundamentally different stories of the past. Most modern European states emerged from the ruins of empires and the disintegration of larger multiethnic states. The war in Ukraine could lead to more Russian interference to stoke simmering conflicts in weak states such as Bosnia-Herzegovina and other Balkan countries, where history and territorial claims are also disputed.

Yet no matter the potential cost, Putin wants his past to prevail in Europes political present. And to make sure that happens, the Russian military is in the field, in full force, fighting the regular Ukrainian army. Unlike the situation in Donbas from 2014 to 2022, when Russia falsely denied that it was involved, this war is a direct conflict between the two states. As Putin also told his Russian parliamentarians on July 7, he is determined to fight to the last Ukrainian, even though he purportedly sees Ukrainians as brothers.

Putin abhors that the United States and European countries are supporting Ukraine militarily. In response, he has launched an economic and information war against the West, clearly signaling that this is not only a military conflict and a battle over who gets to own history. Russia has weaponized energy, grain, and other commodities. It has spread disinformation, including by accusing Ukraine of committing the very atrocities that Russia has carried out on the battlefield and by blaming Western sanctions for exacerbating famines in Africa when it is Russia that has blocked Ukrainian grain shipments to the continent from the Black Sea. And in many parts of the world, Russia is winning the information war. So far, the West has not been able to be completely effective in the informational space.

Nevertheless, Western support for Ukraine has been significant. This support has two major elements: weapons and sanctions, including the High Mobility Artillery Rocket Systems (HIMARS) from the United States, which have significantly increased Ukraines ability to strike back at Russian targets. Other NATO members have also supplied weapons and humanitarian assistance. But Ukraines constant need to replenish its arms has already begun to deplete the arsenals of donating countries.

Western energy, financial, and export control sanctions have been extensive, and they are affecting the Russian economy. But sanctions cannot alter Putins view of history or his determination to subjugate Ukraine, so they have not changed his calculus or his war aims. Indeed, close observers say that Putin has rarely consulted his economic advisers during this war, apart from Elvira Nabiullina, the head of the central bank, who has astutely managed the value of the ruble. This is a stark break from the past, when Putin has always appeared extremely interested in the Russian economy and eager to discuss statistics and growth rates in great detail. Any concerns about the long-term economic impact of the war have receded from his view.

Police officers walking past a monument to Peter the Great in Saint Petersburg, Russia, February 2019

And to date, Russias economy has weathered the sanctions, although growth rates are forecast to plunge this year. The real pinch from Western export controls will be felt in 2023, when Russia will lack the semiconductors and spare parts for its manufacturing sector, and its industrial plants will be forced to close. The countrys oil industry will especially struggle as it loses out on technology and software from the international oil industry.

Europe and the United States have imposed wide-ranging energy sanctions on Russia, with the European Union committed to phasing out oil imports from Russia by the end of 2022. But limiting gas imports is much more challenging, as a number of countries, including Germany, have few alternatives to replace Russian gas in the short term, and Putin has weaponized energy by severely reducing gas supplies to Europe. For 50 years, the Soviet Union and Russia cast themselves as reliable suppliers of natural gas to Western Europe in a relationship of mutual dependence: Europe needed gas, and Moscow needed gas revenues. But that calculation is gone. Putin believes that Russia can forgo these revenues because countries still buying Russian oil and gas are paying higher prices for ithigher prices that he helped provoke by cutting back on Russias exports to Europe. And even if Russia does eventually lose energy revenues, Putin appears willing to pay that price. What he ultimately cares about is undermining European support for Ukraine.

Russias economic and energy warfare extends to the weaponization of nuclear power. Russia took over the Chernobyl plant in Ukraine at the beginning of the war, after recklessly sending Russian soldiers into the highly radioactive red zone and forcing the Ukrainian staff at the plant to work under dangerous conditions. Then, it abandonedthe plant after having exposed the soldiers to toxic radiation. Russia subsequently shelled and took over Ukraines Zaporizhzhya nuclear power plant, Europes largest, and turned it into a military base. By attacking the power plant and transforming it into a military garrison, Russia has created a safety crisis for the thousands of workers there. Putins broad-based campaign does not stop at nuclear energy.

Putins goal is not negotiation but Ukrainian capitulation.

Russia has also weaponized food supplies, blockading Ukraine and preventing it from exporting its abundant grain and fertilizer stocks. In July 2022, Turkey and the United Nations brokered an agreement to allow Ukraine and Russia to export grain and fertilizer, but the implementation of this deal faced multiple obstacles, given the war raging in the Black Sea area. Indeed, immediately after the official signing of the agreement, Russia shelled some of the infrastructure at Ukraines critical Odessa port.

