PMC Commentary

How might the U.S. respond to a nuclear assault by Putin? Three possibilities.

Although Vladimir Putin's invasion of Ukraine was an act of sheer madness, Putin believed he was acting rationally, mainly because his military had hoodwinked him into believing in its enormous, unbeatable might. Now that the myth has been dispelled, even in Vladimir's mind, he has become what his invasion was: insane. He's cornered and desperate, willing to do anything to protect what he still sees as his seat of imperial power. Because he's also a sociopath.

Hence the U.S. must decide how to act should he deploy a nuclear weapon in Ukraine, which is fast slipping from his grip, and thus diminishing his power at home. U.S. intelligence reports no signs yet of such a deployment — for now, the moving around of nuclear assets — but administration officials and military analysts are of course deep into pondering how the U.S. should act.  

Parenthetically, the world mustn't be fooled into thinking that "mere" tactical nukes are somehow less destructive than their bigger brothers. Even Russia’s "smallest warheads have many times the explosive power of the bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki," notes NBC News. Paraphrasing nuclear expert Jeffrey Lewis, "there is no technological distinction between 'tactical' nuclear weapons and 'strategic' ones — the difference is in the targets and the goals. Tactical nukes are used to gain advantage on the battlefield, while strategic weapons are aimed at military infrastructure and even whole cities."

Neither would Putin's "test" of a tactical nuke as a seemingly lesser measure be of considerable less danger. Such a test as a show of determination, for example over the Black Sea, would send radioactive material wafting into NATO countries, and probably Russia itself.

The U.S.'s options, according to NBC: "Stay the course, up the sanctions and keep arming the Ukrainians, while building an international coalition against Russia that completely isolates the country; launch a conventional military attack on Russian forces in Ukraine or Russia; or respond with a nuclear attack."

Without putting a percentage on this held opinion, NBC reports that "some" intel and military analysts said that U.S. military retaliation would be unlikely "after a single Russian use of a so-called tactical nuclear weapon in Ukraine." Others — again, we know not the number — argued that President Biden would need to unveil at least some sort of conventional-force reaction — "perhaps attacking Russian troops in Ukraine or the Russian military unit that launched the nuclear weapon."

That, however, could have what the analysts described as "serious repercussions, since Russian military leaders might be killed." But what of the repercussions from Russia launching the first nuclear attack since 1945? you might ask. My answer would be, I'm as mystified as you are by their calculation.  

A more upbeat opinion comes from former Pentagon official Evelyn Farkas, who said that should Putin issue such a mad military response to losing more Russian-occupied territory, "[He] will be signing the order on changing the regime." On the other hand, two sitting U.S. officials ventured that "Unless they use them on NATO we’re probably not going to respond militarily." 

However the U.S. might respond, the Biden administration is playing it close to the chest, leaving open all the above options.

I question the wisdom of this strategy. Putin believes — because he has good empirical reason to believe — that the U.S. will never respond aggressively, even if he detonates a nuclear weapon over Ukraine, slaughtering countless civilians. But if Putin were notified otherwise beforehand, he might rethink his belief.

Somewhere in his mind's swirling madness, there remains an element of sanity. Tell him now that the U.S. will indeed retaliate forcefully (but conventionally) against Russian assets in Ukraine, and he might back off. Because his closest, rational advisers, knowing of the Putin-induced catastrophe to ensue, would have the knives out. And the impersonating Czar — self-preserving sociopath that he is — would know it.     

'Putin's Donbas' might start falling today, testing his nuclear will. This is nearly as hot as this hot war can get.

​​​​As I was saying, "While Putin is testing what he genuinely believes is the hegemonic will of the West, within days his own will shall be tested — his willingness, that is, to deploy nuclear weapons in the Donetsk province. Ukraine, undeterred by the dictator's threats, is gearing up for a fresh offensive on the Russian-held city of Lyman, an important logistics center whose Ukrainian capture would open a path to retaking large parts of the neighboring province of Luhansk." 

I mistyped. The second sentence should have read: Ukraine is gearing up for an offensive in the Russian-held city of Lyman. (Map provided by the Institute for the Study of War. If you can't make it out, Lyman is situated in the top circle.) 

Denis Pushilin, leader of the Kremlin's illegal "Donetsk People’s Republic," wrote on Telegram that Ukrainian forces have encircled the critical logistics city of Lyman, a situation he described as "disturbing." He added, "Our guys are fighting, we are pulling up reserves, we must hold out, but the enemy has also thrown serious forces."

The fall of Lyman could come as soon as today [this post, as you might have noticed, is a repost from 30 September], just as Vladimir Putin is heroically declaring the Donetsk province, along with the province of Luhansk, also in the east, and the provinces of Zaporizhzhia and Kherson in the south, is now a part of the Russian Federation. 

