P.M. Carpenter

A staggering new estimate of Russian casualties in Ukraine

The Biden administration is now "quietly circulating" an intelligence report on the number of Russian casualties in Ukraine, telling Congress that more than 75,00o Russian troops have been killed or wounded, according to The NY Times.

Just yesterday this site related the latest publicized Russian death toll, which of course is different from casualties. "Ukraine's general staff reported this morning that Russia has lost 40,000 troops in only six months of war," I wrote. That was according to The Kyiv Independent.

"British intelligence estimates nearer to 25,000 Russian deaths," I continued, "and the U.S. defense department has put the figure at 15,000."

Though deaths differ from casualties, they do not to a military unit's performance. The Pentagon has said that losing just 10 percent of a military force, whether killed or wounded, renders a unit incapable of executing combat-related tasks. Even casualties affect a unit's morale, however, much like a death.

A lawmaker confirmed yesterday that the new U.S. estimate came from a State Department, Defense Department, Joint Chiefs of Staff and National Intelligence briefing.

Early in the war, Western analysts estimated that the number of Russian troops in Ukraine was as high as 150,000. If the new figure is accurate, then about half of Russia's forces are out of action. 

It had to happen

Kim Jong Un says Korea is on the "brink of war," threatening to "wipe out" South Korean forces

North Korean leader Kim Jong Un is rattling his saber again, saying the United States and South Korea are bringing the Korean peninsula to the "brink of war." His hysterical rhetoric was prompted by the two nations' joint military exercises to be held soon — the first in four years — and Donald Trump is no longer around to cancel them. 

At a Wednesday event marking the 69th anniversary of the Korean war's conclusion, Kim threatened to "wipe out" South Korea's military forces with nuclear weapons "in the event of a confrontation," reports Britain's Financial Times.

North Korean state media reported Kim as saying, "Our armed forces are completely prepared to respond to any crisis, and our country’s nuclear war deterrent is also ready to mobilise its absolute power dutifully, exactly and swiftly in accordance with its mission. 

"It is a suicidal act, and absurd and extremely dangerous, to talk about military action against our country when we actually already have the most powerful weapon which you fear the most."

The joint US-South Korean exercises will be held next month. FT adds that traditionally expansive military exercises "were scaled down [in 2018] ahead of a summit between Kim and then-US president Donald Trump." The latter's "love letters" to Kim and his in-person visits provided him with global prestige, precisely what previous U.S. presidents had emphatically avoided.

A South Korean defense ministry spokesperson told reporters that Kim’s speech was "not something new. It’s a situation that has continued constantly, where North Korea’s nuclear and missile threats have increased. We are responding to that." South Korea's president, Yoon Suk-yeol, has promised to "normalise" joint exercises with the US. 

In Kim's Wednesday tirade, he blamed the US for "demonising" North Korea’s "routine" military developments as "provocations" and warned "military gangsters" in South Korea to stop "threatening" the North. Also on Wednesday, Kim’s foreign ministry described the joint US-South Korea exercises as having a "thick gunpowder smell" and called both countries "a horde of belligerents wanting the wretchedness of war." The ministry also said the summer drills might "spread into the second Korean war." 

Not to be outdone, North Korea's state newspaper urged citizens "always to keep in mind the historic philosophy that the nature of the US imperialists and class enemies will never change and you must hate imperialism unconditionally." 

Although Kim's hysterics are rather amusing — tailored as they are merely to convince North Koreans that only his heroic leadership has prevented the US from coercing their nation into imperialistic, capitalistic servitude — the potential for miscalculation in the air, on ground or on sea stemming from such bellicose rhetoric is very real.

A hyperpatriotic North Korean pilot could pull his 50mm trigger on a US cargo plane or a nationalistic sea captain could fire a ballistic missile on a South Korean destroyer.

Larger wars have ignited because of pride and stupidity. And so Kim Jong Un's rhetoric is really not so funny.        

