Six weeks after he became Russia’s defense minister, General Pavel Grachev addressed a June 1992 NATO meeting in Brussels where he defined Russia’s sphere of interest as encompassing all ‘former USSR republics with which it shared territorial borders,’ and claimed that Russia ‘had every right to intervene’ in those territories unilaterally. Subsequently, Russia deployed troops throughout the Caucasus, ‘signed base treaties with Armenia and Georgia’ and ‘posted border troops along much of the former Soviet perimeter.'”

Lawrence Kohn, “Russia’s Turkish Target”

Russia is bringing her Strategic Rocket Forces up to full readiness. Russia is going to be conscripting doctors in the weeks ahead. Russia has prepared for mass burials in anticipation of a catastrophic number of casualties. What is going on here? Amid all this we have Western observers suggesting Putin has failed. One analyst, citing a TASS source, wrote, “Russian President Putin is extremely disappointed with the progress of the military operation in Ukraine.”

Perhaps this disappointment arises from the fact that Putin once bragged he could take Kiev and five NATO capitals in 48 hours. (See Moscow troops could be in five NATO capitals in two days, boasts Putin: Leader boasted to Ukrainian president about Russian power  | Daily Mail Online.) Well, even dictators cannot be right about everything. And besides, the weather has not been altogether favorable for the invaders.

Yet a brief commentary is in order. Is Putin really disappointed? Are we to believe sources at TASS? — that ever honest and reliable source of news and information? Of course, the West is eager to depict Putin as desperate. And why not encourage them? I would. After all, the same cadre who now declare the invasion a failure, the same who wanted to play “the Russia card” against China, the same who said there would be no invasion, have not really changed their overall view. Always, Russia is backward and stupid, and the threat can be minimized. It’s like a disease of the mind that afflicts Americans. It is the conceit of invulnerability, a conceit I am very familiar with. It is an unstudied and militantly unthoughtful conceit.

In moments such as these, as one reader said, we usually miss the forest for the trees. There is a larger strategic context for Moscow’s present moves. Does anyone remember it? Or did anyone notice? We saw an unfortunate article published by the Center for Security Policy, written by Putin’s former advisor, Andrei Illarionov. The article was published on February 15 and under the title, “There won’t be a big war anytime soon.” According to Illarionov the Russian forces were inadequate for an invasion and the buildup of troops was “a psychological operation.” How could Illarionov have been so wrong? Because his analysis missed the full context of that buildup.

So let us present that context: — (1) a viral pandemic was unleashed two years ago by Russia’a ally, China; (2) communist riots took place in American cities in which statues of George Washington, U.S. Grant and Teddy Roosevelt were pulled down;, (3) then came an unprecedented election involving accusations of systematic fraud; (4) the establishment in America of a government of the radical left under the senile façade of Joe Biden; (5) followed by divisive vaccine mandates, the fiasco of the health system (and the biowar defense establishment).

To put this another way, we are governed by a Western elite visibly advancing toward left wing authoritarianism and the censorship of free speech, etc. And so, out of Russia, an invasion takes place to roll back the fall of the Soviet Union. Go back and listen to Putin’s rambling speech on Monday. The breakup of the union, he said, was illegal. And so, I submit that Putin is entirely in step with his Western partners. Yet they are denouncing him. And they will play off Putin’s aggression just as they played off COVID. That is the context of the Ukraine invasion.

Now let us broaden that context by looking at who Putin’s allies are. North Korea, China, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Vietnam, etc. These are all communist countries. Furthermore, I submit that war has always been on Putin’s mind even as it has been on the lips of his communist friends. Strategic surprise is achieved by indirection, by getting your opponent to misunderstand your objectives and methods. Our pundits have gotten Putin wrong, again and again, because they refuse to see who he is.

Putin has been working to make his economy sanction-proof for a long time. We now know that China has stockpiled an enormous amount of grain. What does that tell us? It means they have been getting ready for war. It means they have been preparing for a long, long time.

The question we do not want to ask is: What have these erstwhile communist powers been up to? What have their socialist friends in the West been doing? The facts suggest that everything here is connected. This military move in Ukraine is not an outlier. It is not a misstep. It is a building block for something else. Putin has been on this path from the beginning. This invasion is not a stand-alone-event. And our own government may be led by people who have been closer to Putin than we realize — all the while pointing a finger of misdirection at Donald Trump.

Having a corrupt, perhaps treacherous, American strategic leadership may be the final contextual tidbit we have been missing. And so, the biggest play of all may be around the corner. But who sees around corners anymore? At each step we are always blindsided.