The Daily Beast reports that "Ukrainian sources claimed that the strategic city of Lyman ... has been encircled and supply lines cut. 'The operation [named 'Lyman!'] to encircle the Russian group is at the stage of completion,'" said a Ukrainian lawmaker today. "It would be one of the most serious Russian military losses of the war so far," observes the Beast. "Pro-Kremlin forces have conceded that the Ukrainians have made major gains in the region and are close to cutting off the Russian staging post in northern Donetsk."

Another map, also from the ISW and published by The Washington Post. It is self-explanatory.

What scattered protests there were in Russia after its invasion of Ukraine dissipated shortly after Putin's repressions. But with his 21 September order of a 300,000-man mobilization, protests and assaults on recruitment centers have swelled to uncontrollable breadths. At home, Putin is in real trouble. 

In the south of Ukraine, in today's annexed province of Zaporizhzhia, those at this center for the displaced remain ... displaced. Even the attending dog had had enough. Many Ukrainians told the Post that they see "Putin’s gambit as somewhere between surreal and absurd." Said one woman who escaped a Russian-controlled area, "It’s serious, but how can you take it seriously. They’re just making up lines on a map."

Neither does the West seem to be taking Putin's land grabs very seriously. Today the U.S. imposed — you guessed it — more sanctions on Russia, reports Reuters. The U.S. also re-"condemned" its slaughter of tens of thousands of Ukrainians and pledged to "rally the international community" to "denounce" the bloodiest, most aggressive war in Europe since 1939.

We can, for the moment, simply ignore the West and its unfounded fears of the weakest but most desperate bully on earth. To watch for instead are any reports of Vladimir Putin's movements of tactical nuclear weapons closer to the Ukrainian border.    

Putin's nuclear showdown is just days ahead. Will he use a nuke? (Hint: Yes.)

Vasily Kashin. whose specialty at Moscow's Higher School of Economics is military and political issues, said in a phone interview with The NY Times that "We are passing a point of no return [today]. After this, we will not be able to refrain from defending these territories with all means, including nuclear weapons."

"These territories" are, of course, the four Ukrainian provinces that Vladimir Putin — in what the Kremlin is describing as an "elaborate," "voluminous" speech — is formally annexing today. (All that remains is for the Russian parliament to rubber stamp his formality next week.) "He thinks he can win," says Andrei Kolesnikov at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. "He is provoking an escalation of the war, transferring it to some new status."

The "new status" shall be the daily and very real prospect of detonated Russian nuclear weapons over Ukrainian territory now rendered Russia's sovereign territory, in which the West is provisioning Ukraine — now the belligerent "outsider" — with advanced armaments. Thus Putin can frame the war's status as one of Western aggression toward Russia's territorial integrity, which, under the Federation's nuclear doctrine, permits defense by nukes.       

"Unipolar hegemony is inexorably collapsing," said Putin to his security council in publicly televised remarks. "This is an objective reality that the West categorically refuses to accept." In its fight, all shall soon be well for Russia, since he added that "All mistakes must be corrected and prevented from happening in the future. You need to figure all this out — without fuss, calmly but quickly, in detail and thoroughly." If that fails ... 

Meanwhile, the Russian dictator's homecoming gift to the now-Russian people in the engulfed territories was a series of mass-murdering strikes overnight and into Friday morning. The deadliest was in the Zaporizhzhia province, where a rocket attack killed at least 25. "All were civilians," said the provincial governor. They were lined up at a checkpoint in cars and at a bus stop, waiting to enter Russian-occupied territory to deliver humanitarian aid. Another strike hit residential areas in Mykolaiv, killing at least three. 

Nevertheless, Russian state news media reported this week that indigenous support for Putin's territorial theft via annexation was nothing less than magnificent. Tass released the figures: in Zaporizhzhia, 92.68% voted in favor of returning to the motherland; in Kherson, 86%; and 93.95% in Donetsk and 98.53% in Luhansk. The decimal amounts are meant to convey Russia's meticulous and conscientious counting of the votes.

On the other hand, trouble is brewing back home. A poll released yesterday by Moscow's independent Levada Center showed that 56% of Russians are now "very alarmed" by what's happening in Ukraine, up from 37% last month and before Putin's "partial mobilization." When asked how they felt about the new draft order, 47% answered with "anxiety, fear, horror." Only 27% said they were proud. 

While Putin is testing what he genuinely believes is the hegemonic will of the West, within days his own will shall be tested — his willingness, that is, to deploy nuclear weapons in the Donetsk province. Ukraine, undeterred by the dictator's threats, is gearing up for a fresh offensive on the Russian-held city of Lyman, an important logistics center whose Ukrainian capture would open a path to retaking large parts of the neighboring province of Luhansk. 

Putin simply cannot afford another counteroffensive loss, this time in the Donbas and one equivalent in scope and ruinous public relations to his territorial loss in the northeastern region of Kharkiv. His ego would be irreparably wounded and he'd be toppled from power. He'll do anything to prevent these inevitabilities. Given his army's deteriorated physical condition coupled with bottomed-out morale, this means, perforce, Putin's resort to a nuclear strike.