Putin has fallen back on another historic Russian military tacticbogging down opposing forces and waiting for winter. Much as his predecessors arranged for Napoleons armies to be trapped in the snows near Moscow and for Nazi soldiers to freeze to death outside Stalingrad, Putin plans to have French and German citizens shivering in their homes. In his speech at the June 2022 St. Petersburg International Economic Forum, Putin predicted that, as Europeansface a cold winter and suffer the economic consequences of the sanctions their governments have imposed on Russia and on Russian gas exports, populist parties will rise, and new elites will come to power. The June 2022 parliamentary elections in France, when Marine Le Pens extreme-right party increased its seats elevenfoldlargely because of voters unhappiness with their economic situationreinforced Putins convictions. The collapse of Italian Prime Minister Mario Draghis government in July 2022 and the possible return of a populist, pro-Russian prime minister in the fall were also considered results of popular economic discontent. The Kremlin aims to fracture Western unity against Russia under the pressure of energy shortages, high prices, and economic hardship.

In the meantime, Putin is confident that he can prevail. On the surface, popular support for the war inside Russia seems reasonably robust. Polling by the independent Levada Center shows that Putins approval rating went up after the invasion began. Nonetheless, there is good reason for skepticism about the depth of active support for him. Hundreds of thousands of people who oppose the war have left the country. Many of them, in doing so, have explicitly said that they want to be part of Russias future but not Vladimir Putins version of the past. Russians who have stayed and publicly criticized the war have been harassed or imprisoned. Others are indifferent, or they passively support the war. Indeed, life for most people in Moscow and other big Russian cities goes on as normal. So far, the conscripts who have been sent to fight and die are not the children of Russias elites or urban middle class. They are from poor, rural areas, and many of them are not ethnically Russian. Rumors after five months of combat that the Moscow-linked Wagner mercenary group was recruiting prisoners to fight suggested that Russia faced an acute manpower shortage. But the troops are urged on by propaganda that dehumanizes the Ukrainians and makes the fighting seem more palatable.

Despite calls by some for a negotiated settlement that would involve Ukrainian territorial concessions, Putin seems uninterested in a compromise that would leave Ukraine as a sovereign, independent statewhatever its borders. According to multiple former seniorU.S. officials we spoke with, in April 2022, Russian and Ukrainian negotiators appeared to have tentatively agreed on the outlines of anegotiated interim settlement: Russia would withdraw to its position on February 23, when it controlled part of the Donbas region and all of Crimea, and in exchange, Ukraine would promise not to seek NATO membership and instead receive security guarantees from a number of countries. But as Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov stated in a July interview with his countrys state media, this compromise is no longer an option. Even giving Russia all of the Donbas is not enough. Now the geography is different, Lavrov asserted, in describing Russias short-term military aims. Its also Kherson and the Zaporizhzhya regions and a number of other territories. The goal is not negotiation, but Ukrainian capitulation.

At any point, negotiations with Russiaif not handled carefully and with continued strong Western support for Ukraines defense and securitywould merely facilitate an operational pause for Moscow. After a time, Russia would continue to try to undermine the Ukrainian government. Moscow would likely first attempt to take Odessa and other Black Sea ports with the goal of leaving Ukraine an economically inviable, landlocked country. If he succeeds in that, Putin would launch a renewed assault on Kyiv as well, with the aim of unseating the present government and installing a pro-Moscow puppet government. Putins war in Ukraine, then, will likely grind on for a long time. The main challenge for the West will be maintaining resolve and unity, as well as expanding international support for Ukraine and preventing sanctions evasion.

This will not be easy. The longer the war lasts, the greater the impact domestic politics will have on its course. Russia, Ukraine, and the United States will all have presidential elections in 2024. Russias and Ukraines are usually slated for March. Russias outcome is foreordained: either Putin will return to power, or he will be followed by a successor, likely from the security services, who supports the war and is hostile to the West. Zelensky remains popular in Ukraine as a wartime president, but he will be less likely to win an election if he makes territorial concessions. And if Donald Trump or a Republican with views like his becomes president of the United States in 2025,U.S. support for Ukraine will erode.

Domestic politics will also play a role outside these three countriesand, in fact, outside the West altogether. The United States and its allies may want to isolate Russia, but a large number of states in the global South, led by China, regard the Russia-Ukraine war as alocalized European conflict that does not affect them. China has even backed Russia rhetorically, refused to impose sanctions, and supported it in the United Nations. (One should not underestimate the durability and significance of Russias alignment with China.) Indian Foreign Minister Subrahmanyam Jaishankar summarized the attitude of many developing states when he said that Russia is a very important partner in a number of areas. For much of the global South, concerns focus on fuel, food, fertilizer, and also arms. These countries are apparently not concerned that Russia has violated the UNCharter and international law by unleashing anunprovoked attack on a neighbors territory.

A fire from a gas processing plant hit by shelling in Andriivka, Ukraine, June 2022

Theres a reason these states have not joined the United States and Europe in isolating Moscow. Since 2014, Putin has assiduously courted the restthe developing worldeven as Russias ties with the West have frayed. In 2015, for example, Russia sent its military to the Middle East to support Syrian President Bashar al-Assad in his countrys civil war. Since then, Russia has cultivated ties with leaders on all sides of that regions disputes, becoming one of the only major powers able to talk to all parties. Russia has strong ties with Iran, but also with Irans enemies: particularly Egypt, Israel, Saudi Arabia, and other Gulf states. In Africa, Russian paramilitary groups provide support to a number of leaders. And in Latin America, Russian influence has increased as more left-wing governments have come to power. There and elsewhere, Russia is still seen as a champion of the oppressed against the stereotype of U.S. imperialism. Many people in the global South view Russia as the heir to the Soviet Union, which supported their post-colonial national liberation movements, not a modern variant of imperial Russia.