Here is the interview I did with Cliff Kincaid on Friday. Some of the information is outdated.

Friday Interview with Cliff


Quarterly Subscription (to support the site)


407 thoughts on “Russia Consolidates Hold on Ukraine, Readies Nuclear Rockets

  1. The fog of war is thick. I don’t think we are even at the “end of the beginning” of these current events. China, North Korea, Iran, et al are still in the dugout waiting for their turns at bat.

    1. The war in Ukraine will move into a positional phase more resembling siege warfare. Mariupol will probably be the first city to fall, or Kharkiv.

      1. There will be peace deal in few days, they are already negotiating. Russia is not using heavy weapons.

  2. The Soviet Communists believe in the Axe Strategy. Use your strongest weapons at the beginning of a war. That means if Russia is going to war with NATO they won’t use conventional forces like they are doing in the Ukraine. They will use nuclear weapons in a surprise first strike. It’s hard for us to imagine anyone using such forces of destruction but these mass murderers in the East do. With leaders in America gathered for the State of the Union in DC, tomorrow seems to me a possible strike date. But if not, the EU and US taking Russia out of the SWIFT system is an act of war and the Communists will not retaliate with weak sanctions of their own. They may initiate a first strike with a massive cyber attack and/or EMP blasts.

    1. FYI America is the only country that ever used nuclear weapons. When you compare the war in Ukraine with US shock and awe, it is very self restricted, not targeting civilian infrastructure as NATO did in Serbia for example. If anyone is going to use nuclear weapons it will be the imperialits in this situation, they are otherwise helpless, finished. Soviet strategy according to Jan Sejna was to deny imperialism access to the third world which just happened.

      1. US use of nukes in WW2 is a distraction to the issue of the Final Phase Soviet Communist agenda. If you only see what is going on in the Ukraine you are missing the forest for the tree. If you think Putin is at war only to defend against American imperialism again you are mistaken in your geopolitical understanding. You really do need to read what JR Nyquist has written and what the Russian defectors like Golitsyn have said.

      2. “Imperialists”? Hmmm, what group of people talk like that?

        Your “imperialists” (aka capitalists) have brought the highest standard of living in history to most countries of the world. Russia, by contrast, with 145 million people, has a smaller GDP than … Italy.

    2. There is real danger of a sudden strike, and we have to be realistic. Look for China to make a move. If China puts itself in a similar posture as Russia, then it can happen.

      1. “Similar posture” meaning contriving a pretext for mobilizing, so that it is poised to attack at any time, and the United States and the West simply don’t believe it?

      2. Just as Zelensky did not mobilize three weeks before the attack, but only on the day before, we might make a similar strategic mistake by trying to “calm the situation” through refusing to raise our nuclear readiness.

    3. “Communists” can starve America by just stopping supplying essential products.

  3. Putin just called American bluff, rest of the world sees American weakness, it will be enough to finish American empire, not necessarily America, it’s founding fathers were anti-imperialists after all.

      1. I am neither in America nor in Russia. Why would Putin attack America when it is already obvious America is not a military threat to him in Europe? America is no threat militarily, but the degeneracy it spreads is threat to humanity. America cutting relations with Russia is a gift to Putin, not a punishment. If America returns to its isolationist roots, it will be good for Americans and for the world.

      2. Come now, Commit. Putin is a much degraded degenerate. He’s your guy, so you gloss over the serious moral degeneracy he has demonstrated over the last 8 years. Aggressive war requires a degenerate as head of state, and Putin’s predilections to murder or imprison his political opponents or journalists who dare commit truth, is all the proof one needs to see what Putin is. He is as degenerate as Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, and Hitler. His presences in the office of the president degrades Russia.

  4. @BBROWN777

    I have read Golitsyn. Golitsyn wrote nothing about socialist camp initiating nuclear war. Though he predicted the desperation of imperialits when they realize they have been check mated.

    You should also read Sejna, he is a bit less sensationalist.

    1. Sejna revealed that the Soviet master plan involved a surprise military attack on the U.S. and the Western allies that would occur after a period of unprecedented Soviet peace concessions to the West.

    2. Golitsyn did write a memorandum about the socialist camp initiating a nuclear Pearl Harbor attack, and it was published in his book, “The Perestroika Deception.”