It might be that he will fall from power beforehand. His military may refuse to carry out such an order, seeing it for the madness it is and subsequently Russia's impossible refooting within a postwar global order. But a nuclear Putin diktat is coming. The world can count on it.     

Dudley Moore takes on Marjorie Taylor Greene

Marge may not have actually filed with the DOJ — although she might; true crazy allows that — but her involuntary departure from soon-to-be ex-husband Perry will generate some classic online Perradies.

https://t.co/InsxQutFI6

— Dennis Farkas🎬🎥🌊 (@Cheeks1128) September 29, 2022

We mustn't worry about Marge, though. She has plenty to occupy her swiss-cheese mind and otherwise frazzled emotions. The NY Daily News reports that Infowars' Alex Jones has asked her to run for the presidency. Says Marge, "It’s not something I don’t consider" (as opposed to "It's something I consider.") 

Trump never dropped his fake-voices phone routine, not even as POTUS

From Maggie Haberman's journalistically clouded book, Confidence Man, as reported by The Washington Post, which has read it and I won't buy:

"Haberman describes Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) getting a phone call from an unknown number. 'When she answered, the man on the other end identified himself as a Washington Post reporter, and said he knew her husband from his investigations in Congress. The name he gave was not one she recognized. The man asked Dingell if she was looking for an apology from Trump. No, she replied, merely that people could be civil to one another. As the man talked, Dingell couldn’t shake the idea that his voice sounded like that of the forty-fifth president.'"

On that occasion he was a Post reporter — while president of the United States. Before, in various calls to various newspapers and tabloids, he was "John Barron." You can listen to him here, four paragraphs down, or as hear him as "John Miller," here.  

It didn't take long, from the 1980s onward, for reporters to realize that this Confidence Man was jerking people around with faintly different voices and a bit heavier New York accent. But Trump's narcissism was so vast, he thought he was getting away with his little schemes; no one was smarter than he.

What we didn't know was that he continued this childishness while misserving in the White House.

Speaking of his undeveloped frontal lobes, Haberman also reports that in 2019, Trump, "seeming to not understand how the branches of government work, said he would simply 'sue' Congress if they tried to impeach him."

Putin has now ATTACKED a Western asset. What does the West need to counterattack?

Vladimir Putin has steadily escalated his fighting war on Ukraine and his geopolitical war against the West. His military setbacks have never deterred him from adding to the murderous chaos of his illegal invasion. Currently he is mobilizing another 300,000 men to fight and die in Ukraine; some reports say more. He has disrupted the postwar global order — and he means to destroy it. He is seriously threatening the use of nuclear weapons against Russia's free, democratic neighbor. Tomorrow he'll sign unlawful documents for the formal annexation of four sovereign Ukrainian provinces.

And he has suddenly and deliberately attacked Western-held, NATO-"protected" infrastructure, two Nord Stream pipelines.

Although Russia's Gazprom is Nord Stream's largest shareholder, the energy firm is held by four other companies as well: Wintershall Dea AG (Germany), PEG Infrastruktur AG (a Zurich-based international consortium), Nederlandse Gasunie (the Netherlands) and ENGIE (France). In sabotaging the pipelines, Putin may have injured his own bottom line, but he also materially savaged Western infrastructure. His wanton act of demolition was no different from having guided a cruise missile into Gelsenkirchen, Germany's Scholven Power Station.

NATO has charged that Nord Stream's damage was the result of "deliberate, reckless and irresponsible acts of sabotage." Note the passive voice. NATO's statement excluded naming the known perpetrator behind the Baltic Sea attack on the West.

NATO did, however, boldly declare that "We, as Allies, have committed to prepare for, deter and defend against the coercive use of energy and other hybrid tactics by state and nonstate actors. Any deliberate attack against Allies’ critical infrastructure would be met with a united and determined response."

And there it stands, nothing more — except that NATO's secretary general, Jens Stoltenberg, did write on Twitter of his "deep concern" about the December 7th-like sudden and deliberate attack on Western assets by the clandestine forces of the Empire of Russia.  

The Wall Street Journal reports that this "marks the first time the alliance has formally warned" — warned — "that it would deter and defend against attacks on its members’ critical infrastructure."

The Washington Post reports that Putin's attack "raised fears that the Russian leader is readying for a long hybrid conflict with NATO."

The West's military alliance has cast itself into infamy. Against the weakest yet most homicidal "strongman" on earth, the U.S. and its NATO allies have launched only warnings and sat fearfully. It seems that if Vladimir Putin did lob a cruise missile onto a German power plant the Allies would but issue more warnings and sit more fearfully against an international outlaw, mass executioner and most heinous military aggressor since Hitler and Hirohito of WW II.   

