Here is President Zelenskyy’s address from earlier this evening. Video below followed by English transcript after the jump (emphasis mine):
Ukrainians! Ukrainian men and women!
Today, the European Union announced the first details of the new, seventh sanctions package being prepared against the Russian Federation, and the task of Ukrainian diplomats is to do everything to strengthen this package.
After an attack on Vinnytsia and other terrorist attacks by the Russian army, the occupiers must feel what a fair response to terror means. In particular, it will be felt thanks to sanctions. Of course, the Armed Forces of Ukraine will certainly provide their part of the answer. The occupiers will have no restful nights.
The identification of all those guilty in the attack on the city of Vinnytsia has already begun. Both at the national level and at the international level, we will do everything to make absolutely all Russian murderers responsible for what they have done.
The Minister of Internal Affairs of Ukraine reported to me today full information about the rescue operation that was run in the city. In total, almost two hundred people applied for medical help. Four people are currently in critical condition, unfortunately. Four citizens are still missing in the list. Everything is being done on the ground to clarify their fate. The death toll has not changed at this time – 23 people.
The minister also briefed me on the attack of the Russian army on the city of Mykolaiv this morning. The buildings of two institutes – pedagogical and shipbuilding – have been destroyed.
There are no such words in normal human language that can describe the state to which the Russian state has degraded. It is a double crime – to destroy particularly pedagogical institutes, so that there is no educational institution, and new educators cannot be trained…
But let the terrorists not hope that this will give them something. We will definitely restore everything they destroyed. Each of the more than two thousand educational institutions – all kindergartens, all schools, institutes, universities. And most importantly, we will preserve our humanity and our civility. But Russian society with so many murderers and executioners will remain crippled for generations, and through its own fault.
The United States of America is preparing a defense budget for the new fiscal year – with supplemental assistance to Ukraine. In particular, it is about expanding the capabilities of our military aviation. This and other US assistance to our country will significantly strengthen our defense potential. It is important.
I want to once again express my gratitude to the American people, President Biden, the US Congress for all the support we receive. By the way, only in the last two weeks, $3 billion were transferred to the Ukrainian budget from the United States of America, and this enables us to ensure the current social needs of Ukrainians today. America is truly a leader in the global defense of freedom.
Right now, as I am writing this address, the air alert is over almost the entire territory of our state. There is preliminary information about strikes – Dnipro, Kremenchuk, Kyiv region. The occupiers realize that we are gradually becoming stronger, and the goal of their terror is very simple – to put pressure on you and me, on our society, to intimidate people, to cause as much as possible damage to Ukrainian cities, while Russian terrorists are still able to do it.
So I’m begging you, once again: please don’t ignore the air alert signals now. Appropriate rules of conduct must be followed at all times, especially at public objects. Of course, we will come to the day when Russian terror will become impossible. But it still needs time. We still have to fight. And we will fight.
Today, I signed a new decree on awarding our soldiers. A total of 242 combatants were honored by state awards.
Eternal memory to all those who gave their lives for you and me, for Ukraine!
Eternal gratitude to all who defend our state!
Glory to Ukraine!
After another air raid in many regions of Ukraine, eyewitnesses and authorities report explosions in Kremenchuh, Poltava region, and Dnipro.
— Iuliia Mendel (@IuliiaMendel) July 15, 2022
Ukraine defense spokesperson says an estimated 70% of Russian attacks are on non-military targets – CNN
— Iuliia Mendel (@IuliiaMendel) July 15, 2022
Dnipro:
Dnipro right now. That’s a burning truck in that hole in the street. Rescuers are trying to determine if anyone is inside. pic.twitter.com/NRaDcnRswb
— Michael Schwirtz (@mschwirtz) July 15, 2022
Kramatorsk:
Missile attack on the center of Kramatorsk.
Source: Ukrainian military correspondent Andriy Tsaplienko. pic.twitter.com/qsmVpdDw0t
— UkraineWorld (@ukraine_world) July 15, 2022
Mykolaiv:
#Ukraine Vitaly Kim, the head of Mykolaiv region, reported that missiles hit two universities in the regional center. In the morning, around 10 explosions were heard in the city pic.twitter.com/fCydv7CuP0
— Hanna Liubakova (@HannaLiubakova) July 15, 2022
There was no operational update posted today by Ukraine’s MOD.
Here is today’s British MOD assessment:
The Brits did not post an updated map for today.
Here is former NAVDEVGRU Squadron Commander Chuck Pfarrer’s latest assessment with updated map of the Kramatorsk axis:
KRAMATORSK AXIS / 1930 UTC 15 JUL / Russian maneuver elements continue their ‘operational pause’. FEBA static as RU continues shelling and rocket attacks on a wide swath of country between Siversk and Sloviansk. UKR forces continue to improve defensive positions. pic.twitter.com/xlxnoQpnlR
— Chuck Pfarrer (@ChuckPfarrer) July 15, 2022
The DOD did hold a backgrounder with a Senior Defense Official today. Here is the transcript (emphasis mine):
SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Hi, everybody, (inaudible). Again, good to be back with you. And I look forward to our conversation today, and hopefully some helpful conversation.
As mentioned the 142nd day of Russia’s unprovoked large-scale invasion of Ukraine. We assess that Russian forces are limited to incremental, if any, gains around the northern Donbas, held off by Ukrainian defenses. Russian forces continue to deploy indiscrimate artillery bombardment, along with air missile strikes. I’ll give you a just kind of around the battlefield of what we’re seeing on the ground. Near Kharkiv, we assess that the Ukrainians are continuing to defeat Russian attempts to gain ground. In the vicinity of Izium, and Slovyansk, it’s generally the same.
So you know, pretty strong defenses from the Ukrainians, and the Russians have stated publicly that they want to move on Slovyansk, but still have not been able to do so. And then we certainly assess that they continue to employ artillery attacks around Seversk. You — a number of you have reported on that over last week. We absolutely agree with that. And then down in the south in Mykolaiv and Kherson, nothing really to update you with on the ground, as both sides are continuing to defend or really, no real progress there.
On the maritime domain, I think a number of you have reported that we did see the Vinnytsia missile attack yesterday came from what we believe, or has been reported and we believe there’s no reason to suggest otherwise– was submarine-launched missiles from the Russians. What we know for a fact is that they hit and killed a number of civilians. And I think all told over the week, again, through your reporting, I think we’re looking at between 100, 150, somewhere in there, civilian casualties, civilian deaths, this week in Ukraine as a result of Russian strikes.