Not only does much of the world refuse to criticize or sanction Russia; major countries simply do not accept the Wests view of what caused the war or just how grave the conflict is. They instead criticize the United States and argue that what Russia is doing in Ukraine is no different from what the United States did in Iraq or Vietnam. They, like Moscow, justify Russias invasion as a response to the threat from NATO. This is thanks in part to the Kremlins propaganda, which has amplified Putins narratives about NATO and proxy wars and the nefarious actions of the West.

International institutions have not been much more helpful than developing countries. The United Nations and the Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe proved incapable of preventing or stopping this war. They seem increasingly the victims of Putins distorted view of the past as well as poorly structured to meet the challenges of the present.

Putins manipulations of history suggest that his claims go beyond Ukraine, into Europe and Eurasia. The Baltic states might be on his colonial agenda, as well as Poland, part of which was ruled by Russia from 1772 to 1918. Much of present-day Moldova was part of the Russian empire, and Russian officials have suggested that this state could be next in their sights. Finland was also part of the Russian empire between 1809 and 1918. Putin may not be able to conquer these countries, but his extravagant remarks about taking back Russias colonies are designed to intimidate his neighbors and throw them off balance. In Putins ideal world, he will gain leverage and control over their politics by threatening them until they let Russia dictate their foreign and domestic policies.

In Putins vision, the global South would, at a minimum, remain neutral in Russias standoff with the West. Developing nations would actively support Moscow. With the BRICS organizationBrazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africaset to expand to include Argentina, Iran, and possibly Egypt, Saudi Arabia, and Turkey, Russia may acquire even more partners, ones that together represent a significant percentage of global GDP and a large percentage of the worlds population. Russia would then emerge as a leader of the developing world, as was the Soviet Union during the Cold War.

All this underlines why it is imperative that the West (Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, Singapore, South Korea, the United States, and Europe) redouble its efforts to remain united in supporting Ukraine and countering Russia. In the near term, that means working together to push back against Russian disinformation about the war and false historical narratives, as well as the Kremlins other efforts to intimidate Europeincluding through deliberate nuclear saber-rattling and energy cutoffs. In the medium to long term, the United States, its allies, and its partners should discuss how to restructure the international and European securityarchitecture to prevent Russia from attacking other neighbors that it deems within its sphere. But for now, NATO is the only institution that can guarantee Europes security. Indeed, Finlands and Swedens decision to join was in part motivated by that realization.

As he looks toward a quarter century in power, Putin seeks to build his version of a Russian empire. He is gathering in the lands as did his personal iconsthe great Russian tsarsand overturning the legacy of Lenin, the Bolsheviks, and the postCold War settlement. In this way, Putin wants Russia to be the one exception to the inexorable rise and fall of imperial states. In the twentieth century, Austria-Hungary and the Ottoman Empire collapsed after World War I. Britain and France reluctantly gave up their empires after World War II. But Putin is insistent on bringing tsarist Russia back. Regardless of whether he prevails in Ukraine, Putins mission is already having a clear and ironic impact, both on Europe and on Russias 22 years of economic advancement. In reasserting Russias imperial position by seeking to reconquer Ukraine, Putin is reversing one of the greatest achievements of his professed greatest hero. During his reign, Peter the Great opened a window to the West by traveling to Europe, inviting Europeans to come to Russia and help develop its economy, and adopting and adapting European artisans skills. Vladimir Putins invasions and territorial expansions have slammed that window shut. They have sent Europeans and their companies back home and pushed a generation of talented Russians fleeing into exile. Peter took Russiainto the future. Putin is pushing it back to the past.

Loading...Please enable JavaScript for this site to function properly.

Go here to read the rest:

The World Putin Wants: How Distortions About the Past Feed Delusions About the Future - Foreign Affairs Magazine

What triggered the crisis?

Russia supplies about 40% of Europes natural gas imports, which powers its industry and households. Now, as the European Union opposed Russias invasion of Ukraine, imposed sanctions against Russia and offered military and humanitarian aid to Ukraine, Putin responded with sharp cuts to natural gas supplies to the EU. Its already causing widespread misery in Europe.

While Russia has openly punished some EU countries for being unfriendly", Putin is also seen to be covertly targeting other countries.

In March, Putin declared that unfriendly" countries must pay for piped gas in rubles. The European Commission, though, ruled that taking these orders from Putin would violate EU sanctions on Russia and urged companies to pay only in the currency mentioned in their contractsmostly euros or dollars. Russia subsequently cut off gas supplies to Poland, Bulgaria, Finland, the Netherlands and Denmark.