Some things actually do get done in the Senate. Important things.

A beautiful bit of senatorial legerdemain, it was.

Mitch McConnell had vowed to filibuster a massive industrial technology bill as long as Democrats insisted on passing through reconciliation any bill that would benefit average Americans. Fine, silently said Sens. Chuck Schumer and Joe Manchin. We'll just forget passing any helpful, average-Joe bill and pass the industrial bill. Which they did, 64 to 33. Then they announced only hours later that Manchin had agreed to tax increases on the wealthy to subsidize healthcare and lower Rx costs, plus billions of dollars of spending on climate and energy programs.

As important as the climate and healthcare bill is, the technology bill is also essential. Yesterday the Senate passed the 1,000-page, $280 billion legislation, "aimed at building up America’s manufacturing and technological edge to counter China" — "the most significant government intervention in industrial policy in decades," reports The NY Times. The specifics:

The bill ... provide[s] $52 billion in subsidies and additional tax credits to companies that manufacture chips in the United States. It also would add $200 billion for scientific research, especially into artificial intelligence, robotics, quantum computing and a variety of other technologies.

The bill calls for pouring $10 billion into the Department of Commerce — which would also dole out the chips subsidies to companies that apply — to create 20 "regional technology hubs" across the country.

The legislation would steer billions to the Department of Energy and the National Science Foundation to promote both basic research and research and development into advanced semiconductor manufacturing, as well as work force development programs, in an effort to build a labor pipeline for a slew of emerging industries.

Noted Marketplace.org, which covers business and economic news, in 2018, "China has an explicit policy to be the world’s leader in artificial intelligence, while Israel spends more of its GDP on research and development than any other country. Where does the United States fit into all this?" For answers, Marketplace interviewed Robert Manning, a senior fellow at the Atlantic Council and co-author of "The global innovation sweepstakes: a quest to win the future." Said Manning:

"After Sputnik, we created NASA, we put money into basic R&D, and we put a big emphasis on channeling students into these areas. We’re not doing that. We haven’t had a leadership that’s mobilizing the public to move in this direction ... and that’s going to require a lot of public and private partnership....

"I think we need to be careful. It’s not like somebody wins absolutely and somebody loses, it’s just they’re going to do better, they’re going to be in a stronger geopolitical position, and that will probably play out in ways we haven’t really thought about yet. If we don’t get wise to these trends that are reshaping our economy and are going to affect the way we work, the way we live and everything else, the future is going to take us by surprise."

The only way that Democrats could get us "to do better ... [and] be in a stronger geopolitical position"? By tricking Republican Mitch McConnell. But we'll take it. 

The Republican Party's greatest white hope: male anxiety about penis size

I don't know how I missed this. From November 2018, "How Donald Trump appeals to men secretly insecure about their manhood." The Washington Post piece was written by social psychologist Eric Knowles and psychology doctoral student Sarah DiMuccio, both at New York University. It's one of those ironic "who'da thunk it?" articles, explaining with social scientific precision that Trump guys are mostly weeny-adolescent adults still agonizing about the length of their reproductive organ — which is also less-than-upright, nonethically speaking. The gist:     

From boasting about the size of his penis on national television to releasing records of his high testosterone levels, President Trump’s rhetoric and behavior exude machismo. His behavior also seems to have struck a chord with some male voters. See, for example, the "Donald Trump: Finally Someone With Balls” T-shirts common at Trump rallies.

But our research suggests that Trump is not necessarily attracting male supporters who are as confidently masculine as the president presents himself to be. Instead, Trump appears to appeal more to men who are secretly insecure about their manhood. We call this the "fragile masculinity hypothesis"....

[Also,] in the more than 390 House elections pitting a Republican candidate against a Democratic candidate, support for the Republican candidate was higher in districts that, based on Google search data, had higher levels of fragile masculinity. However, there was no significant relationship between fragile masculinity and voting in the 2014 or 2016 congressional elections. This suggests that fragile masculinity has now become a stronger predictor of voting behavior.