In terms of HIMARS, I know there’s continuing to be a lot of interest about how the HIMARS are performing. You know, needless to say, the Russians are really important in that information. I like to make them work for it, honestly, and I — but to be quite honest, I’ll let the battlefield videos and the Ukrainian reports speak for themselves. They are having an effect, and I think, again, you all have reported on that quite extensively.
And then we continue to train Ukrainians. We continue to provide aid, as you know, with our continued flow.
And I will hold there pending any questions. Thank you.
STAFF: (inaudible) all right. First is Lita Baldor from A.P.
QUESTION: Hi. Thanks so much for doing this. Two things. Number one, can you just confirm at all the death of the British aid worker, Paul Urey? And then second, just a little bit more on the cruise missile strike. The Russians are claiming they hit a military facility, whereas other sort of Ukrainian reports are calling it a concert hall, et cetera. Can you provide any clarity on what it was that they hit, and whether or not there were any military facilities either in the area or whatever that they could have been targeting?
SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Yeah, Lita, thanks. Nice to talk to you again.
First of all, on the first one, I don’t know. I can’t — I just don’t have any knowledge on that.
And then in terms of the missile strike, I mean, I saw the same videos that you all saw. I didn’t see anything there and — you know, that looked anything close to military. That looked like an apartment building. So no, I have no indication that there was a military target anywhere near that. Over.
STAFF: David Martin from CBS?
QUESTION: Can you describe for us any impact the use of HIMARS is having on the front lines? The HIMARS is being used against targets in the rear, but you want it to have an impact on the front lines, and has it had an impact yet?
SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: I think, you know, Dave, that’s a good question. I think there has been significant impact on what’s going on on the front lines. If you think about the fact that the Ukrainians have been talking about a number of the targets they’re hitting, you know, they’re spending a lot of time striking targets like ammunition supplies, other logistical supplies, command-and-control. All those things have a direct impact on the ability to conduct operations on the front line. So I would say yes, although they’re not shooting the HIMARS at the front lines, they’re having a very, very significant effect on that.
QUESTION: But have you seen it have an effect? I mean, obviously in theory, that’s the whole purpose. But have you seen it have an effect on the ability of the Russians to conduct front line operations?
SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Yeah, I — that’s a great question too. I don’t know. And this will — you know, I shouldn’t speculate, right? That’s not what I’m supposed to do. like you, I mean, we’ve all seen the Russians slow their movements and advances.
It’s hard for me to believe that can’t be somehow related to the loss of ammunition or the loss of somebody to tell them where to go. You know, I am told where to go a lot, and when someone doesn’t do it, I tend to just sit at my desk. Honestly, I like that, but anyway.
STAFF: All right. Thanks, David. Courtney Kube, NBC?
Q: Thanks. I just want to re-up the question that Lita asked cause I don’t think we got an answer to it about whether you can confirm the death of the British aid worker. And then I have a — my own question.
SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Yeah, no, I answered her, Courtney. I don’t know — I don’t know anything about it.
And then I’ll standby for your next question.
Q: Sorry about that. The — then — can you expand a little bit on the — what you said — there were between 100 to 150 Ukrainian civilian deaths this week as a result of Russian strikes. So you’re talking about more than just the strikes that were — the missile strikes yesterday? You’re talking about across — I don’t know if you can provide any more visibility on that, cause we don’t normally hear from these backgrounders about Ukrainian civilian deaths, numbers. So I’m just — how do you have numbers this week? Where were those — most of those deaths? Were they mostly the submarine missile launches or anything more on that?
SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: I — yeah, so that certainly was the largest one I’ve seen, but all — all my numbers are coming from the things that you all are writing. And that’s — that’s over the last seven to 14 days, you know, since I was on here — I don’t know when it was — I think last Friday. But yeah, all open-source.
And again, that range depends on the open source we’re looking at. Somewhere between 100 and 150.
Q: So that’s — it’s not just this week, that you’re saying that the 100 to 150 is over the last one to two weeks, you would say then?
SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Yeah, that’s correct.
Q: OK, thank you.
STAFF: Thanks, Courtney. Oren Liebermann, CNN?
Q: You had mentioned hitting ammunition dumps, the using — the Ukrainians using the HIMARS there. I was wondering if you have any estimate on whether that’s truly made a dent in Russian ammunition supplies, a percentage estimate, or just, you know — we’ve seen them fire artillery almost without end. Have you seen this truly make a dent in their supply of ammo? And if so, is there a number estimate on that?
SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: I don’t have a number estimate. I mean, I would tell you, if you’re the person that’s supposed to get the ammunition, it’s all of it. If — but, you know, as you know very well, I mean, Russia it’s a well-stocked country, but I don’t have a percentage.
Q: OK. Thank you, sir.
STAFF: Thanks, Liz. Dan, Washington Post?
Q: Yes, thanks. Good afternoon. There has been reports of, I think, somewhere in the neighborhood of 30 or 40 settlements in the Kherson area that have apparently been retaken by Ukrainian forces. One, do you have any assessment that’s like that?
And two, if so, can you maybe flesh that out a bit in terms of, you know, how big these settlements are? Are we talking neighborhoods, are we talking villages? I guess just trying to get a sense for scope here. Thank you.
SENIOR MILITARY OFFICIAL: Yeah, thanks, Dan. I don’t. I do know that the Ukrainians have made small gains in pockets in the south. I’d hesitate to put a number on that or to give you an idea of what they would consider a settlement but I know they’ve made some small gains in the south.
Much more Q&A at the link.
One quick point of clarification to ensure everyone is tracking regarding the SDO’s remarks and answers. Paul Urey was a British humanitarian aid worker in Ukraine. He was scarfed up by the Russians and the Russian backed separatists going through a checkpoint with another British colleague, Dylan Healy. Urey has now been reported as dying in Russian captivity while Healy has been sentenced to death. The BBC has the details:
Briton Paul Urey, who was captured by Russian-backed separatists in Ukraine, has died in detention, reports say.
The 45-year-old’s family, who was contacted by the UK Foreign Office about the reports, told the BBC they had “begged” him not to go abroad.
The UK’s Foreign Secretary Liz Truss said Russia must bear full responsibility for his death.
The UK is seeking urgent clarification from Ukraine and Russia about the reports.
The Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office (FCDO) said it had summoned the Russian ambassador, Andrey Kelin, to express its “deep concern”.