Putin is at his most vulnerable. Huge antiwar protests are breaking out domestically, hundreds of thousands Russians are fleeing to avoid the draft, the dictator's hardliners are angry for his having been too soft on Ukraine, his top military advisers have come around to comprehending that he's a strategic buffoon, sanctions are strangling his once-technologically burgeoning economy and defense establishments, allies such as China are subtly backing away from their support — in short, he and his "empire" are weak, besieged, international and even national outcasts.

And yet the U.S. and NATO fear both him and his preparations for a long-running conflict. Historians of war and geopolitics will study this East-West dogpile and consign themselves to everlasting consternation.    

DeSantis is in a terrible fix: Biden wants to help.

I was once unfair to "The View," portraying it here as little more than a half dozen women talking all at once and about pretty much nothing of import. But this "View" panel discussion of Hurricane Ian, Gov. DeSantis and President Biden is on par, if not above par, with any political program stuffed with all the familiar faces of the mainstream commentariat.

Ian could be Ron DeSantis' Chris Christie moment. The Florida governor has undoubtedly issued orders to his goon squad to form a human barrier around him should the president arrive and attempt a manly physical bonding as the New Jersey governor and President Obama had. With that, Gov. Christie's presidential hopes went sailing out to sea.

My hope is that Biden races to Florida has his Secret Service clear a path through the governor's 300 at Thermopylae, and then hugs DeSantis for dear life and the latter's political destruction.

Let's just say that Biden would only be correcting the record. In February, Gov. DeSantis told the assembled crowd at a CPAC conference that the president "hates Florida" and that he "stiffs" storm victims out of political malice — which was an accurate portraiture of only Trump in his White House days. "Remember Puerto Rico."

But the worm has turned. DeSantis now finds himself in a most uncomfortable corner. For the moment — a politically perilous moment — he must play nice opposite Big Brother in Washington, and perforce he has crept right up to the edge, telling Fox News, for instance, on the eve of the storm that he's "thankful" for Biden's aid, adding, "He said whatever you need, ask us. He was inviting us to request support."

The Rumsfeldian known unknown is to what extent DeSantis' chawbacons will accept the governor's thanks as an insincere necessity. As honored members of the nation's Most Benighted Club, DeSantiswipes and Trumpers aren't known for their perspicacity.

Once Biden's assistance is in DeSantis' hands, the gov will likely discover the prez had done him wrong — again. We'll see, but I see no other way out of this terrible, immensely helpful situation for Ron. Perhaps he'll bamboozle 50 more migrants into flying to Biden's home in Deleware, as he has threatened to do.

My apologies to "The View."

Might Putin use nukes in Ukraine? You can BET he might. (He's telling! us that.)

Russian authorities at the highest levels keep telling the U.S. that they're serious about using tactical nuclear weapons in Ukraine — note: "tactical" nuclear weapons are ... nuclear weapons — and U.S. analysts keep unseriously closing their ears. 

This week, following up on President Putin's "this is not a bluff" threat, former Russian president Dmitry Medvedev, now deputy chairman of Putin's security council, reiterated that Russia is willing to use nuclear weapons to defend Russia's newly acquired states in eastern and southern Ukraine, adding that this is "certainly not a bluff." (Reuters.)  

"Let's imagine that Russia is forced to use the most fearsome weapon against the Ukrainian regime which had committed a large-scale act of aggression" — on its own sovereign territory, mind you — "that is dangerous for the very existence of our state," wrote Medvedev on Telegram. Such as act would fall under long-standing Russian military doctrine, and if carried out, continued Putin's lackey, no problem, because the West would not intervene: "[The] demagogues across the ocean and in Europe are not going to die in a nuclear apocalypse." 

Like Donald Trump, Vladimir Putin enjoys advertising to the world what actions he might take, as he openly did, for instance, in his runup to invading Ukraine. And of late, his higher mobilization has been that of dispersing his mouthpieces to assure the world that he's dead serious about nuking his neighbor.

One prominent public intellectual and U.S. analyst of Russian affairs is The Atlantic's Tom Nichols, a former Naval War College professor. He asks, "How worried should we be?" But his answer is offered beforehand. It's embedded in his column's title, "Russia's Nuclear Threats Are All Putin Has Left" — implicit emphasis on threats. Writes Nichols:

"I still believe that Russian use of a nuclear weapon is unlikely. This is only an informed guess, because my expertise on Russia does not extend to the interior of Putin’s skull. But Putin has almost certainly contemplated the high probability that using a nuclear weapon could bring about the end of his rule faster than any of the bungled decisions he’s already made. This is not because global nuclear war would break out — although any use of a nuclear weapon runs that risk — but because a nuclear attack on Ukraine could provoke a collapse of the Russian regime itself."