Really, who would have thought a decade or two ago that the GOP's electoral future would turn on male voters' worries about their penis size? There may have been some correlation at the commencement of George W. Bush's idiotic military adventurism in the Middle East, but public jingoism is rife in such times as the post-9/11 era.

The other funny part of all this is that "fragile" American men are idolizing a man who got shortchanged, so to speak, on the size of his penis. This was unfortunately (for us) revealed in Stormy Daniels' "tell-all book about Trump." She described his thing as "smaller than average" but "not freakishly small." Freakishly small-minded, yes. 

"He knows he has an unusual penis," wrote Daniels. "It has a huge mushroom head. Like a toadstool.... I lay there, annoyed that I was getting fucked by a guy with Yeti pubes and a dick like the mushroom character in Mario Kart.... It may have been the least impressive sex I’d ever had."

Oh dear. Have political empires ever before been built on an inaccurately described — that is, Trump's description — penis? Figuratively, sure, the whole macho routine. But not I think literally. And yet millions of organically deprived American men have hinged their aspirational hopes of political virility on dickless Donald.  

Attorney General Garland, you need to do this

Benjamin Wittes, a Brookings fellow and editor in chief of lawfareblog.com, tweets what I have considered essential for several months. 

"The statement I think Merrick Garland should give on the Jan. 6 investigation. Written with @petestrzok, @nkorpett and @qjurecic and modeled on @Comey’s confirmation of the Russia investigation."

(Full lawfare article here.)

Do it, Mr. Garland. The American justice system is in urgent need of some official statement offering proper attention to the rule of law, so recklessly damaged by the U.S. Supreme Court — and Trump's many decades of successfully evading the law.     

An urgent update on Ukraine's war-turning counteroffensive

Ukraine is gearing up for the most pivotal military action of the war. Its forces are now roughly 30 miles from Kherson, a Russian-held city since the war's beginning and from which Putin's forces have staged attacks across the wide southern axis. Next to liberating Kyiv, depriving Russia of Kherson would be Ukraine's most significant and possibly war-ending counteroffensive. Said Senior Lt. Sergei Savchenko to The NY Times: "We’re ready. We have wanted this for a long time."

Ukraine's southern push is already in preliminary progress, with increased fighting taking place on the western and northern borders of the Kherson region. For weeks, Ukrainian artillery and long-range rockets — provided by the U.S. — have been pummeling Russian positions. The strikes have destroyed forward command centers and ammunition depots, severely inhibiting Russia's supply lines, and killed hundreds of Russian troops, according to Ukrainian officials. Said a senior military official: "Right now we’re making small waves and creating conditions to make bigger ones."

Some Western analysts have expressed misgivings about Ukraine's preparedness for a massive offensive in the south, and whether it's an ideal use of its resources. At the same time, many Western intelligence officials have ventured that it's critical to Ukraine's morale and military position to launch an offensive. The Russian military has been weakened in weapons and manpower in their Donbas offensive, hence this is an excellent time for Ukraine to strike.

As preparation for a major assault on Kherson, Ukraine’s military intelligence service has been training subversives and planting them in Russian-occupied territory to execute sabotage and learn about Russia's troop locations. "Officials installed by the occupying Russian authorities have been assassinated and their cars have been blown up in some cases," reports the Times.

But problems loom, of course. A full-scale counteroffensive demands an immense number of troops and more weapons than Ukraine now has. Officials estimate their forces are expending 6,000 to 8,000 artillery shells each day, and an effective offensive requires three to four times that. The predicament has forestalled an immediate counterattack, while also putting into relief the unambiguous necessity of more Western-supplied armaments. Ukraine may not have another such inviting opportunity to strike.