Mr Urey, from Warrington, Cheshire, was detained at a checkpoint near the south-eastern city of Zaporizhzhia in April and accused of being a mercenary.
He was held captive in the self-proclaimed Donetsk People’s Republic (DPR) along with another man, Dylan Healy, while reportedly trying to rescue a woman and her family trapped by the fighting.
At the time, Mr Urey’s mother, Linda Urey, had said she was extremely worried for his welfare, because he had type 1 diabetes and needed insulin.
Speaking to the BBC after the reports of his death, she said she had been “so upset” when she heard of her son’s plans to go to Ukraine.
The Presidium Network’s Dominic Byrne told the BBC that Mr Urey had insulin on him when he was captured so his captors would have been aware of his condition.
Officials from the DPR said he died in captivity on 10 July from underlying health conditions and “stress”.
“He died of acute coronary insufficiency aggravated by pulmonary and brain edema,” Russian state news agency Tass quoted one official, Natalya Nikonorova, as saying.
According to the DPR’s Daria Morozova, during Mr Urey’s first medical examination in the DPR, he was found to have insulin-dependant diabetes, damage to the respiratory system and kidneys, and a number of diseases of the cardiovascular system.
Mr Urey’s family, however, blames the Russian government and his captors for his death.
“They let him die there, and I want to know why they let him die,” Ms Urey said.
The captive had been denied visits from agencies like the Red Cross by the Donetsk and Russian authorities, according to Mr Byrne.
“Because of that it was really showing that he wasn’t looked after properly and was never allowed to be seen,” Mr Byrne said.
More at the link!
Reuters has reported on the expansion of Russia’s Information Warfare campaign:
WASHINGTON (AP) — As bullets and bombs fall in Ukraine, Russia is waging an expanding information war throughout Eastern Europe, using fake accounts and propaganda to spread fears about refugees and rising fuel prices while calling the West an untrustworthy ally.
In Bulgaria, the Kremlin paid journalists, political analysts and other influential citizens 2,000 euros a month to post pro-Russian content online, a senior Bulgarian official revealed this month. Researchers also have uncovered sophisticated networks of fake accounts, bots and trolls in an escalating spread of disinformation and propaganda in the country.
Similar efforts are playing out in other nations in the region as Russia looks to shift the blame for its invasion of Ukraine, the ensuing refugee crisis and rising prices for food and fuel.
For Russia’s leaders, expansive propaganda and disinformation campaigns are a highly cost-effective alternative to traditional tools of war or diplomacy, according to Graham Brookie, senior director at the Atlantic Council’s Digital Forensic Research Lab, which has been tracking Russian disinformation for years.
“Stirring up these reactions is the low-hanging fruit for Russian information operations,” Brookie said. “Their state media does audience analysis better than most of the media companies in the world. Where these narratives have succeeded are countries where there is more weaponization of domestic discourse or more polarized media markets.”
Bulgaria was long counted a stalwart Russian ally, though the country of 7 million residents has turned its attention westward in recent decades, joining NATO in 2004 and the European Union three years later.
When Bulgaria, Poland and other former Warsaw Pact nations sided with their NATO allies in support of Ukraine, Russia responded with a wave of disinformation and propaganda that sought to exploit public debates over globalization and westernization.
For Poland, that took the form of anti-Western propaganda and conspiracy theories. One, spread by a Russian-allied hacking group in an apparent effort to divide Ukraine and Poland, suggested that Polish gangs were harvesting the organs of Ukrainian refugees.
Russia’s onslaught comes as Eastern European governments, like others around the world, grapple with dissatisfaction and unrest caused by rising prices for fuel and food.
Bulgaria is in a particularly vulnerable position. Pro-Western Prime Minister Kiril Petkov lost a no confidence vote last month. Concerns about the economy and fuel prices only increased when Russia cut off Bulgaria’s supply of natural gas last spring. The upheaval prompted President Rumen Radev to say his country was entering a “political, economic and social crisis.”
Much more at the link!
Notice the patterns delineated in Reuters reporting. Russia foments a crisis – in this case cutting off fuel supplies to Bulgaria and other parts of Europe- and when this is coupled with the rise in food prices, as well as those for other goods, they then use their Information Warfare assets to leverage the crisis to Russia’s advantage. Specifically by leveraging the problems Russia’s actions have created to destabilize other states and societies.
The last thing for tonight is I want to answer two questions from commenter . The first one was:
@ Adam, You have written several times that the CCP regime is gaining access to Russia’s network for influencing US & EU politics, via the right wing. I certainly understand the logic, but is there actual evidence? At least in the GOP, the prevailing opinion (including Steve Bannon’s) remains implacably hostile to China in general & the CCP regime specifically, tinged w/ both “Yellow Peril” racism & “anti-Communist” anachronism. That prevailing opinion is in marked contrast to their relatively subdued stance on Russia. There is a confluence of values between GOP & Putinism, that I think is absent w/ the CCP Regime. Sure, they all have authoritarian inclinations, but the CCP is avowedly atheist, while the GOP is Christian Fundamentalist; the CCP is pro-science & recognizes & engages w/ reality, the GOP is anti-science & prefers to live in their own imagined reality; the CCP is pro-state intervention in the economy, while the GOP is anti-state (other than the national security state, & prefers the state to promote conditions for kleptocracy & crony capitalism); the CCP is extremely paternalistic & does not hesitate to sacrifice individual rights & desires (or those of small minorities) for the perceived betterment of the whole, the GOP is nihilist that only seeks to advance the parochial interests of the “in-group” while suppress that of everyone else.
This is a great question. There’s some additional context and explanation at the link, but I don’t think that needs to be pasted here to make sense of the question. I think there are two things going on. The first is that by entering into the strategic framework with Putin, Xi gets access to influence networks that the PRC does not currently have. I don’t think that the PRC is going to use them to try to reorient the GOP and the conservative movement in the US away from its current position where Republicans and conservatives cannot even bring themselves to say China or the PRC, but instead use the Chinese Communist Party or CCP. Rather I think the point of gaining access to, in order to leverage, these informational influence networks is to reinforce and amplify the xenophobic, isolationist, nativist, and neo-nationalist portions of the now prevailing Republican and conservative* ideologies that Bannon and Trump and others have pulled from the extremes into the mainstream of party and movement. As for where do I see evidence, I see it in the PRC’s leveraging controlled opposition figures, like Guo, to influence the current iteration of the GOP and conservative movement it serves.