You might also like

Sebi sees no bar in transfer of NDTV shares to Adani

When AI makes art, what can go wrong?

How bond market is luring India Inc away from banks

Will the RBI have the gumption to follow the Fed?

On 27 July, Russias state-owned energy giant Gazprom halved the quantity of natural gas flowing through the Nord Stream 1 pipeline, extending to Germany, to about 20% of capacity and attributed it to technical reasons. Germany, however, saw it as a calibrated move to send gas prices soaring in the aftermath of the Ukraine war. There are three other pipelines feeding Russian gas to Europe, but the one that runs through Poland and Belarus has also been closed.

Now, in another twist, Gazprom has announced it would shut down Nord Stream 1 pipeline for three days, from 31 August to 2 September, for unscheduled maintenance works, triggering a surge in European natural gas prices. The European Union will see it as another arm-twisting attempt by Putin.

What has been the impact of Russias cuts in natural gas supply?

There has been a sharp drop in Russian gas supplies to Europe recentlyfrom about 40% of imports to about 15%. It has sent natural gas prices soaring across the continent. Almost 20% of European electricity is powered by gas plants.

On Friday, the year-ahead contract for German electricity touched 995 euros per megawatt hours, and in France, prices breached 1,100 euros, over a tenfold rise in both countries from last year. Germany buys almost half its gas supply from Russia and is now facing dwindling supplies in the winter months amid concerns Putin may cut off gas feed completely.

Meanwhile, Britain's energy regulator Ofgem has announced it would almost double the electricity and gas price cap to an average of 3,549 pounds per year, attributing it to Russian cuts in gas supplies and the removal of Covid restrictions.

How severe is the problem?

To get a sense of the gravity of the energy crisis in Europe, consider this. The surge in energy prices in the UK will leave almost two-thirds of all UK households in fuel poverty by January, shows a recent study by the University of York. Even after the planned government support, many middle-income households would find paying their energy bills tough. The study shows that 18 million families, about 45 million people, would see a cost-of-living crisis.

Until recently, Germany bought more than half of its gas from Russia. And the government of Europes largest economy is now battling to shore up winter gas supplies amid growing fears that Moscow could soon turn off the taps completely.

Spiking energy costs threatens to spiral into a recessionconsumption will get hit in Europes biggest economies as household budgets get squeezed, and businesses too may have to defer expansion plans because of galloping energy inflation.

Meanwhile, Russias oil and gas companies may be selling less energy, but their earnings may have actually grown because of the spurt in prices, says the International Energy Agency.

How is Europe fighting the crisis?

Without Russian natural gas supplies, the European Union has been forced to consider alternatives. One of them is liquefied natural gas (LNG) imports from the US and Qatar. Germany is expediting the construction of LNG import terminals, but that cant be a near-term solution. There is high LNG demand from Asia as well, making LNG imports expensive.

European countries are adopting desperate measures, pushing through energy-conservation measures. Spain, for example, has introduced a new energy-saving plan with guidelines for air-conditioning and heating systems. France too has new rules for air-conditioned stores, while in Germany, the government debates the possibility of keeping its nuclear plants running for some more time instead of shutting them down. Some media reports suggest many Germans are even saving wood for the winter.

In July, EU energy ministers inked an agreement needing member countries to reduce gas use by 15% from August to March in the wake of the developments in Russia. Still, it promises to be a harsh winter in Europe.

Elsewhere in Mint

In Opinion, Manu Joseph reveals three reasons why a superstar exists in a capitalist system. Nitin Pai argues why India needs a Nitipath for its civil services. Rajrishi Singhal writes double-speak can undermine India's crusade at WTO. Long Story tells you which sectors in India are most amenable to reshoring.

Subscribe to Mint Newsletters

* Enter a valid email

* Thank you for subscribing to our newsletter.

View original post here:

Mint Explainer: Is Putin pushing Europe towards a recession? | Mint - Mint

A Kremlin official is expected to defect to the US over Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine after a top-ranking Russian reportedly approached Western diplomats and intelligence chiefs in a bid to end the war

Image: Sputnik/AFP via Getty Images)

A Russian official is expected to defect to the US over Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine, according to an FBI boss.

The FBI believes high-ranking Russians will decide to speak to them for "the sake of the greater good".

The bureau's New York chief Michael Driscoll said there is "clear disagreement" over the war in Russia, with protests erupting in the streets.

It comes after a top Russian official reportedly approached Western diplomats and intelligence chiefs in a bid to end the war in Ukraine.

According to the Sunday Telegraph, Mr Driscoll said: In moments like this when youre dealing with a significant conflict and there is apparently clear disagreement among Russian citizens, and you can see that from protests on the streets of Russia, then the possibility that somebody might be willing to have a conversation with us about that and seek to perhaps to do the right thing for the sake of the greater good I think is very likely.

Image:

"History has shown us that that kind of thing happens all of the time."

Mr Driscoll made the comments, which were shared with the Sunday Telegraph, in an interview with the journalist Richard Kerbaj for his new book The Secret History of the Five Eyes.