Nevertheless, Ukraine is poised to do so. The stakes are high enough and critically essential enough to justify the risk, which is true in any war. In June, Deputy Prime Minister Iryna Vereshchuk advised Kherson residents to evacuate. "Please, go because our army will definitely de-occupy these lands," she said. "Our will to do so is unwavering." And, evidently, imminent. 

Said Michael Maldonado, a 34-year-old former U.S. Marine with Ukraine's 28th Brigade: "We look at Kherson like it’s the next Falluja. It’s going to be a lot of crazy fighting." There's no if there, only when. The odds are — very soon.

There are also political reasons for an urgent Ukrainian offensive in the south — which I recently discussed here — which could upend President Zelensky's attack plans. These must be preempted a.s.a.p.

All things considered, the time is now. Russia's supply line to Kherson has been disrupted, and the fighting in Kherson will be urban, so long-range rocketry won't be a factor. Go.     

Russia is expanding its imperialist designs

The Russians have made Africa a target of its anticolonialism rhetoric as it attempts to exploit large swaths of the continent. "If there's an open wound, they look for ways to pour more salt in it," said Anna Borschchevskaya at the Washington Institute for Near East Policy. And the small nation of Burkina Faso, wedged between Mali and Ghana in West Africa, is Vladimir Putin's next opportunistic sore. 

So fears U.S. intelligence. A January military coup led the State Department to cease $160 million in military aid to the Burkinabe government; now the Defense Department worries the Kremlin will target the politically unstable state and others in West and Central Africa. Any African nation possessing rich natural resources is prey for Putin's Wagner Group, a paramilitary, quasi-neoNazi force that became internationally noted for its 2014 assistance to Russia-backed separatists in Ukraine's Donbas region.

Foreign Policy writes that the Kremlin has gained influence across the African continent in recent years, "shoring up the power of embattled political leaders while seeking to secure access to lucrative natural resource concessions." Burkina Faso is blessed — or cursed, depending on one's view — with treasured gold deposits. That, plus this year's coup, consequent political insecurity and Wagner fighters already in neighboring Mali make Burkina Faso a savory objective for both the mercenary group and Moscow.

After Mali's military coup in December, the Kremlin engineered the deployment of hundreds of Russia's soldiers of fortune to the country who are now collaborting with the Malian government in its fight against growing Islamic extremism. Foreign Policy notes this "pattern that has been replicated across the continent, where the group’s foot soldiers have since been accused of human rights abuses and the murder of civilians."

"We assess that in the immediate to midterm, it is most likely going to be Burkina Faso" — which ironically means 'land of incorruptible people' — that would reach out to Wagner and potentially request support," said a senior U.S. intelligence official. Other officials told Foreign Policy that Yevgeny Prigozhin, the Russian oligarch and Putin ally who finances the Wagner Group, "has the ability to provide support with social media, propaganda, and election engineering, services that could be attractive to the post-coup state."

Burkina Faso's military government has no plans for restoring the nation's democracy, providing a perfect setting for the Russian dictator, the bloody Wagner Group, and expansionist Moscow. Analysts believe their opportunism lies in the country's postcolonial, anti-French sentiment in the Sahel, a largely barren strip of land stretching across Africa

Said Cameron Hudson, a U.S.-Africa relations expert at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, "There’s no question that there’s a kind of Russian influence campaign going on in these countries that serves a number of purposes. It's pro-Russia, sometimes in a pretty blatant way with the flag bearers. It’s anti-French. It’s anti-establishment of those countries, so it’s weakening leadership in those countries. I think that’s where the Russians can gain a foothold, in these countries like Sudan, for example, or Chad, where there are these transitions going on, where in the political space everything’s up for grabs."

Although the Russian Federation is, in name, no longer the Soviet Union, it might as well be. Under Vladimir Putin, its imperialist ambitions are no less in appetite than Nikita Khrushchev's. In Africa, Putin's geopolitical approach attractively requires no military invasion and little expense. Countries such as Burkina Faso are prime targets for the Kremlin's Faustian bargains, particularly since the U.S. now refuses to prop up military dictatorships. Consequently, Russia can invite itself, extend a friendly hand, and then pilfer an African nation of whatever its valuable resources. It's colonialism on the cheap.  