YY_Sima Qian’s second question was more of an observation, but I want to respond to it:
I tend to think that both the Left’s (including parts of the DSA’s) critique of foreign policy convention wisdom (the “Blob”), & everyone else’s critique of the myopia on part so the Left, are often (not always) valid.
The Left is right to gaping holes in DC’s foreign policy conventional wisdom over the past 2 decades: the increased militarization of foreign policy & atrophy of traditional statecraft, the habitual reach for punitive tools to address foreign policy challenges (predilection for military strikes & sanctions), the overspending (& wasteful spending) on national defense, the failure to recognize the changing balance of power, the instinctive claim to moral superiority that is no longer accepted in the rest of the world w/o question, the general neglect & patronizing condescension toward the Global South, & general failure to truly reckon w/ the damage that the US & the West have visited upon the Global South. OTOH, critics of the Left’s espoused foreign policy, & certainly Adam here, are quite correct about parts of the Left’s determined myopia in focusing on the agency of the US & the West, & only the US & the West, & make excuses for all other parties. It is impossible to justify the reckless way Putin sowed chaos around the world, & the genocidal way Putin has prosecuted the invasion of Ukraine. The parts of the Left that refuse to acknowledge & forcefully denounce Putin are indeed acting as useful idiots (at least unwittingly), & discrediting themselves. It is not just parts of the Left that have discredited themselves, but some of the so called foreign policy “Restrainers” (who occupy a broad ideological spectrum, mainly gathered at the Quincy Institute) have done the same.
This is tragic, since I believe the foreign policy conventional wisdom in DC needs to be challenged, that the increased militarization of US foreign policy will ultimately prove ineffective w/ parts of world whose primary concern is not security but development, cause unnecessary suffering in the parts of the world the US employs force, unnecessarily entangle the US into foreign military adventures & make unnecessary enemies, constrain needed domestic social spending & investment, & continue to feed the revanchist rightwing internally.
I am in complete agreement that the US has a major national security, defense, and foreign policy problem. That problem results from there being artificially narrow limits on the policy and strategy discussion and debate on almost every major issue. A lot of this has to be how the national security, defense, and foreign policy communities – from academic scholars and researchers to think tankers to those who go back and forth into and out of them, into government and back – developed in the post WW II and Cold War period. This includes those who do the same thing with the corporate world. We have artificially limited our conceptualizations of almost every major policy problem and, as a result, of our strategic options to solve, shape, manage, and/or mitigate them. There’s a club, its very small, its members are formidable gate keepers, and if you’re not a member it is almost impossible to break into it. And even when people do, the club works to limit them if not drive them back out. This same problem, of course, also plagues our domestic policy and strategy discussions. It is also a problem both of and exacerbated by the news media, which keeps the gates on both information and how it is framed. The news media’s gatekeepers are bracketed by The New York Times for the mainstream and Fox News for the right wing, which we’ve repeatedly seen to be as dysfunctional and destructive for American society and state. Eventually this reality will be recognized as the wicked problem that it is.
That’s enough for tonight.
Your daily Patron!
Ladies and gentlemen, please meet my cat. His name is Tom. Feel free to show your animals in the tweets below ⬇️ pic.twitter.com/3Fa3nJxlJa
— Patron (@PatronDsns) July 15, 2022
Here’s a video from Patron’s official TikTok:
@patron__dsns І я не жартую!😡🇺🇦 #славаукраїні #песпатрон #патрондснс
♬ Батько Наш Бандера – Повстанська Народна Патріотична Пісня
The English translation of the caption is:
I’m not kidding! #glory to Ukraine #pespatron #patrondsns
Batko Nash Bandera – Rebel National Patriotic Song
All that ferocity really tuckers a doggo out. Sleep well Patron!
This pose is called “Silent Paw Mode”. Good night people 👅 #patron #dog #dogpatron #dogsoftwitter pic.twitter.com/4M8JwqJa9Z
— Patron (@PatronDsns) July 15, 2022
Open thread!
* Whatever the conservative movement is in July 2022 it is no longer conservative in any way that political scientists or historians have defined the term over time. However, as there is not an agreed upon replacement terminology, we are stuck with it even if the label is devoid of any real meaning.
featheredsprite
Thank you Adam. This war is real. It isn’t a game. And it’s frustrating sometimes.
Aside: Tom is a BEAUTIFUL cat!
Alison Rose
The level of depravity and utter contempt for humanity that is so endemic in russia is just astounding. Zelenskyy is right when he says they aren’t human. The fact that they keep intentionally hitting civilian targets and then lying and saying “no no it was a military facility” or whatever when anyone with two eyes and a handful of functioning brain cells can see otherwise…God, it makes me want to scream.
But it makes me glad that Patron has a kitty. Cats and dogs living together is not always mass hysteria.
Thank you as always, Adam.
Yutsano
They’re not conservatives. They’re fascistic radicals. “Conservative” is Joe Manchin III and Democrats should be treating him as such.
Also: did you mean 2021 or 2022? Asking for a friend.
Windpond Alaska
I spend summers in Alaska 60 miles north of the Arctic Circle. We have Hughesnet Satellite internet which is better than nothing and are allotted 425 megs of data in a 24 hour period. I patiently wait for Adam’s posting, then turn off wifi so I can read it without using up all our data.
Thank you, Adam for your dedication to these posts. The least I can do is be informed and you make it possible.
TheflipPsyd
Adam, just want you to know how much I appreciate your work in putting together these posts. Although I generally do not comment, I read them every day. I was wondering about your thoughts about something I read. I don’t know enough to determine whether it is disinformation from the Russians or something the Russians truly may consider. There was a tweet from a Ukrainian (Igor sushko) regarding a report from a Russian journalist. The tweet reportedly said that the Russian Ministry of Defense requested a full report on the consequences of an accident at the Khmelnytskyi nuclear power plant in western Ukraine. The Russians are going after mostly civilian targets now. Do you think they would consider escalating even further and bomb a nuclear plant and claim it as an accident?
Again, thanks for all you do. I can’t imagine how mentally draining this can be.
Bill Arnold
Re YY_Sima Qian’s first question, about Chinese influence operations, this may be tangentially related. (I am still poking at it.) It suggests that the Chinese have identified journalists as important targets, though there is no evidence in the piece about how these device compromises (when they succeeded) were used or will be used. Something to watch; it may be purely espionage, or not. This activity was late 2020/early 2021.
Bold mine:
Risky Biz News: Chinese APT targeted White House reporters ahead of Jan. 6 insurrection (Catalin Cimpanu, 2022/07/15)
Adam L. Silverman
@Windpond Alaska: Thank you so much for your kind words. You are most welcome!