The FBI has reportedly sent social media ads to mobile phones outside the Russian Embassy in Washington, attempting to turn the individuals into US agents.

Image:

Get all the latest news sent to your inbox. Sign up for the free Mirror newsletter

According to the Sunday Telegraph, the advert, which is in Russian, says: The information provided to the FBI by the public is the most effective means of combating threats. If you have information that could help the FBI, please contact us."

It comes after a highly placed Kremlin official secretly approached the West to help end the Ukraine invasion, it is claimed .

Astonishing claims about the move were made in a report circulated to Western intelligence agencies.

It is believed senior officers and officials close to Putin are alarmed by biting Western sanctions and the failing economy caused by war.

Some Kremlin figures are also concerned about the increasingly alarming risks being taken such as fighting at the Zaporizhzhia nuclear power plant in Ukraine.

The approach is likely to have been made to CIA contacts or Western diplomats, behind Putins back.

The Daily Mirror understands the leaked situation report is being taken seriously by intelligence agencies.

The document says: A representative of Putins inner-circle sent a signal to the West about the desire to negotiate. The mood of the Kremlin elite is panic.

The amazing claims goes on to label the unnamed Kremlin insider as one of the pillars of the regime.

Here is the original post:

Bitter blow to Vladimir Putin as Kremlin official expected to defect over Ukraine war - The Mirror

Will Biden Declare Ukraine Support An Official Military Operation? Reports this week revealed how the White House is preparing to give a name to the United States continued support for Ukraine, declaring the ongoing financial aid and supply of weapons to the country an official military operation.

Combined with the recently announced $3 billion military aid package, which will help Ukraine replace its Soviet-era weaponry with new NATO-standard military equipment, the news suggests that the White House is not confident a diplomatic approach can bring an end to the war.

Should Biden go ahead with the plan, reported by the Wall Street Journal, it will put the Ukraine operation on par with the military missions in Iraq and Afghanistan. It indicates that the United States views the operation as long-term.

The naming of the training and assistance is significant bureaucratically, as it typically entails long-term, dedicated funding and the possibility of special pay, ribbons and awards for service members participating in the effort. The selection of a general, expected to be a two- or three-star, reflects the creation of a command responsible to coordinate the effort, a shift from the largely ad hoc effort to provide training and assistance to the Ukrainians for years, The Wall Street Journal Reports.

Ukraine Naming Idea: Is This Escalation?

The decision could be risky for the White House and be considered an escalation in Ukraine by Russia.

While naming the operation wont dramatically change the dynamics of what the United States government is doing, it does express a willingness to maintain this financial and military support for the foreseeable future.

Thats good news for Ukraine but could infuriate Russian President Vladimir Putin and push the Kremlin to prepare retaliatory measures in response. What those retaliatory measures could be, however, is unclear. Putin has repeatedly warned of unpredictable consequences if the United States continues to arm Ukraine. Those unpredictable consequences have not yet been realized, but theres no telling what the Kremlin will do as its military campaign in south-eastern Ukraine flounders.

After six months of Kremlin officials alluding to the possibility of a nuclear conflict with the West, Belarusian President Alexander Lukashenko an ally of Putin told journalists in Minsk this week that his militarys aircraft have been modified to carry nuclear weapons.

We, along with Putin, said once in St. Petersburg that we will adapt the Belarusian Su [-24] planes as well to make them capable to carry nuclear arms. Do you think we were just yakking? Everything is ready!Lukashenko said this week.

A Ukrainian serviceman fires with a mortar at a position, as Russias attack on Ukraine continues, at an unknown location in Kharkiv region, Ukraine May 9, 2022. REUTERS/Serhii Nuzhnenko TPX IMAGES OF THE DAY

If Biden goes ahead with his rumored plan to name an official military operation, and if Putin considers the move an escalation, retaliation from Russia could prove severe. Alternatively, it could prove Russias repeated warnings to be bluffs of enormous magnitude.

Jack Buckby is a British author, counter-extremism researcher, and journalist based in New York. Reporting on the U.K., Europe, and the U.S., he works to analyze and understand left-wing and right-wing radicalization, and reports on Western governments approaches to the pressing issues of today. His books and research papers explore these themes and propose pragmatic solutions to our increasingly polarized society.

Read the rest here:

Putin Will Be Angry: Biden's Help for Ukraine Could Become an 'Official Military Operation' - 19FortyFive

Six months on from his invasion of Ukraine, the world is still trying to figure out exactly what it is that Vladimir Putin wants from this war, or "special military operation" as it's known in Russia.

Is he trying to reclaim what he sees as the lost glory of the Soviet Union? Is it a power grab by a leader looking to burnish his reputation as a strong leader with his own people? Is it an almost inevitable step from a leader in power for 20 years who has come to believe he is invincible?

Perhaps one of the best ways to try to understand the Vladimir Putin of 2022 is to look back at how he got here, by examining six pivotal points in his leadership.

The sinking of the Kursk submarine during a naval exercise in the Barents Sea in 2000 was the first major domestic test of Vladimir Putin's leadership.