A federal indictment of Trump is unquestionably in the works

"Yes, Donald Trump Is at Significant Risk of Federal prosecution," reads the headline of a Slate piece by former federal prosecutor Dennis Aftergut and Norman Eisen, a senior fellow at Brookings.

A seeming avalanche of really bad developments has buried Trump over several weeks; the Jan. 6 committee's summer hearings, a federal grand jury interviewing key witnesses to his election-fraud scam; and now we learn the Justice Department is probing Trump's personal actions in a fake-electors scam.

"It has been obvious, and we have said so in Slate for many months, that Donald Trump is at significant risk of federal prosecution—as he should be, given the evidence now in the public record," write the authors, noting that "the fake electors go to the scheme that appears to be at the core of the federal inquiry" of Trump.

An Arizona lawyer involved in Trump's Keystone Cops project, Jack Wilenchik, is about to become a household name. As The NY Times reported yesterday, Wilenchik was dumb enough to write the words "fake electoral votes" and "fake" votes in a December 2021 email message to Trump adviser Boris Epshteyn, who several years ago I described as the most vicious of all in Trump's inner circle. Epshteyn (pictured) orchestrated the fakeness scam as a go-between for Rudy Giuliani and John Eastman.

Almost unbelievably, Wilenchik wrote this to Epshteyn: "We would just be sending in 'fake' electoral votes to Pence so that 'someone' in Congress can make an objection when they start counting votes, and start arguing that the 'fake' votes should be counted."  Wilenchik admitted that "[the] idea is basically that all of us (GA, WI, AZ, PA, etc.) have our electors send in their votes (even though the votes aren’t legal)." Realizing his stupendous blunder, Wilenchik later wrote "'alternative' votes is probably a better term than 'fake' votes," and added a smiley face.  

"That’s what prosecutors call evidence of 'consciousness of guilt,'" observe Aftergut and Eisen. "It can be quite helpful in proving an accused person’s criminal knowledge and intent, a necessary element for conviction."

Regarding Trump himself, here's the silver bullet. "While Trump did not send or receive these documents, from a culpability perspective, he did not need to," assert the authors. "To establish guilt for a conspiracy, one needn’t show every member’s criminal intent or knowledge as to every part of the scheme. In fact, the Jan. 6 Committee has introduced startling evidence that Trump was behind the plot, including the testimony of Republican National Committee Chairwoman Ronna McDaniel and others revealing Trump’s direct efforts to recruit potential false electors."

And that's how Trump can be nailed for conspiracy to defraud the United States and obstruction of an official congressional proceeding. "The requirement in such cases to show that the defendant obstructed the proceeding 'corruptly,' meanwhile, calls for identical proof of a purpose to act improperly and wrongfully" — evidence of which The Washington Post reported on yesterday.

It now seems the once-assumed prospect of Donald Trump escaping federal indictments and evading a trial is virtually nonexistent. When is the only question. Once that answer is in hand, speculation will then center on how honest, attentive, and rational a jury will be.  

Win. lose, or stalemate. August will determine Ukraine's military fate; the war now hangs on two key, Russian/Western decisions.

Ukraine's general staff reported this morning that Russia has lost 40,000 troops in only six months of war. (The Kyiv Independent.) British intelligence estimates nearer to 25,000 Russian deaths, and the U.S. defense department has put the figure at 15,000. Any of the three estimates, however, is a shocking and possibly unsustainable loss of personnel in such a short time.

Ukraine also claims to have destroyed almost 2,000 Russian tanks, nearly 4,000 armored combat vehicles, 883 artillery systems, 256 multiple rocket launchers, 117 air defense systems, 222 warplanes, 190 helicopters and scores of other weapons and facilitators of war.