Adam L. Silverman
@Yutsano: 2022. Fixed.
Adam L. Silverman
@TheflipPsyd: I’ve seen it. Shusko is a race car driver who has become prominent for translating a series of missives from an alleged Russian senior insider at one of the Russian intelligence agencies. The first missive was validated by Bellingcat. I’ve not seen any of the subsequent ones validated by anyone I’d consider credible. Is it possible Shusko, a previously unknown Russian race car driver, has become the conduit for a disillusioned senior Russian intelligence official to get the truth out to the English speaking world? Sure, is it probable or plausible? I have serious concerns,
I saw what he posted and since the original posts he linked to by a reporter named Sotnik, were in Ukrainian, I asked Gin&Tonic to take a look. Sotnik is not Ukrainian and isn’t in Ukraine. And neither I nor G&T have heard of him or seen his reporting before. I can’t validate what he’s asserting and until or unless a much more credible reporter that I’ve heard of confirms this reporting, I’m treating it as Rumor Intel (RUMINT). Which is why I didn’t include it in the update.
TheflipPsyd
@Adam L. Silverman: Thanks for the response. I have to stop doom scrolling. Between climate change, the war in Ukraine, and the state of the United States, I’m overloaded.
NotMax
Any initial assessment regarding Rogozin’s lateral promotion (realizing that Kremlinology is at best an inexact exercise)?
Enhanced Voting Techniques
Task and Purpose about corruption in the Russian Army.
https://youtu.be/8F0kSDV9U_E
For example, the entire Russian army night fighting gear program was embezzled, 100%, by apparently the same guy who owns the rent a Nazis of the Wanger Group.
The whole damn war suddenly makes sense if one views it as one giant grift, even the war crimes. Like Putin is all wanting to talk because the Russian government is out of money to steal.
Cameron
@Enhanced Voting Techniques: Please tell me “Wanger Group” was intentional….
Amir Khalid
The American right has not been ideologically conservative for most of my adult lifetime. The three descriptors that come to my mind most often nowadays are partisan, authoritarian, and nihilistic. If we want to work out a descriptive name for its ideology, we might start from there.
Chetan Murthy
@Amir Khalid:
ISWYDT
Major Major Major Major
Aw, Patron ‘has’ a long-haired Samwise.
Joe Falco
@Amir Khalid:
“Say What You Want About The Tenets Of National Socialism, Dude, At Least It’s An Ethos.”
Carlo Graziani
What the foreign policy consensus is depends on the frame that you bring to analyze it.
YY_Sima Qian’s analysis, as I read it, uses a frame in which the “Global South” — a political-geographic entity that is rarely defined precisely, but understood to mean more-or-less the nations that were once described as part of the “Third World” — is a coherent grouping with influence and agency and power in the world, and which may be courted with profit or neglected at their peril by great powers. “Power” in this frame appears to be modeled simply along economic and concomitant military/security dimensions, so that at least in US-China relations, an assertion of a “changing balance of power” is essentially interchangeable with “changing ratios of GDPs”.
In this frame, then, the US foreign policy establishment has damaged the national interest by exerting US power in a way that has systematically aroused the “Global South” against the US, without realizing the cost of such feckless acts at a time of relative decline of US power.
I have many problems with this framework(*). The notion of a “Global South” as a unitary actor on the world stage strikes me as absurd, for example. There are some individual nations to be reckoned with, not a few of which have interests that are in direct conflict with each other’s. In the cases of the Ukraine war, is there an example other than India of a “Global South” nation exerting any sort of influence on diplomacy? I know that the PRC government likes the GS construct, and believes it to be useful in its attempts to re-architect the world order to something more congenial to its views, but the construct seems artificial and secondary to the understanding of US policy, at any rate. It is certainly accurate to characterize US policy towards the “Global South” as “neglect”, but what exactly would a “Belt and Road” contest have accomplished?
Moreover, the notion of power as mere tangible economic performance is one which I have a very serious problem with, as those of you who made it all the way through The Resumption of History may guess. I would claim that there is a dimension of the balance of power that has not shifted, and will not shift: the dimension of the Western heritage that concerns itself with institutions of political liberty, rather than with economic performance will continue to unite the West and exert soft power in a way that will continue to confuse and confound the West’s illiberal challengers.
And to reiterate what I feel was my main point in Resumption, there is moral value worth protecting in democratic social orders, even protecting them by force of arms. Even if the democracy in question isn’t on our own soil. Especially from powers that have a stake in undermining democratic social orders.
That’s my beef with the left. They’re too intellectually confused to talk about liberty.
(*) The ideas, not the author, of course.
Medicine Man
@Carlo Graziani: “Intellectually confused” is a gentle way of putting it.
There is a certain stripe of leftist who seems ever eager to demand others sacrifice for their values while simultaneously insisting their own refusal to endure difficulty is a noble virtue. It’s a spectacle that validates some old conservative prejudices about the left. The irony, of course, is that many such conservatives have since become their own brand of self-absorbed radicals.
Squid696
Adam, thank you so much for these updates. As a former submariner, I really wish we could do more to help the Ukrainians take out Russian naval assets.
JWR
Adam, thank you for last night’s answer to commenter topclimber. It reinforced, or maybe solidified my thinking about Ukraine and its defense ever since Putin’s genocidal War of Aggression began. And an observation about the DoD Q&A:
I hope this doesn’t make me out to be a warmonger, but my poorly edumacated brain does a little happy dance every time I read that another RU ammo dump has been blown to smithereens.
Good job, Silverman! (And thanks to all you highly educated commenters, too!) Carry on! ; – )
YY_Sima Qian
@Adam L. Silverman: Late to the thread, but really appreciate your responses. Leveraging Putin’s network of influence to sow more discontent could make sense from the perspective of the CCP regime, but that is also a level of reckless neck sticking that I think the CCP regime has shied away from in the past, precisely for fear of blow back, & I would think the post-2016 blow back against Putin due to his interference in the US election would serve as further negative lesson. In any case, the GOP has so devolved that no outside help is really needed to further their reactionary agenda. I could see China working to further increase the distant in the EU. A united EU that is acting as an independent pole in a multipolar world is in Chinese interests, as a disunited Europe would be vulnerable to manipulation by other great powers (be they Russia, China or the US). However, a united Europe that is closely aligned w/ the US is not in Chinese interests (as defined by the CCP Regime), & in that case the regime will certainly prefer a disunited Europe where China can gain influence in places. Still, it would be sticking its neck pretty far out in these kind of operations.