Tortuous efforts to save the 118 people on board continued for days, but to no avail.

Amid criticism that rescue efforts had been slow and that authorities had failed to accept help from other countries, Putin visited the Kursk's home port of Vidyayevo, where he met bereaved relatives.

In a sign of just how different things were then, the anger of those families who had lost loved ones in the disaster was broadcast across Russia.

In what would have been an embarrassing encounter for any leader, Putin offered his apologies.

But he also looked to share the blame, turning on many of the tycoons who ran the television channels that broadcast the exchanges.

The Kursk tragedy showed a leader still struggling with the expectations of his new role. The criticism clearly stung, but perhaps also taught the president a lesson in control.

In the years ahead, there would be far less general interaction with members of the public and Putin came to see the media tycoons who chastised his reaction in a very different light.

The relationship between Vladimir Putin and Boris Berezovksy is a template for many other Russian oligarchs.

Initially an ardent supporter of President Putin, Berezovksy began to criticise elements of Putin's leadership with which he did not agree.

His television network criticised the Kursk rescue efforts, and the relationship between the two men began to deteriorate.

Boris Berezovsky left Russia, going into exile in the UK, where he was eventually granted political asylum in 2003, and where he would die a decade later.

Police said Berezovsky took his own life, but there was continued intense speculation that his death might have been suspicious.

The coroner returned an open verdict saying the burden of proof set such a high standard that it was impossible to say definitively if it was really suicide.

The breakdown in the relationship between Boris Berezovsky and Vladimir Putin acted as a warning to other oligarchs not to step out of line.

To do so risked their relationship with the president, as well as risking their assets and their freedom.

Others, such as Mikhail Khodorkovsky, would eventually follow Berezovsky into exile, leading a string of Russian emigres warning about the dangers of a Russian leader they characterised as out of control and on the path to dictatorship.

'We showed ourselves to be weak. And the weak get beaten' - Vladimir Putin

The worst school shooting in history, the Beslan school siege of 2004 led to the deaths of 333 people - 186 of which were schoolchildren - who were rounded up in their school and held in the gymnasium by a group of armed Chechen terrorists.

The standoff, which involved more than 1,100 hostages, initially continued for several days, as the brutality of the attack shocked the world.

At first there were attempts to negotiate with the hijackers, but eventually the school was stormed by Russian forces.

Amid accusations of censorship and disinformation from the Kremlin, President Putin visited some of the Beslan wounded in hospital in what were sometimes uncomfortable encounters.

Some of those families would later blame Russian special forces for killing their loved ones when they stormed the school.

In the days after the awful events in Beslan, Putin addressed the nation, saying: "We stopped paying the required attention to defence ... we showed ourselves to be weak. And the weak get beaten."

Putin had learned that he did not want to be seen as weak, and began working on widespread political reforms which would see power consolidated more in the Kremlin and him become increasingly dominant.

Less than a year after the Beslan massacre, the influence of what had happened at the school was clear from the tone of President Putin's address to the nation in April 2005.

The president told a nation still grieving and grief-stricken that the collapse of the Soviet Union was "the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the century" and a "genuine tragedy" which had left millions of Russians outside of the Russian Federation.

He described a USSR weakened by fragmentation and more at risk as a result.

It seemed to purposely capture the nostalgia already in the air, just weeks before the 60th anniversary of the end of World War II in Europe, or the Great Patriotic War as it is known in Russia.

That patriotism ran throughout Putin's comments and acted as an early indicator for Western powers that Putin might be more enticed by the Soviet Union of the past than they had at first believed.

It was a portent of things to come in the decades ahead, as Putin harked back to an imperial power which he clearly believed had been a golden era.

If Western leaders were operating on the basis of "by his speeches ye shall know him" then Putin's speech just two years after his comment about the demise of the Soviet Union would set out what many now see as a blueprint for his leadership.

The 2007 Munich security conference harked back to a language and rhetoric that many in the West thought was gone.

President Putin began by saying the conference structure allowed him "to avoid excessive politeness" and he certainly followed through on that.

Gone was the backslapping joviality displayed in his first meeting with US President George W Bush in 2001, when the US leader talked of having got a sense of Putin's soul, declaring the Russian leader to be "very straightforward and trustworthy".

"I looked the man in the eye. I found him to be very straightforward and trustworthy. I was able to get a sense of his soul." - US President George W Bush in 2001

This time, Putin railed against US attempts to create a unipolar world which had one leader - the US.

And his ire was also aimed at NATO, saying that expansion of the organisation "does not have any relation with the modernisation of the alliance itself or with ensuring security in Europe. On the contrary, it represents a serious provocation that reduces the level of trust".

Putin described a West which held no value for Russia, as he laid down the gauntlet to Western leaders about where he saw Russia's future.

Boris Nemtsov died within sight of the Kremlin, gunned down as he walked along the banks of the Moskva river.

He had once been a government insider, a former deputy prime minister of Russia under Boris Yeltsin.