Asks The NY Times: "Could Russia be approaching a point of exhaustion?" Ben Barry, a senior fellow at Britain's International Institute for Strategic Studies, says "Russia has assembled what I call a steamroller. We don’t know at what point Russia will run out of steam." Barry adds that the Kremlin may reach a "culminating point," a situation in which its "offensive runs out of supplies or sustains so many casualties that it can’t be sustained." There are signs that Russia is rapidly approaching just that.

In the Donbas, Putin's forces captured the last major city, Lysychansk, earlier this month. Yet Russia's offensive in eastern Ukraine has stalled, leaving large areas of the Donetsk province unoccupied. The Russian dictator has a much bigger problem along Ukraine's southern axis. In recent days, Ukrainian forces have freed 44 towns and villages along the front, says the region's military governor.

Analysts have offered three explanations for Russia's seeming slowdown. It may be the Kremlin simply desires a breather for its troops, especially in eastern Ukraine. But strategic studies Professor Phillips O’Brien, at Scotland's University of St. Andrews, argues that data from NASA satellites "show Russian ranged fire declining enormously" in the Donetsk province — i.e., artillery fire unreliant on troop advancements.

A third explanation is Ukraine's enormous firepower provided by newly arrived, U.S. HIMARS. Ukrainian forces claim to have struck 50 Russian ammunition depots with these long-range, multiple rocket systems. Today, for the third time, Ukraine also hit a vital logistics route for Russian forces in Kherson, the Antonivskyi bridge. Reuters reports that Russia has closed the bridge — which was its supply lifeline from Crimea — because of heavy damage.

London's Royal United Services Institute contends quite reasonably that daily battleline developments are less important than the long-term strengths of both armies in training, logistics and supplies. At least along the southern axis, Ukraine is crippling Russia's supply lines.

London's strategic institute critically adds that Ukraine’s counteroffensive in the south must be sustained. Otherwise, President Zelensky's government risks "a symmetrical stalemate that can only bring about an attritional conflict, risking Ukraine’s exhaustion."

In a separate article, The NY Times relates that "Ukrainian forces are under pressure to demonstrate to their Western allies that they cannot only mount a muscular defense but are capable of reclaiming lost land." That pressure currently centers on Ukraine's push in the Kherson region. That's where Western allies must intensify and sustain their military support of Ukraine. A massive offensive is emphatically essential — now — before the Russian autocrat annexes the Kherson province.

This official act would most likely engulf the region within Russia's nuclear doctrine of defense. And that, in turn, would likely spell the end of the West's military supplies to Ukraine's offensive forces.

DOJ's criminal investigation of Trump. Finally.

"The Justice Department is investigating ... Trump."

So wrote The Washington Post yesterday.

As long ago as April, DOJ investigators obtained phone records of top administration officials, including those of Trump's former chief of staff, Mark Meadows. "That effort is another indicator of how expansive the Jan. 6 probe had become, well before the high-profile, televised House hearings in June and July on the subject."

More recently, prosecutors have questioned witnesses before a grand jury, including Mike Pence's aides. DOJ asked about conversations they had with Trump, his pettifoggers and others within his dark inner sanctum who attempted to foist "fake" electors (their words) onto Congress.

Reportedly, prosecutors "have asked hours of detailed questions about meetings Trump led in December 2020 and January 2021," about his strongarm tactics against Pence, and about his leadership in ordering lawyers and advisers to concoct the fake electors scheme. The Post added that "some of the questions focused directly on the extent of Trump’s involvement" in the intrigue.

This was startling as well as welcome news. For months, I and millions of other Americans were incensed at what appeared to be DOJ's inaction. Now we learn that Attorney General Merrick Garland's team has been drilling into Trump's many criminal activities while sitting as the nation's top mobster.

And so I applaud Mr. Garland. Criticisms of his seeming inactivity were often — and responsibly — accompanied by reminders that DOJ might be silently working to ensnare Trump, at long last, in a well-earned criminal net. This was, in fact, the case.