      1. Jeff, do you believe Jan Sejna’s book? It seemed there were contradictions between him and Golitsyn, an example being Golitsyn saying 1968 Czechoslovakia was a “dry run” for the false liberalization, while Sejna said it was a genuine uprising. Golitsyn also said Kruschchev was selected for the detente program, while Sejna portrayed it as Kruschev’s idea with little support from the Party.

        Did you find Sejna credible?

      2. Sejna is credible. Remember the story of the blind men and the elephant. Everyone sees part of the whole. You have to assemble their accounts and analyze the whole.

  5. Great blog post and a must-read for all true blue conservatives.

    The western media / “experts” are framing the Ukraine offensive as Putin making a misstep, a backfiring gamble… they have no idea what they are dealing with in terms of long range Soviet objectives, the lengths to which the red monstrosity will go, and the extent to which the West itself has been contaminated by the red contagion – at every level of society.

    1. I don’t think he is that stupid, but I could be wrong. If does nuke Ukraine, then he will have ripped his mask off, and will remain a pariah for quite awhile.

  6. Jeff, don’t forget the SolarWinds cyber attack. It actually went undetected for months, and 18,000 customers were directly affected by the software package containing malware, and this may has simply been a distribution node for other “packages” not even identified now, years later.
    Considering the access malevolent actors (Clinton to Vindman) have had to our “closed” military systems, low confidence there as well.

  7. I believe that by now it is becoming mainstream that Putin is a very smart thug and the theory that soviet union never really disappeared makes perfect sense. Everyone I talk to have this chilling feeling of having being deluded during all these years. What I still do not get is what role our elites have been playing. It would require to bribe all western inteligence services to put them in the same page. It is easier to belive that these intelligence services have also been played,

    1. Why do you think the easy thing to believe is right? In my 40 years on this planet I’ve learned to avoid believing things based on whether they were easy or not. It’s easy to believe some people are just plain Evil. It’s easy to believe the west is naive and complacent, unaware of a sinister plot unfolding under its feet. It’s easy to believe Putin is a diabolical genius just waiting for his perfect moment to take over the world. These things are easy to believe because the surface can often look however we each want it to look. Finding truth requires the ability to look beyond what we see on the surface; it requires us to dig.

      Jeff it’s obvious you have been digging regarding Putin but I have to ask: why are you still so eager to believe what’s on the surface? What’s on the surface is a Russian/Commie plot to dominate the world through military force, and it’s succeeding. Why is this the easiest thing to believe?

      1. It’s so “easy” that literally believes it, and it’s so “easy” that Jeff has been the lone voice in the wilderness for 30 years.

        Why do we allow these two-bit idiotic propagandists to even comment here.

      2. @Perseus: You think Jeff is the only dude who believes in a global Communist conspiracy? The entire baby boomer generation believes it.

      3. Radiofort: You are seriously mistaken in your characterization of boomers as believers in a communist conspiracy. Most of my generation either disbelieves in a communist internal subversion threat, or they do not care, or they favor Marxist ideas in some form or other. Truly, I am in a minority within my generation. It may be a large minority, but anticommunism does not characterize my generation — otherwise, your generation would not be what it is. Starting in the late 60s and 70s, as boomers were entering into adulthood, anti-communism was increasingly mocked. Even in entertainment, people who believed in a communist internal threat were depicted as dangerous lunatics. Ask yourself: Am I a dangerous lunatic? Is it lunacy to want your country defended against revolutionaries who ARE dangerous lunatics? I leave that to you. Communism should be understood as a political movement which draws to itself mostly non-communist elements. Most people do not understand that fact. Just read the program of the CPUSA for example. It is not a movement of communists, but a movement of various groups guided by the communists. They operate under Lenin’s idea of a conspiratorial party of professional revolutionaries. This has been a successful model that has brought communist governments to power around the world. Lenin wrote about this extensively. It is not a conspiracy theory. It has its own literature and history. Communist dictatorships that run on Lenin’s principals exist all over the world — from China and North Korea, to the countries of a Indochina, Cuba, Venezuela, Nicaragua, Angola, Congo and several former Soviet Republics where the communist structures operate under a mafia facade. Each nation adapts Lenin’s ideas to their own unique national circumstances. Many people assume that communist literature and history is irrelevant to the real world. In fact, the real world has been reshaped by Leninism. Look at China. For that matter, look at Washington DC.

      4. About Putin, it’s not on the surface. You actually have to follow the guy. The first thing he did as President was hire a Prime Minister who would leave all military affairs to him. Read Masha Gessen’s book. Everything about him has been known for years. He is consistent if anything. What he is doing now is what he set out to do. It just took a long time to make it possible.