But by the time of his death in 2015 he was the leading opposition figure in Russia, an ardent critic of the Russian president, who highlighted issues of corruption under Putin's leadership and organised large anti-Putin rallies.

The world had watched as other Putin critics - like journalist Anna Politkovskaya - were killed in Russia and others, like Alexander Litvinenko, were killed abroad.

But the death of Boris Nemtsov would push the boundaries even further, leading many in the opposition movement to finally conclude that no one was safe once they criticised the Russian president.

When authorities announced that any CCTV cameras which might have filmed the shooting just happened to have been turned off at the time it added further insult to injury.

The death of Boris Nemtsov taught figures like Alexei Navalny that to continue opposing the Russian president was to put their life on the line.

For many who had taken part in demonstrations the risks became too great. Many fled, or stopped protesting out of fear of what it would mean for them or their families.

Vladimir Putin in 2022

The war in Ukraine is very likely to be the defining event of Vladimir Putin's lengthy time as Russian leader.

It has killed thousands, displaced millions, upended global fuel and food prices and rewritten geopolitics.

It has brought war to Europe, something considered almost incomprehensible just over a half a year ago.

Once the first missiles flew in the early hours of 24 February, the world changed in a way we are still trying to comprehend.

The six events outlined above are just some of those that could have been chosen from a leadership which stretches back over two decades.

But each gave an indication of where Putin's beliefs might lead, not just for him, but ultimately for the whole world.

Read the rest here:

Putin - The Russian leader in six acts - RTE.ie

The Correlates of War sounds like it could be the title of a thriller from an airport bookstore.

But known by its somewhat undignified acronym,the COW project is actually a large collection of research on the history of wars and their causes.

And one of the much-debated issuesthe COW project is still struggling to resolve is overTrade-Peace Theory, the idea that close economic interdependencehelps to discouragecountries from going to war.

As Russiantroops marched into Ukraine in February and China sent warplanes soaring over the Taiwan Strait earlier this month, resolving the question of whether our economic best interests can save us from conflict or whether it is just a liberalIllusion, as one author suggested in the title of her book may never have been so pertinent.

"We do as a species have a tendency to go to war," University of Ottawa anthropologist Scott Simon said in a phone interview last week. "From the beginning of our species, basically, we've had this tendency to either trade with other people or to go to war with them."

Simon quotes the French philosopher Raymond Aron that war is a particular kind of social arrangement.

In the era of enormously powerful nuclear weapons, it is asocial arrangement where even the smallest conflict could result in millions of deaths.

The idea that a spat over the China-claimedSpratly Islands and over Taiwan would expand into a nuclearconflict wasan interesting topic for the sci-fi book 2034: A Novel of the Next World War. It may seem unlikely in reality.

But that is exactly the subject of a nonfictionarticle in last week's Financial Times titled "America Must Consider the Risk a War Over Taiwan Could Go Nuclear."

"If the fast-gelling opinion of Washington's foreign policy elite is correct that such a war is no longer simply possible but likely then assessing such a risk needs to be at the forefront of every discussion," wrote Michael Auslin, a fellow at Stanford University's Hoover Institution.

Besideshis anthropologist's views on humanity'spropensity to war, Scott Simon has a second qualification for discussing a potential invasion of Taiwan by China: He'sthe co-holder of the Chair of Taiwan Studies at the University of Ottawa and has spent more than a decade on the democratic island that Beijing insists is a disloyal province of the People's Republic of China.

Despite and perhaps partly because of Vladimir Putin's attack onUkraine, Simon is convinced a Chinese invasion is not imminent. Military experts say that with a reserve army of more that a million, missiles, aircraft and other defences solely directed at a potential Chinese offensive, a Ukraine-style incursion into Taiwan would be costly.

"The military capability is there to deter an invasion," Simon said.

But as hesketched out in an article last week for the Centre for International Policy Studies, Taiwan also remainsan indispensablesource of semiconductors the chips used in everyday consumer goods and in many military applications, not just for the West but for China as well.

Despite a planned surge of new investment as part of the CHIPS and Science Act that U.S. President Joe Biden signed into law by executive order last week, neither the United States nor China are yet prepared to go it alone in the globally integrated manufacture ofmicroelectronics.

Jia Wang, interim director of the Edmonton-based China Institute at the University of Alberta, said that while Taiwanese microchips get most of the attention, a conflict as serious as an attempted invasion or a blockade of Taiwan would create a breakdown in trade between China and North America that is worth hundreds of billions of dollars annually.

And as a small trading nation, Canada would be moreaffected than either the U.S. or China, which both have huge domestic markets.

Despite attempts by both sides to find or create alternative sources of essential goods and services, the Chinese and North American economies are complementary, she said, and a collapse in the exchange of food and raw materials on one side and cheap consumer goods dependent on mass labouron the other could devastate both economies.

According to a reportlast week in the Japanese business publication Nikkei Asia, a "Taiwan emergency" that led to Western sanctions on China could lead to the evaporation of $2.6 trillion from the global economy.