Nevertheless, the public deserved some notice of DOJ's investigation before now. Confidence in the American justice system flagged for more than a year, and at a time when the country's top court was engaged in stripping the rights of American women. We needed encouragement; some inspiring something that our system of justice was indeed paying attention.

Now, swift federal indictments of Trump would be of further help.

Small-dollar donors are bailing on the Republican Party

The NY Times reports that a significant drop in small-dollar donations "has sent shock waves of anxiety across Republican circles." It should, since they ordinarily increase as Election Days draw nearer.

For all campaigns and committees, amounts contributed online to the party fell by more than 12% in the second quarter vs. the first quarter. Some Republican fundraisers attribute the drop to inflation — but inflation hasn't affected Democrats, whose fundraising hauls jumped 21%.

Others believe that online deceptive tactics, such as Trump's multiple-times-a-day scams, have irritated supporters. Yet others believe that "certain campaigns and committees — in particular the highly aggressive Trump operation" — have hyper-fundraised, thus harming the donor pool for all other campaigns.

Of special annoyance to Republican fundraisers is that Trump is the party’s megafundraiser but he hordes the cash for his own political operation and for spending on vindictive campaigns against disloyal Republicans.

Still, reports the Times, the GOP is raising oodles of boodle from "Wall Street billionaires and other industry titans have cut seven- and eight-figure checks to Republican super PACs."

As something of an aside, this line in the Times story struck me as rather peculiar: "The current political climate favors Republicans as President Biden’s approval rating plumbs new lows." Notwithstanding Biden's sorry approval rating, recent polling instead suggests that the current political climate increasingly favors Democrats. 

On the question of which party voters prefer as the majority party in Congress, the preference has shifted from the Rs to the Ds. The margin is slim — within that of polling error — yet a gradual erosion of Republican support — probably more so than Democratic enthusiasm — has noticeably taken place. 

The leading explanation for this phenomenon is the Jan. 6 committee's depressing effect on rank-and-file Republican voters. The committee returns to televised hearings in September. Sheer coincidence, no doubt.   

Trump doesn't believe his own Big Lie about the 2020 election

Over the past 22 months, I have vacillated over the issue of whether Trump genuinely believes his Big Lie about the 2020 presidential election. From his public appearances one gathers that he indeed is a true believer, as are his fleeceable crowds.

Yet Trump is an experienced veteran of public and private swindles, a con artist of true artistry in the elaborate lie. And, as a sociopath, he feels no remorse for having conned one, hundreds, or millions of people as long as his mendacity benefits him.

This is the answer I finally settled on. He knows. He knows what he's saying is pure rot. Then recently I stumbled on this passage from Jonathan Lemire's book, The Big Lie: Election Chaos, Political Opportunism, and the State of American Politics, page 128:

​​​​​"Off camera, he took a slightly different tone, even wondering aloud to Kellyanne Conway how he could 'lose to fucking Joe Biden,' in what she took as a sign that he understood, deep down, that he had been defeated, even if he was not ready to say so publicly. She thought, as did some other Republicans, that Trump needed to perform, that he needed to vent publicly and exhaust all potential legal options."

Therein lies — excuse the pun — conclusive evidence that Trump believes not a word of his fantasy tales about election fraud. They're just another con. 

It is absolutely imperative that Ukraine launch a southern counteroffensive, NOW

The Insitute for the Study of War reported last weekend that President Zelensky is wanting to keep quiet about an anticipated Ukrainian counteroffensive along the southern axis of war, principally, the Kherson region. Thus "open-source visibility on the progress and tempo of the counteroffensive will likely be limited and lag behind events," related the ISW.

The prediction was accurate. No news of a major Ukrainian strike against Russian forces in Kherson has been reported. Ukrainian officials have said only that the "long-threatened southern counteroffensive by Kyiv’s forces will result in a 'huge battle.'" What information has emerged has centered on Russia's preparations.