Nichols' argument is one of peculiar logic. Going further, I'd say it's downright farcical. He merely circles back on his initial contention in a kind of tautology: to wit, Putin won't use nukes because that would end his rule because using nukes would end the Russian regime. But as Louis XIV was the French regime, Putin is the Russian regime. Thus Nichols' premise is – voila! — his following conclusion.

Much of the rest of his column is somewhat insufferable. He reminds us that he has advised against direct Western military action in Ukraine, citing his March 2022 Atlantic column — insufferably titled "Stay Calm, America" — in which he casts superior wisdom upon the weak-minded neurotic sort. "In recent days, I’ve heard various proposals for Western intervention, including support for a no-fly zone over Ukraine from former NATO Supreme Allied Commander General Philip Breedlove and the Russian dissident Garry Kasparov, among others."

Nichols now finds he must re-explain things to feeble-headed NATO commanders and war-gaming geniuses. "But emotions should never dictate policy," he writes as he facepalms before the preceding, excitable types. Nichols is mansplaining to men; he's lecturing such tremendously rational minds as Breedlove's and magnificently logical minds such as Kasparov's.

Nichols also asserts that "the entire world would coalesce against Putin, including China," if he were to use a nuclear weapon on Ukraine. This, if nothing else, will prevent Putin from doing so, says Nichols. But if anything else, given President Xi's recent cold-shouldering, Putin would be more inclined to use nukes, just to show Xi and the world that he is still his own man.

After noting each reason he can think of to argue rather decisively the "unlikelihood" of a Russian nuclear strike, Nichols, at the end, undoes it all by writing that "Putin might think that a nuclear bomb is his only option. Whether anyone would stop Putin from giving this order, or whether the Russian high command would carry it out, is anyone’s guess."

Nichols' guess is no. Mine is 80:20 yes. But I won't insult you by explaining that my guess is grounded in intellectual composure, whereas yours, whatever it is, most "likely" lies in emotional instablity. 

***

I should have added, which I'm adding now, that generally I like Nichols' writings. But this one I found, well, insufferable. 

You thought Britain was already in bad economic shape? Just wait until Liz Truss is done with it.

Other than slashing taxes so as to eventually gut government services, thus reducing the Leviathan's size and influence in society — an ulterior purpose suspected of President Reagan during his revenue-enhancement via revenue-disembowelment days — conservatives seem to genuinely believe that cutting taxes always benefits the nation's economy. Mounds of macroeconomic studies and decades of empirical data have shown their belief to be altogether without merit. Yet put a conservative in power, and he or she will cut taxes every time.

So it is with Prime Minster Liz Truss of Great Britain, which as I write is becoming more economically imperiled each day. She's on a supply-side offensive, and notwithstanding Greek choruses all around her singing refrains of imminent doom, she is showing no signs of retreat.   

To battle inflation in Britain, the prime minister has cut taxes, which, as is obvious to everyone but Liz and her Exchequer, will only add to inflationary pressures by putting more cash in the marketplace. Meanwhile, Britain's central bank is raising interest rates in the more traditional route of combating inflation.

These two acts in tandem — those of Truss vs. the Bank of England — have rendered the International Monetary Fund rther befuddled by the new prime minister and it is begging Truss to rethink her fiscal policy, which, asserts the fund, is working at "cross purposes" with monetary policy.

Adam Posen, an American economist who formerly sat on the Bank of England's monetary policy committee, was more blunt. He told The NY Times that "the government’s policies are not only outrageously irresponsible, but they don’t seem to understand that the bank has to respond to these policies by raising interest rates a lot."

And that's creating an entirely separate, imminent catastrophe. Higher interest rates were already causing the housing market to slow — so rapidly, in fact, that two of Britain's large mortgage lenders announced they would cease offering fresh loans because of the housing market's instability. This will come as an especially severe blow to hundreds of thousands of homeowners who must refinance their fixed-term mortgages.

Britain is "not like the U.S., where people are on 30-year mortgages," said economics professor Jonathan Portes at King’s College London. More than 60% of British mortgage holders have "floating" rates or "loans that will expire in the next two years," observes the Times — many of them, Conservative voters, or at least they were. 

Another gift to the Labour Party arrived on Friday when the chancellor of the Exchequer, Kwasi Kwarteng, made a surprise announcement. The government, he said, will also dispose of the 45% income tax rate for those earning more than £150,000. "Kwarteng did not submit the package to the scrutiny a government budget normally receives," reports the Times. But lower-income Brits can take heart: Four days later Mr. Kwarteng informed bankers and asset managers that he's confident the government's new tax schemes will work.

From a political standpoint, Truss & Co.'s fiscal policies appear even more insane. The Labour Party is currently running 17 points ahead of Conservatives in a YouGov poll (B+), reports The (London) Times. As the Democratic Party should be doing more of in the United States — not as a political fluff, but as the truth — Britain's Labour is now selling itself as the party of fiscal responsibility.  