      5. It’s the nature of the ideology. Communism is an imperialistic ideology. Communists are extremely bothered if their neighbors are getting along nicely next door. Their whole system is based on dividing people and sowing distrust and unrest. It has a stronger pull on many of its adherents than those who aren’t communists believe. In short, it is a religion, albeit a materialistic, atheistic religion that uses other groups strategically to accomplish its objectives. Whether the communists will succeed or not remains to be seen, because at the end of the day, their system is untenable and they must resort to committing atrocities to force their will on others as we are currently seeing in Ukraine. That is one of its principle weaknesses. Also, there is the evidence of some of the defectors who have repeatedly proven to be correct in their predictions and analyses. If someone is correct in their analysis and predictions over 90% of the time, one would be a fool not to at least consider what they are saying.

      6. And while you are correct such a system exists and has been utilized to mass detriment throughout history, what makes you think a modern Capitalist nation would succumb to it? Do you often see successful free market nations falling to the ails of Communism? Is it a hard science that populations inching away from the extremes of ardent anti-communism will immediately cascade into authoritarian wastelands? Or could it be that the slightest philosophical consideration of any sliver of communist theory sends your mind into such a chaotic spiral that you can’t see straight? This brings us back to the idea of extremism. Your extremism has you unable to see “communists” as people even deserving of basic respect. Your disdain for moderates is obvious and you talk down to anyone who isn’t as hardcore a believer as you, and this is why you feel so alone in your beliefs.

      7. Capitalist nations succumb to military force the same way other kinds of nations succumb. The West has fallen behind Russia and China militarily. Lose a war, suffer defeat. There are no invincible nations. Regarding your philosophical predisposition to socialism and hatred of anti communism, please note: (1) opposition to communism is not extremism. (2) Communism is extreme. Or do you seriously believe communism is moderate? (3) As for socialism, Gustave Le Bon said it was one of those fictitious utopias that appeals to the human craving for fantasy. (4) Socialism always signifies the loss of freedom, inevitably resulting in tyranny. This is what history shows but is also intrinsic to socialist theory.

      8. Ok and would a person who has lived under Communism their whole lives who speaks this same way about Capitalism, would he be an extremist? Surely your response is, “But he would be wrong!”. That’s not my question. Would he be an extremist if he was willing to act in order to defend his Communist way of life against his perceived threat of Capitalist encroachment? Would you be willing to listen to him? Or would you write him off as too radical to lead? I ask because this is the situation. You call an entire social construct which millions of people live under as “extremism”. That doesn’t even make grammatical sense. Is every citizen of a Communist state an extremist? You do realize that your Commie opposite would view every American as a Capitalist soldier, right? Would that make sense? Or would you say that’s an extreme viewpoint?

        Also Greyknight: Humility on one front does not demand concession on all. Why would you assume that I wonder…

      9. If you read Karl Marx and Lenin, you will discover that true communism cannot be achieved until the Revolution smashes the world market globally and overthrows capitalism everywhere. That is an extremist creed and it threatens all of us with misery and death. In fact, communist theorists in China and Russia believe that most Americans are “unsalvagable” and would have to be “liquidated” in the end. These are not speculations on my part, and we can see what is unfolding in eastern Europe now. It is only the beginning of a much larger series of moves. Please look at the documented words, thoughts, plans and programs of the communist movement through history as led by Moscow and Beijing. The extremism in all this is not mine, but the belongs to the communists. I just want to live and be left alone. But there will be no quiet life. You will see, even as you mocked my message.

      10. My apologies, you said, “Communism is extreme”. This makes more sense. In its historically pure form, yes it can be quite extreme in objective and scope. I agree that it is not a good model to govern mass populations. But the opposite is true regarding Capitalism, and a Communist who harps on this point could be considered a zealot unwilling to lean towards cooperation out of their idealist dogma. You also state, “Opposition to Communism is not extremism”. I would say that it is sometimes. Just like Communist opposition to Capitalism can constitute extremism. This is my point. The most extreme people on each side should rightly be ignored. All I’m saying is your voice will carry further if you try not to be one of them, which could help bridge the gap between people. Believe it or not, I’m rooting for you.

    2. Consider that Western elites – who instinctively equate profit with virtue and success with natural or divine right – can be bribed, brainwashed, and willfully deceived at the same time. This group is entirely wedded to groupthink around ideas that achieve their opulence and status. When you’re around them, it’s inescapable that their allegiance to self-serving truths is total and impenetrable. You might say this arrogance makes them easy to play – but it’s more, and worse than that.