Dan Ciuriak, an economist and senior fellow at the Centre for International Governance Innovation, based in Waterloo, Ont.,is a strong advocate forthe idea that economic self-interest can prevent countries from going to war.

Critics of the idea point to many contrary examples, most famously the First World War,when many assumed an economically integrated Europe would never throw it all away in years of deadly combat.

Some think of that war as an accident. Others point out the many differences from the current era, including the existence of nuclear warheads and the strategy of mutually assured destruction.

Most recently, Putin's invasion of Ukraine seems to prove the case thatan autocratic leader canmakea fatal miscalculation, imaginingan easy victorywith political oreconomic benefits.

"The wild card is Xi," Ciuriak said, referring to Chinese PresidentXi Jinping, currently angling for a third term as the country's supreme leader. "You cannot exclude thepossibility that he will do something incredibly stupid."

Like Simon, Ciuriakthinks that is unlikelyand that with China already suffering the effects of a protracted pandemic, a domesticproperty collapse and a series of bad overseas loans, Xi will be guided by economic interests that will secure his people's access to foreign imports, including food, and to the sale of their exports overseas.

Of course in war, it takes two to tangle, and Ciuriaksays it is important for Canada to try to defuse the potential conflict and helpconvince both sides of what seems obvious to him: that trade is better than war.

Cost of Living9:00Trading with the frenemy and how Canada-China trade relations move forward

Canadians should remind China that its economy is growing by three Taiwans a yearand that it would bea costly, wasted effort even to bother to crush the reluctant province militarily. The two are already becoming more integrated, sharing investment and technology.

It is also essential to convince China hawks in the U.S. that inwhat has become a multipolar world, theU.S. cannot expect toretain theeconomic and military dominanceit had at the end of the Cold War.

To help avoid conflict, one lesson learned from Europe, cut off from crucial energysupplies, is to prepare ourselves so that Canada cannot suffer a similar fate.

"We just have to make sure that in areas where we would be liable to be held hostage ... we need to diversify our supply sourcing, make sure that we've either got it domestically or in a friendly country," Ciuriaksaid. That doesn't just apply to microchips.

With one-fifth of the world's population, it is reasonable thatChina will eventually represent about a fifth of the world's economy or maybe a bit more, he said.And as it grows, it will become an even more valuable trading partner for Canada and for the U.S.

Ciuriak insists that China is not going away and that Canadians must fight for the idea thatit is betterto keep trading with a country that maynot be a fast friend than to lose our trade and the benefits of peace by engaging in a war with a certain enemy where everyone will lose.

Follow Don on Twitter @don_pittis

See the rest here:

Can crucial trade ties save the world from war? Putin's invasion has created doubters - CBC News

Rumors of the Russian leader Vladimir Putin's failing health may just be a proven fact as Kremlin insiders saidhe will no longer be attending meetings. The General SVR Telegram channel recently made claims that the Russian tyrant is seeking to shut down their services as senior officials will reportedly explain in the coming weeks Putins absences and blame it on the recurring Covid pandemic that requires himto remain in isolation.

The channel, which is reputedly anti-Russian government, has made claims that Putin is indeed enduring a battle with cancer despite past claims that he is also suffering from Parkinsons disease. At some point, it was also said that Putin was manifesting a schizoaffective disorder, Expressreported.

With a high degree of probability, we can say that soon the President will not be able to personally hold meetings and participate in large events,"the channel claimed.

Sources have also remarkedthat Putins lead security advisor, Nikolai Patrushev has told the leader to find a way out of Russias current situation. Since then, Kremlin insiders saidPutin is nowcaught between a rock and a hard spot with his invasion of Ukraine. Word has it the leader is undecided about accepting his defeat as he may be contemplating resorting tothe use of nuclear weapons as desperate means to stay ahead of his offensives.

With Putin seemingly running out of good options in his war, SVR Telegram said Putin has privately voiced his extreme choice decisions with his senior officials. Thiscould mean the surrender of Russian-occupied regions in Ukraine as Crimea faced a recent drone attack by a Ukrainian military counterstrike.Russian defense chiefs have weighedout the attack to be quite effective.

The channel wenton to say that Russian government officials are scrambling to discuss its various options on how to proceed with its military operations in Ukraine. One of the options on the table is the possible mobilization and use of tactical nuclear weapons. Opening a second front in a third country was also up for deliberation as well as implementing gestures of goodwill by returning Russian-occupied regions back to Ukraine.

However, SVR Telegram also stated that such a move and the surrender of these regions could signal the end of Putins reign. With Russias military suffering huge losses both in ground troops and weapons, the entire Russian military leadership is said to have cast all its blame on their leader

Russian President Vladimir Putin seen during the Summit of Collective Security Treaty Organisation (CSTO) at the Grand Kremlin Palace, May,16,2022, in Moscow, Russia. Leaders of post-Soviet states have gathered at the Kremlin for the summit of CSTO marking its 30th anniversary this year. Photo by Contributor/Getty Images

Continue reading here:

Is Vladimir Putin Really Ill With Cancer Or Parkinson's? - LatinTimes