Labour's approval rating is 45%; Conservatives', 28%. The gap will widen even further as Truss' fiscal madness deepens her party's unpopularity. To retake parliament, Labour need only avoid the radical talk of its yesteryears, which, granted, may prove as difficult as moderate Democrats' efforts to keep politically reckless progressives' mouths shut. And for heaven's sake, Labourites, please tell voters you've never even heard of "wokeness." 

To be clear, mine is no schadenfreude post about the regnant missteps and maladministrations of Prime Minister Liz Truss and her Conservative Party. The denizens of the United Kingdom are still our lovable cousins, thus I would much prefer to see Ms. Truss succeed. But it seems unlikely that anyone can help. She is unswerving in her determination to wreck the British economy.    

A pro-Putin, anti-Ukrainian-'Nazi' writer drops me a note

Below is an email that awaited me in my inbox this morning. The sender, one Michael Averko, is not a Russian bot. His name appears in numerous Google links — referenced always as "Michael Averko is a  New York based independent foreign policy analyst" — and he was cited in a 28 July 2020 NY Times article, "Russian Intelligence Agencies Push Disinformation on Pandemic," in this passage:

"Michael Averko, a contributor to the [Strategic Culture Foundation. which has ties to the Russian intelligence agency SVR, which is being investigated by the FBI], did not return a request for comment, but he said in a recent mass email to reporters that he had been visited by the F.B.I. Mr. Averko said he told the F.B.I. that he did not know about any ties between the foundation and Russian intelligence, but that he doubted they existed."

Here, in full, is Averko's email:

***

Re: Below Linked Article on US Open Azarenka-Kostyuk Match

The Kiev regime is a corrupt, undemocratic and neo-Nazi influenced regime with blood on its hands. Let's see Kostyuk, Svitolina, Klitschko, et al make some acknowledgement to that.

As previously noted -

In the not too distant past, US and Israeli athletes were never penalized when their respective nation killed many in a foreign land.
The carnage in Yemen is greater than the one in Ukraine. The former involves Anglo-American and Saudi complicity.

The Wimbledon wipes allowed for white South Africans to compete during the apartheid era.

Like I said, the Kiev regime is a corrupt, undemocratic and neo-Nazi influenced entity with blood on its hands.

So much for Western establishment arrogance, ignorance, hypocrisy and bigotry.

Russian and Belarusian athletes should be competing under their respective flag and anthem. If anything, the likes of Sebastian Coe and Thomas Bach should be banned.

[Last, Averko cites an RT.com piece, titled:]

"Ukrainian player refuses handshake with Belarusian rival at US Open"

The Ukrainian appeared to accuse two-time Grand Slam champion Azarenka of not doing enough to “condemn the war publicly” and failing to criticize her government, headed by President Alexander Lukashenko, which is seen as aiding the Russian military campaign in Ukraine. “We had a great match, don’t get me wrong. She’s a great competitor, I respect her as an athlete but that has ...

***

I sent this reply to Averko:

"How much do you get paid to peddle horseshit for Putin?"

He responded moments later:

"Mr Carpenter,

"Who pays for your pro-Kiev regime bullshit?

It's good to know my Russia-Ukraine War articles are aggravating the likes of vile, genocide-supporting minds such as Michael Averko's.

A ferocious Russian television war hawk freaks out when he's called to fight in Ukraine

One more video, which I found too irresistible not to share. 

You may recall Vladimir Solovyov from several of my posts in which I featured his radically bellicose thoughts and bizarrely abnormal hatred of Ukraine, even for a Russian hardliner. He is the popular Russian TV host of "Evening with Vladimir Solovyov." 

In hosting the program, his favorite topics have been the accelerated progress of Russia under Putin, the decline of the West, and ... his patriotism.

Until, a Russian official came to his door and handed him "mobilization papers," as Solovyov puts it in the video. This supremely patriotic Putin propagandist and determined destroyer of Ukraine had been drafted — and on his television show, he lost control of himself. In short, he freaked out.

In opposing his participation in Russia's virtuous war against its neoNazi-infested neighbor, Solovyov shrieked that he's too old, that he's too important — "You know who I am"? he told the doorknocker — that Russia's "ethnic minorities" should do the fighting, and that dying for Russia is for somebody else.  

These two minutes may be the most fascinating, arrogant cowardice you shall ever see.  

Solovyov gets drafted and goes crazy. pic.twitter.com/bd8lMf4zFi

— RealSubtitles (@R82938886) September 27, 2022

I believe the older gentleman in the light blue suit is retired Lt. Gen. Andrei Gurulev, who has happily spoken of turning Britain into a "Martian desert" via Russia's nuclear weapons. The older gentleman in the dark suit — the one who calmly scorns Solovyov as a coward — I am, regrettably, unfamiliar with.  