      In some cases it’s just arrogant stupidity. But there’s also a repugnant condescension and scorn toward any notion that would disturb the serenity of their compromised minds. People of this character need not be “bribed” or “deceived” per se, because, by they have mentally constituted themselves such that what benefits them, and confirms their status, is true and right. Notice, too, they are always shielded personally from the consequences of their grift and failures. It’s not so hard to understand how it happens, when you understand the nature and character of the people populating the halls of our government and major institutions, sadly.

    3. Marxists in the West, at the elite level, think they are going to be merged into the glorious one world of socialist happiness and freedom. So they are waiting for a sharp turn toward peace once all the evil ultra-conservatives are eliminated.

      1. More likely they will be treated worse than the Soviet soldiers who Stalin imprisoned merely for having seen the west.

      2. “Darkness at Noon” is a semi-fictional portrayal of what happened to the heroes of the revolution after the revolution. They were imprisoned as threats to the new order for their prior revolutionary spirit or seen as not ideologically pure enough for the next generation born and raised on the ever evolving Stalinist ideals. The quality of writing is up there with the other Russian greats. I read this book after seeing it described in an intelligence journal as something akin to a “thinking man’s 1984”.

    4. Not deluded. the Baltic states have been warning US and west European for several decades. rebekah Koffler said she’d warned the Obama administration when working for intelligence. They were all treated like paranoid crazy persons.

    5. emilkc: “Communists are extremely bothered if their neighbors are getting along nicely next door.” You have just admitted that communism is the ideology promoting envy. In other words, the ideology of envious ne’er-do-wells. They then sow resentment and injustice. A most evil system.

  8. Jeff, I phrased my follow-up question– from your last blog post– poorly. What I’m wondering is, if there’s a cyber or nuclear attack on the US, where do you anticipate Spetsnaz attacks primarily? Do you think they’ll stay focused on DC, the East Coast, both coasts, major cities, all lower 48 state capitals?

    1. I think there are Spetznaz in country now. If Putin is stupid enough to launch such an exchange now, he is desperate. A nuke exchange is suicidal and merely the last thing he would do to deprive his enemies of any sort of victory.

      Were he to launch, then money spent to get his SOF in country is a waste, and he may incinerate them along with his enemies the Amis.

    2. Suvorov covers that in his book. But how this has been modified for the present moment, there are certainly variable approaches. Power, military command and control, political leadership, strategic sites like bomber bases and missile silos, etc.

      1. Most military installations are vulnerable no matter how secure the leaders think they are. Richard Marcincko got himself in trouble while he commanded Red Cell by showing how easy it was to get into places he was assigned to check. They even got into a nuke attack sub and got out without being detected. The place he got into, and the people responsible for security took the lesson to heart, was Camp David. The rest just looked at his activities as an insult, rather than learning from it.

      2. a nuclear weapon is of such strategic value that an SOF or or other agents in place could be considered expendable assets of negligible value in comparison. anybody who would launch a nuke wouldn’t be afraid to minimize the value of the lives of his own countrymen. to avoid consternation within your own forces you only need declare the deceased countrymen “heroes” or “martyrs”.

  9. Excellent as always, Jeff.
    I offer this. I am a dog man. I’ve raised all kinds, but my expertise is sled dogs and particularly Iditarod dogs. For thirty years I have applied myself to this craft and for the past twenty uninterrupted I have maintained my own kennel. We have a term for this phenomenon, of misunderstanding complex interactions occurring right in front of you. And it especially applies to those interactions that you are in the best position to be wholly cognizant of. We call it being Kennel Blind. While it is usually understood from a breeding standpoint, it can and does apply to all parts of the self analysis process. It is a bit like trying to look at your own eyeball without a mirror. So, when assessing different analyses, and attempting to coalesce them into your own kennel view, the important question is thus: who is the least Kennel Blind?

  10. an hour ago
    The Moscow Times
    Russian President Vladimir Putin told his French counterpart on Monday that the demilitarisation of Ukraine and Western recognition of Russian sovereignty over the Crimean peninsula were prerequisites to ending fighting in Ukraine, the Kremlin said.

    “Vladimir Putin stressed that a settlement is possible only if Russia’s legitimate security interests are unconditionally taken into account, including the recognition of Russian sovereignty over Crimea, the demilitarisation and denazification of the Ukrainian state and ensuring its neutral status,” according to a Kremlin readout of the call.