YY_Sima Qian
@Carlo Graziani: I actually don’t believe the Global South is capable of acting in a unified fashion beyond the most general terms. It has already proven difficult to herd the cats in ASEAN or the AU. I use the term as a short hand the same way I & everyone else use the term “the West”.
It would benefit members or groupings of the Global South if they actually behaved as blocks, that would greatly increase their bargaining power wrt the great powers, but alas their circumstances & specific interests do diverge too much, & they have their own historically driven rivals w/ each other. What has happened though is that much of the Global South is very much receptive to Chinese advances, & to a lesser extent Russia’s. That is why Chinese position typically prevails at UNGS votes against US/EU/”West” sponsored censure (sub-Saharan Africa especially, & increasingly MENA too, are reliable votes for China in the UN), & Chinese candidates get voted to head major International organizations (which then further Chinese influence). It has reached the point where the US is turning away from the very international organizations that underpinned the so called “liberal international order” it has helped to create post-WW II, & has instead turned to ad hoc groupings such as the G7 to advance its agenda. However, the “West” is no longer dominant enough where the G7 can set the agenda for global affairs. Those days are gone. DC/Brussels/London/Paris/Berlin have yet to truly grapple w/ this. The US & the EU now frequently talk of “competition” w/ China, & how China represents a “systemic threat” to the “International order”. However, the “West” has consistently ceded the Global South to Chinese influence, including their own perceived backyards (sub-Saharan Africa, South Pacific, LatAm, etc.). These countries are the “gettable middle” in international politics.
No, the US/EU will not outcompete China on infrastructure, they (even Japan) have let their capacity there atrophy too much. Even China is retrenching on mega deals in the Global South, since such deals are too risky for Chinese lenders. However, US/EU governments could have worked harder to facilitate investment by western enterprises into developing economies by backstopping some of the risk & offered more favorable terms of trade. The Global South countries actually prefer to be wooed by all the great powers, but to date only China has consistently shown up.
YY_Sima Qian
@Adam L. Silverman:
I find it highly ironic that these gatekeepers have seen fit to admit Trump alums such as Matt Pottinger & Elbridge Colby into the small circle, for no qualification more than being “tough on China”, despite their demonstrated cravenness (& outright sympathy in the patter’s case) wrt the Jan. 6 Insurrection. Just what aspect of America do these gatekeepers think they are defending against China? Sure seems these circles are really more exercised by threats to American hegemony than threats to American democracy.
AWJ
Regarding China and the right, some of the “alt-est” figures of the alt-right, the very overt fascists like Vox Day and Nick Fuentes, are in fact forthrightly pro-China.
Another Scott
Meanwhile,in Budapest…
Hungary: Is this the beginning of the end of Orban’s model?
https://p.dw.com/p/4E9On
Worth a click.
Cheers,
Scott.
oldster
Rotating Tag!
“You know, I am told where to go a lot, and when someone doesn’t do it, I tend to just sit at my desk. Honestly, I like that, but anyway.“
YY_Sima Qian
@Another Scott: Yeah, but a Poland dominated by the Law & Justice Party is also increasingly out of step w/ the EU’s fundamental values on democracy & rule of law, & their liberal underpinnings. At least they are not pro-Putin, though.
Carlo Graziani
@YY_Sima Qian: I certainly agree that “The West” is no longer in a position to unilaterally set the agenda for world politics, governance, development, and security, although the period during which it was arguably possible for this to happen—say 1991-2009, more or less—was an anomaly produced by the collapse of the Soviet Union together with the “adolescence” of China as global economic superpower. Such an interlude could not have gone on forever, in retrospect. At any rate “The West” went sleepwalking through it without any sort of grand strategy, doing all the foreign-policy damage to its self-interest that you correctly identify.
What I don’t think really works about the frame that you’re using is the notion of the emergence of a “multipolar world”. That’s another one of the bits of structural politics that the PRC would also like to weave into the base fabric of a new world architecture, for the good and sufficient reason that in such a world US power (economic/military power, the only type the PRC government understands) is diluted.
I don’t really see any evidence whatever that the world we are living in now, or are likely to live in any time soon, is any more multipolar than the it was during the years of the Cold War. At that time there was an international organization called the Nonaligned Movement claiming to represent a third “pole”, but its influence on events was, unsurprisingly, proportioned to its modest real power: marginal and largely symbolic.
That, in my view, is far more likely to be the sort of situation that recurs with latter-day “poles” (*): They are unlikely to represent any real concentration of power, and their significance will continue to be on the margin, to the extent that some symbolic political concession can be exchanged for tangible development or security support from one of the two emerging poles.
That is what Xi ought to have concluded, for example, from his utter failure to “explain” to EU officials the false consciousness that afflicted them and was preventing them from pursuing a separate foreign policy from the US last April. I doubt that he will — I don’t think he’s capable of updating his priors with data to that extent — but I assume that there must be other officials in China who noted the significance of the misunderstanding.
I am looking down the road at what looks to me like another two-superpower competition. However, I am an inveterate optimist, so I like to note some of the differences this time. One important difference is that China does not now, and never has understood it’s national security in the same expansionist/colonialist/millenarian terms that Russia/USSR/Russia again did and does. Another is that in a very real sense, China’s power derives from Western markets for it’s manufactures, and the prospects for domesticizing those markets are dim and distant, whereas the West’s appetite for those products is undiminished. So as has been the case for three decades now, there is a relationship stabilizer that never existed between the West and the USSR.
Finally, there may be one “benefit” from climate change: in the next 5-10 years, it seems very likely that it will begin to present as a global threat analogous to a sci-fi alien invasion force approach, in the sense that all nations will be affected drastically, and none will be able to approach the problem alone. This is a scenario, not a prediction, but with luck and the right politics, a global alliance on addressing climate threats could out-prioritize some of the topics of the current toxic “competition” debate. A stretch perhaps, but worth keeping in mind as something to grab at, should the right circumstances begin to develop.
(*) As a physicist by training I would prefer something like “power nexuses” to “poles”, as “poles” should occur only in pairs, at least for dipolar configurations where the concept makes sense.
Chetan Murthy
I have a question for @YY_Sima Qian: Imagine that some country manages to decapitate and replace the leadership of China, including the Communist Party. After a number of years, this ruling junta is deposed, and the previous leadership takes back over.