Will Vladimir find his chatty namesake a military desk job in Moscow so that he can continue his show? — in uniform and once again supremely patriotic. I suspect that is Mr. Solovyov's wartime fate. Unless the first Vladimir simply has the second one murdered. A freak accident, you know.

When the paper you love is unfaithful: The NYT and Maggie Haberman

The question being: What is to be done?

The New York Times, a publication I have relied on for years for accurate and often excellent investigative reporting, has done us wrong. It has "circled the wagons," as one writer put it, in defense of White House correspondent Maggie Haberman's indefensible concealment of Donald Trump's mishandling of, and possible destruction of, top-secret national security documents while president. There can be no justification of either Haberman's or the Times' misconduct. Both are journalistically deplorable and ethically offensive.

For her part, Haberman sat on news of White House staff having discovered that official papers were once blocking the president's bathroom — "the assumption by staff was that Mr Trump was tearing [them] up and flushing them away," reports The Independent. Yet Haberman hid from the public this immensely troubling story. She kept it private to enhance the sales of her book, Confidence Man, due out 4 October.

Thus a NYT White House correspondent withheld vital information about a sitting president's gross mishandling and probable vandalism of sensitive national security documents, entirely for personal profit. More shocking: Go to the New York Times and enter "haberman" in its search window. Right. Nada. The nation's "paper of record" has chosen to stay off the record about one of its own — an enormously unethical journalist.

Observes D. Earl Stephens, former managing editor of Stars and Stripes: "I worked at five newspapers in my career. At every one of them our first and only responsibility was to our readers, NOT reporters who were sitting on stories and writing books to serve themselves. I am past sick and tired of Maggie Haberman, the NYT and all these damn books."

In an accompanying tweet, Stephens wrote: "As hard as we should be on the Habermans of the world, it’s her bosses at The New York Times who should get 99 percent of the blame for allowing and even encouraging this breathtaking bullshit. They are taking our money, to sit on the news."

Wrote author Amy Siskin: "Reporters at the NYT and beyond circling the wagons to protect Maggie Haberman, and openly ridiculing accusations of what clearly appears to be unethical behaviour, is why journalistic practices don’t improve and trust in journalism is largely in the basement."

Other tweeters have joined in the recriminations of Maggie Haberman, writing that she "is the poster girl for what’s wrong with modern journalism; profit over profession," and "Yea congrats to her sitting on a story about the sitting president destroying classified documents just so she can get paid." Quite handsomely, one should add. 

It's one thing for a greedy journalist to heave financial self-interest over professional obligation. But in the board rooms of the NY Times, whole groups of men and women sworn to uphold the public interest have conspired to aid and abet a journalistic felon on the run.

I won't, I can't cancel my subscription to the Times. Other journalists in its cubes are worthy of the trade and daily provide information essential to any fair-minded news consumer. The New York Times, however, is, at its highest levels, showing itself to be no more conscientious than a Trump lawyer. So I suppose I'll just have to live with the pain of the bosses' infidelity.    

(P.S.: While coincidentally browsing former Stars and Stripes editor Stephens' Twitter thread I ran across a pretty nifty description of the abovementioned scofflaw: "[A] thrice married, serial philandering, casino bankrupting, Bible shaking, North Korean despot love letter exchanging, coup plotting, insurrection inciting, intel stealing puppet for Putin.")

A live-action battle - in which the Russians run for their lives

I don't mean to post videos in any excessive way — this is the second today and atop yet another. Such visual piggybacking falls outside my usual style. But this two-minute film, which I found "captivating" (excuse the pub), seems to me essential viewing.

Unless the enemy was hopelessly outnumbered, the ease with which Ukrainian soldiers were able to overrun the Russian camp — taking some invaders prisoners and sending others in flight — further reveals either the reported depletion of Russian troops in Ukraine, or Russian troops' reluctance to risk their lives for Vladimir Putin's ego.  

Mr. Ponomarenko is a defense reporter with The Kyiv Independent. The location of this seemingly one-sided battle was, I'm sure, kept secret by the reporter for security reasons.  

Ukrainian National Guard troops taking Russian POWs pic.twitter.com/Wr7Xvk3QO0

— Illia Ponomarenko🇺🇦 (@IAPonomarenko) September 27, 2022

Matt Gaetz admits coming House investigations are pure political hit jobs; says governing won't be a priority

Speaking yesterday on Steve Bannon's "War Room" podcast, Rep. Matt Gaetz opened his reckless mouth and sputtered what his Republican colleagues have tried to keep under their fright wigs: Speaker Kevin McCarthy's putative policy statement, the party's "Commitment to America," is a scam.

Gaetz explained that should a Republican House not launch "impeachment inquiries" against President Biden, the party's Trumpian base will feel "betrayed," which in turn will disgruntle the base and cause low 2024 turnout. Added Gaetz, and "that could be the biggest wind that Democrats could hope for in 2024."