Locals interviewed by The Guardian said that Russia is building reinforced shelters for tanks, digging trenches and installing prefabricated concrete pillboxes. Ukraine has stepped up attacks, which tends to confirm that a larger maneuver is looming — but it must come soon. This requires explanation.

Why stress the urgency of a Ukrainian counteroffensive in the Kherson region? This passage, again from The Guardian, should help to clarify. "An increase in strikes in recent days against key Russian weapons stores and logistics around Kherson ... has added to suggestions that some Ukrainian forces may be edging closer to the long-promised offensive, even as Russian officials say they plan to annex further territory."

Putin's imminent annexation of "further territory" — meaning the Kherson province. But Ukraine's approach to the long-promised offensive comes not even as Russia plans to annex, but because Russia plans to annex — as in, any day now. Putin's local apparachiks are appointing officials from other Russian provinces to administrate, introducing the ruble, issuing Russian passports to locals, and changing school curriculum from Ukrainian to Russian. (The Wall Street Journal.)

Putin's accelerated annexation arrangements pose a serious threat to Ukraine's plans for a "huge battle." Annexation would likely throw the Kherson region under Russia's nuclear doctrine of defense, which Putin would announce as a warning to the West — No more armaments to Ukraine for its southern battlefields.

Zelensky would find himself and his forces deprived of vital war matériel just when it needs it the most. In short, Ukraine's offensive could swiftly peter out. Worse, if Putin's defensive doctrine is announced before Ukraine's offensive is launched, it will never get off the ground.

Hence the indispensable importance of immediacy. Perhaps a counteroffensive now could lock in the status quo; that is, the Kherson region as an unannexed region. One would hope.

How would Putin greet Trump as president again? Two dramatically different opinions.

Putin biographer Philip Short said in a Saturday interview with Air Mail that he "suspects" the Russian dictator would feel "torn" over a Trump administration redux. I suspect Putin better understands the clear and present danger that Trump would be to the American political system — and the tremendous lift for Russia he also would be —  should the former president return to power.  

As the world knows, Donald Trump came under considerable fire for his amiable relationship with Vladimir Putin, even siding with the autocrat over his own intelligence community. He also routinely bashed NATO, which pleased Putin immensely, as the Russian president looks to dismantle Western unity and what he sees as its hegemony across the globe.

Said Short, "If [Trump] comes back, he will weaken NATO and muddy the waters in innumerable ways. But would Trump have the political strength to turn around U.S. relations with Russia? Very doubtful. On balance, Putin would probably welcome his return, but it would be with serious reservations."

What's doubtful is that Putin would harbor serious reservations about Trump's return. The twice-impeached president would instantly assume dictatorial powers himself — first through the re-implementation of Executive Order 13957, which would reclassify up to 50,000 civil service positions as politically appointed offices. (See my How Trump plans to personally own the U.S. government.)

Mass firings of dubious government employees could, or would, then take place, refashioning the White House as an imperial palace. (Trump issued the order too late in his term to have any effect. He won't make the same mistake twice.)      

Indeed, Putin's state-media personalities have been promoting a welcome, second term for Trump, which they wouldn't be doing if the boss had "serious reservations." Earlier this month, Russian TV host Vladimir Solovyov said "maybe you [President Biden] want to talk but we don't want to. We don't want to take any steps towards you, we'll wait for Trump," referring to him as a "beaut."

In another Russian state TV appearance, this one in March, host Evgeny Popov said that Biden should be ousted from office and that Trump should take his place. Popov named Trump as a "partner" for Moscow.

Given the unpopularity in the United States of Putin's war on Ukraine, Trump has condemned the invasion. But he's also been back to his old unAmerican tricks, asking the Russian dictator to again interfere in U.S. politics by releasing any information he might have about Hunter Biden's alleged business dealings in Moscow.

Would Putin be "torn" about a Trump comeback? Only in deciding how high to jump in delight.