Are you going to argue that that previous (rightful) leadership of China wouldn’t conduct a scorched-earth campaign to punish this other country and their leadership?
Carlo Graziani
@Chetan Murthy: Oddly enough, that scenario could be deformed continuously without much distortion into the history of China between the Opium Wars and Mao’s sweep to power.
YY_Sima Qian
@Carlo Graziani: I don’t think it is controversial to suggest that the world’s geopolitical dynamic is heading toward multipolarity (or multiple nexus of power, if you prefer), even in the US foreign policy conventional wisdom. Though US & China will likely be the most powerful entities, neither is likely to be able to command coherent camps that we saw during the Cold War. Japan, South Korea, India, Pakistan, Russia, the UK, Brazil, South Africa, Nigeria, Iran, Saudi Arabia, the ASEAN nations, etc. will likely remain nations of consequence. The EU can compete w/ both the US & China in setting the global agenda on certain issues (particularly on regulatory matters), but it will likely often be constrained by internal division & lack of unity/cohesion. Nevertheless, individual EU members such as Germany, France, Italy & Poland will be nations of consequence. In most cases countries & groupings outside of the so called “West” will be playing the 2 superpowers off against each other & seek to retain their policy independence. China has had the good sense not ask countries to choose it over the US (knowing the answer will be “No”), though there have been warnings & punitive actions taken against countries for choosing the US against it (Australia, Taiwan, Lithuania). The US has asked countries to choose sides, but in most cases the the answer is a straight “No” or varying degrees of equivocation. Singaporean PM Lee Hsien-Lung has been warning against the US asking Asia Pacific nations to choose sides or excluding China from any regional/global framework for the past several years. In this I think he has been speaking for the entire ASEAN. The foreign policy “Blob”, at least the D leaning part more in tune w/ reality may finally be waking up to this. Even in the “West” the alignment w/ the US will differ in degrees depending on the issue.
Unlike during the Cold War, most of the world this time around have no interest in bifurcation into 2 opposing camps, & this time around most of the world are strong enough to say “No” to any of the superpowers at least some of the time. The NAM during early Cold War failed quickly. Any hope it had was lost when China & India fell out over border disputes in the Himalayas. In any case, both were far weaker than they are now. The NAM was launched at Bandung in Indonesia, but the country firmed joined the Western camp after the CIA supported coup by the military junta. When it was launched, most of what we now consider the developing world were still European & American colonies. Even after their independence, most of the former colonies still suffered heavy interference from their former colonial masters, and/or became battlegrounds for proxy wars between the 2 opposing camps, & had limited agency of their own until the end of the Cold War (when 1 camp collapsed & the other lost interest).
Multipolarity & the concept of the Global South are not frames that China developed & pushing to the developing world. The former is merely description of reality, while the latter emerged organically from the developing world, that China has been seeking to take advantage of.
(Nothing is pre-ordained, of course. Chinese growth could falter & fails to recover. US could decline in absolute terms, not just relative terms, because the reactionaries increasingly take power at state & federal levels & implement ever more retrograde policies. EU could become paralyzed by its internal divisions, w/ the temporary unity stimulated by the Russian invasion of Ukraine a mere pause in its centrifugal trends. Japan could continue its stagnation due to rapidly aging population, followed by South Korea & Taiwan. The rest of the emerging economies could all falter under the much less benign global economic environment, see Pakistan & Sri Lanka.)
Finally, I am not at all sanguine about the imminent threat of AGW-induced disasters uniting the world powers, not after we have seen how they have behaved during the COVID-19 pandemic. As w/ everything associated w/ the pandemic (origin, responses, vaccination, etc.), AGW has emerged as yet another battleground for Sino-US competition, w/ coordination (let alone actual cooperation) only occurring most grudgingly. If & when the GOP holds power at the federal level again, they will simply cede the field to China (& the EU). I’d be more hopeful if world powers have shown the ability to engage in benign competition that lead to a virtuous cycle, as opposed to malign competition that lead to a vicious spiral.
Chetan Murthy
@Carlo Graziani: I’m not talking ancient history here, and *am* talking about a two-bit pissant country that did the deed. China was *unable* to raze Britain to the ground.
YY_Sima Qian
@Chetan Murthy:
Imperial Japan setup a number of puppet regimes throughout the parts of China it conquered. These regimes fell w/ Japan’s defeat. The IJA carried out unspeakable atrocities in occupied China throughout the course of the 2nd Sino-Japanese War (1931 – 1945). However, neither the KMT nor Communist forces massacred Japan POWs or brutalized the civilian Japanese colonist population (numbering in the millions, most of whom were in Manchuria). The Soviet forces did brutalize the civilian Japanese colonist population after their conquest of Manchuria, & didn’t win many heart among the Chinese civilians, either. Chinese peasants often took in Japanese orphans left behind & raised them as their own. Both KMT & CCP employed former IJA personnel in their armies. IJA personnel were instrumental in standing up the nascent armor, artillery & air arms for the Communist armies in Manchuria, & they made up a substantial portion of the medical corps. Post-WW II, the KMT led ROC relinquished any nationals claims on war reparations from Japan in the 50s. The CCP led PRC did the same during “normalization” of relations in the early 70s. The Japanese right wing would later use these agreements as excuse for not paying reparations to the individual Chinese victims of Japanese occupation (the “comfort women” & the slave labor), while paying reparations to the similarly brutalized Dutch, Brits & Aussies.
Chiang Kai-Shek & Mao Zedong did not do so for moral reasons, neither were humanitarians by any stretch of the imagination. They did it for practical reasons.
YY_Sima Qian
@Chetan Murthy: China could have marched in guns blazing to take over Hong Kong & Macau, as India did w/ Goa. Neither the UK nor Portugal could have defeated the land invasions. However, China under Deng Xiaoping chose to wait for the expiration of the 99-year lease (which the Brits really thought meant forever in practice) of the New Territories to negotiate the return of Hong Kong.
Chetan Murthy
@YY_Sima Qian: Britain still isn’t a small country (though soon-to-be-Lord Flobalob is workin’ on it). Imagine if Taiwan took out the Central Military Commission: would China just roll over and hey, let’s keep on trading with ’em ? Really ?
Chetan Murthy
@YY_Sima Qian: I don’t think you’re getting that the bastards took over our government. You’re acting like they invaded Puerto Rico or some such.
YY_Sima Qian
@Chetan Murthy: I am not sure where you are going w/ this line of questions.