The Florida congressman also conceded that for House Republicans, the business of governing will be a "far, far diminished priority" — which puts a torch to McCarthy's much-ballyhooed "Commitment to America" and all the wonderful things he has said it would do.

Gaetz says if Republicans don’t immediately begin impeachment of Biden and Cabinet officials if they get the majority “our voters will feel betrayed” heading into 2024, “and that’s why it should be investigations first, and policy as a far, far diminished priority.” pic.twitter.com/vCdKGvxnLN

— Ron Filipkowski 🇺🇦 (@RonFilipkowski) September 26, 2022

Republicans' impeachment panels were destined for 2023 anyway, and they would have had McCarthy's full blessing. As I wrote last Saturday: "Not one word of McCarthy's ["Commitment to America"] has anything to do with what his House caucus will actually do once nestled back in power.

"Which is nothing more than one rube-feeding committee investigation atop mounds of other committee investigations. You name it, and if it has Joe Biden's name on it or anything they stamp as Biden, the precious McCarthyites will be 'investigating' it — all in a runup to the ultimate game of creating at most one sort-of new job, for Donald Trump, or maybe Ron DeSantis, whichever one is unincarcerated in 2024."

But McCarthy certainly never planned on unchained House Republicans pouncing on publicly available podcasts and blaring to the nation that the mountainous socioeconomic problems they say have been exacerbated by Democrats will be of no policy concern to the new majority.  

The only national betrayal would be that committed by House Republicans, and a leading voice in the party just announced that it shall be so. This story — America's socioeconomic troubles shall be of "far, far diminished priority" for the GOP — should have been above-the-fold, headline news in the New York Times and Washington Post this morning. It is not.

Gaetz's for-once honest blunder mirrors Kevin McCarthy's 2015 exchange with Sean Hannity. Said the Fox News host: "Sixty percent of Republicans polled this week feel betrayed by the Republican Party in Washington."

McCarthy's eventual reply: "Everybody thought Hillary Clinton was unbeatable, right? But we put together a Benghazi special committee, a select committee. What are her numbers today? Her numbers are dropping. Why? Because she's un-trustable. But no one would have known any of that had happened had we not fought and made that happen."

Thus the "Benghazi special committee" was but a political weapon — a blunt-force instrument meant to severely wound her 2016 presidential campaign — and Kevin McCarthy stupidly admitted it. As Matt Gaetz has done, again.   

Where's the press? Why are we privy to the GOP's scam only because of one lone soul on Twitter?  

What a Biden-Trump rematch looks like today

The latest initial exchange between NY Times columnists Gail Collins and Bret Stephens, always a good read.

G.C.: "Bret, which do you think is more of a threat to Trump’s political future, the classified document drama at Mar-a-Lago or the legal challenge to his businesses in New York?"

B.S.: "Gail, I suspect the most serious threats to Trump’s future, political or otherwise, are Big Macs and KFC buckets. Otherwise, I fear the various efforts to put the 45th president out of business or in prison make it considerably more likely that he’ll wind up in the White House as the 47th president."

Stephens's crack about Trump and Big Macs as threats and Trump and federal indictments as electoral bonuses is no joke. (I did joke about a Trump/cheeseburger eulogy on Twitter once, and got banned for a week — perhaps for good reason; mine was more solemn prayer than a comic one-liner.) Because ...

A Washington Post-ABC News poll (A+) released yesterday found that in a rematch between the honorable, sitting president of the United States and a known swindler, tax cheat and head of a crime family, the mobster is 2 points ahead, 48-46.

Within the margin of error, sure, but there can be no comfort taken from a presidential dead heat between a national security-threatening gangster and an honest, competent, intelligent chief executive. And then add this to that: Just wait until Jerome Powell drags the country into a deep, 2023/24 recession — then see what happens to President Biden's numbers.    

There is one hope, however. According to the WaPo-ABC survey, 56% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents want someone other than Biden in 2024. In the 18-39 age group, 75% prefer a Democratic alternative. And if Powell accomplishes the economic devastation he is so ardently striving for, Biden will be more than happy to start packing while booking a train ticket to Delaware. So yes, at least some hope could come from this mysterious stranger, possibly one who could distance him- 0r herself from what is unfairly perceived as an unsuccessful Biden administration.   

On that other planet, 47% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents said a Trump redux is desirable, while another unearthly multitude of 46% said they'd prefer someone else— but not really something else; pretty much just any evil clown, whether a DeSantis or Cruz or only God knows what. In brief, no matter who the Republican nominee, Trumpism will be at the top of the luney-orbiting ticket.

Again, I wish to be clear. With affection and admiration (notwithstanding some of his Ukraine decisions), I believe Biden has earned his place as the Democratic nominee. But I love the winning of elections — the entire point of a political party, which can do nothing principled until it's in power. Hence I'd have to go to the November dance not with my old comfortable shoe, but with a mistress.