Chetan Murthy
@YY_Sima Qian: I am returning to your argument that somehow it’s good for everybody that we readmit the country that attacked us, back into our markets.
Chetan Murthy
@YY_Sima Qian: a thread
YY_Sima Qian
@Chetan Murthy:
I am not sure what you think my stance on Putin is. I strongly believe Putin’s invasion of Ukraine & ongoing attempts at ethnic engineering have to be defeated. I think Putin needs to be contained as a source of chaos in the world. I believe Beijing is playing a dangerous game even w/ the limited support (mostly rhetorical) they have given Putin. I understand the calculation, as Sino-US rivalry is the overriding organizing principles of foreign policies in both Beijing & DC, which is saddening, but enabling Putin brings more dangers than benefits, even from a cynical/amoral/realist perspective. However, I would rather avoid thermonuclear war to achieve these ends.
In terms of the end game in Ukraine, it should be up to the Ukrainians. If they are steadfast in their goal of expelling the Russians from all of its territory, then they should be steadfastly supported in this endeavor. However, if the war drags on for years, by which time the Ukrainians are exhausted & are willing to settle for pre-Feb. 2022 line of actual control, then outside actors should not be agitating for “total victory” by retaking Crimea. At this point in time it is impossible to envision the Ukrainians willing to accept the 2nd outcome, not after all that Putin has done, but more often than not wars in history do not end in total victory, even after all of the brutality & destruction.
Chetan Murthy
@YY_Sima Qian:
You were very clear that you thought it was a good idea to give Putin a win on wheat shipping.
YY_Sima Qian
@Chetan Murthy:
If you are still taking about proposed grains export deal being negotiated at the UN & facilitated by Türkiye, I believe we have already gone over this. I am not sure what more we can discuss, other than agree to disagree.
If the US/EU did not want Russian goods in their markets, they could have sanctioned Russian food exports, but they did not, because in this instance they do understand the global chessboard.
Chetan Murthy
@YY_Sima Qian: Yeah, I get it: it’s not your damn country, so you can let money dictate outcomes. Understand that the people who actually live in places under attack, will feel differently.
YY_Sima Qian
@Chetan Murthy: You do realize that Ukraine is suffering from a budget crisis that can severely impact its ability to resist the invasion? Grains represents nearly 50% of Ukraine’s exports, w/o which Ukraine has a shortage of hard currency. If the deal actually happens, which I am skeptical, Ukraine can resume is grains export & earn the hard currency (or some of it) to finance its resistance, rather than relying entirely upon western largess. If Ukraine is OK w/ this deal, what’s the problem? Yes, Russian will get hard currency for selling its grains & fertilizers, but that is a pittance compared to what it is currently getting selling oil & gas.
Chetan Murthy
@YY_Sima Qian: I’M NOT TALKING ABOUT UKRAINE.
Chetan Murthy
@YY_Sima Qian:
There’s $300B of Ruscist money in the US Fed that could be given to Ukraine any day now.
YY_Sima Qian
@Chetan Murthy: Since I am a US citizen, Putin did attack my country. His support of the reactionary forces in the US also impact my life, even as I live in China. However, if you think there is only “One True Course of Action” & no room for any policy disagreements wrt Ukraine, well, I disagree.
Chetan Murthy
@YY_Sima Qian: My position is that we should [ETA: not] Trade With The Enemy. We should extract maximum casualties from The Enemy until we rout them and destroy their ability to wage war against us. Against. Us.
Maybe you’ve forgotten, as an American, that they continue to attack our country.
YY_Sima Qian
@Chetan Murthy: Seizing, as opposed to merely freezing, Russian assets in the West, would set a precedent that will drive any country not totally aligned w/ the US to take their money out of the US denominated assets, & threaten the Dollar hegemony. The entire reason the financial sanctions really bite against Russia, is because of the Dollar’s dominance in international finance. Anything that undermines the Dollar hegemony will have a greater negative affect on American power & influence than anything Putin does. It is the financial equivalent of WMD. Furthermore, once that precedence is set, can you imagine the chaos a GOP administration can wreak w/ such tools? You won’t find the GOP’s enemy list so morally comforting. (“Singapore, we will seize some of your dollar assets if you don’t agree to join our anti-China security alliance, we think these are ill-gotten gains from laundering corrupt Malaysian & Indonesian money, anyway.”)
YY_Sima Qian
@Chetan Murthy: The US traded w/ the USSR during the Cold War, too.
It’s getting late where I am. Let’s agree to disagree, shall we?
Chetan Murthy
@YY_Sima Qian:
Jesus fuck. They’re not “not totally aligned”. THEY ATTACKED OUR COUNTRY. And they didn’t ATTACK OUR COUNTRY during the Cold War.
Christ on a crutch, why is this so hard for you to understand. They’re not “opposing us”. They’re ATTACKING US.
Chetan Murthy
@YY_Sima Qian: Are you a native-born American? I’m guessing not. I’m not, so let me remind you of the oath we both swore:
YY_Sima Qian
@Chetan Murthy: When I say countries not totally aligned w/ the US taking their money out of dollar denominated assets, I mean Brazil, India, the Gulf States, countries in SE Asia, in Africa, in Latin America, anyone who think they may at some point end up in the crosshairs of some US administration. I expect even erstwhile US allies would start to reduce their exposure. Perhaps you should read up on why the US & the EU have not yet taken the step of seizing Russian assets to give to Ukraine, unless you believe them to be all cowards.
way2blue
@Amir Khalid: Reactionary opportunists?
YY_Sima Qian
@Chetan Murthy: What the f*ck is it that you are insinuating?
The US has not declared war on Russia. If you think the US should declare war on Russia, spend your energies on the White House & Congress. If the US declares war on Russia, then it can seize the Russian assets.
I am going to sleep.
Chetan Murthy
@YY_Sima Qian: I have a great idea! We should declare *war* against the nuke-armed country that *successfully* decapitated our executive branch, installing one of their own agents at the top! What a brilliant idea!
The idea that somehow they’re not our enemy is farcical. And it’s clear you’re carrying water for them.
You swore a FUCKING OATH. Ah, well.
Gin & Tonic
michael-jackson-eating-popcorn.gif
Chetan Murthy
@Gin & Tonic: I understand citizens of other countries carrying water for our enemies, but *American citizens* doing it … that really burns me up. If and when I decide that I cannot stand my country’s policies and wish to act or speak against them, to support my country’s enemies, I will have already left for someplace else and either started or completed the process of becoming a citizen of some other country.