    Macron called on Putin to spare civilians in Ukraine, the French leader’s office said in a statement.

    Updated: 35 minutes ago

    1. Putin gave the United States and NATO, the opportunity to negotiate, before Russia unilaterally recognized two new independent ethnic Russian republics in former Ukrainian territory. He called for return to the pre 1997 boundaries of Spheres of Influence.

      I would caution that now, that if NATO obstinately refuses to pull back, that Russia will enforce that condition with the use of tactical nuclear weapons in theatre, against NATO troops and armaments. I doubt if Russia will bomb the cities, unless that is where NATO forces take a stand.

      This would be a good time to start listening to Putin.

        Russia’s reaction to the US response on security guarantees. Full text
        The building of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs of the Russian Federation
        © Gavriil Grigorov/TASS

        On February 17, 2022, US Ambassador John Sullivan, invited to the Russian Foreign Ministry, was given the following reaction to the previously received American response on the Russian draft treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on security guarantees.

        TASS publishes the full text of the statement.

        general characteristics
        We state that the American side did not give a constructive response to the basic elements of the draft treaty with the United States prepared by the Russian side on security guarantees. We are talking about the rejection of further expansion of NATO, the withdrawal of the “Bucharest formula” that “Ukraine and Georgia will become members of NATO”, and the rejection of the creation of military bases on the territory of states that were previously part of the USSR and are not members of the alliance, including the use of their infrastructure for conducting any military activity, as well as the return of military capabilities, including strike, and NATO infrastructure to the state of 1997, when the Russia-NATO Founding Act was signed. These provisions are of fundamental importance for the Russian Federation.

        The package nature of Russian proposals was ignored, from which “convenient” topics were deliberately chosen, which, in turn, were “twisted” in the direction of creating advantages for the US and its allies. This approach, as well as the accompanying rhetoric from US officials, reinforces legitimate doubts that Washington is truly committed to fixing the European security situation.

        The growing US and NATO military activity close to Russian borders is alarming, while our “red lines” and core security interests, as well as Russia’s sovereign right to protect them, continue to be ignored. Ultimate demands to withdraw troops from certain areas on Russian territory, accompanied by threats of tougher sanctions, are unacceptable and undermine the prospects for reaching real agreements.

        In the absence of the readiness of the American side to agree on firm, legally binding guarantees to ensure our security from the United States and its allies, Russia will be forced to respond, including through the implementation of military-technical measures.

        In Ukraine
        There is no and is not planned any “Russian invasion” of Ukraine, which the United States and its allies have been declaring at the official level since autumn last year, therefore statements about Russia’s “responsibility for the escalation” cannot be regarded otherwise than as an attempt to put pressure on and devalue Russia’s proposals for security guarantees.

        The mention in this context of Russian obligations under the 1994 Budapest Memorandum has nothing to do with the intra-Ukrainian conflict and does not apply to circumstances resulting from the action of internal factors there. The loss of territorial integrity by the Ukrainian state is the result of the processes that have taken place within it.

        The accusations of Russia contained in the American response that it “occupied Crimea” also do not stand up to scrutiny. In 2014, a coup d’etat took place in Kyiv, the initiators of which, with the support of the United States and its allies, headed for the creation of a nationalist state that infringes on the rights of the Russian and Russian-speaking population, as well as other “non-titular” ethnic groups. It is not surprising that in such a situation, the Crimeans voted for reunification with Russia. The decision of the people of Crimea and Sevastopol to return to the Russian Federation was made by free will in the exercise of the right to self-determination enshrined in the UN Charter. No force or threat of force was used. The issue of Crimea’s belonging is closed.

        If Ukraine is accepted into NATO, there will be a real threat that the regime in Kyiv will try to “return” Crimea by force, drawing in the United States and its allies, in accordance with Art. 5 of the Washington Treaty, into a direct armed conflict with Russia with all the ensuing consequences.

        The thesis repeated in the US response that Russia allegedly “ignited the conflict in Donbass” is untenable. Its reasons are purely domestic in nature. The settlement is possible only through the implementation of the Minsk agreements and a set of measures, the sequence and responsibility for the implementation of which are clearly defined and unanimously confirmed by UN Security Council Resolution 2202, including by the United States, France and Great Britain. In paragraph 2 of this resolution, Kyiv, Donetsk and Lugansk are named as parties. None of these documents mentions Russia’s responsibility for the conflict in Donbas. Russia, together with the OSCE, plays the role of a mediator in the main negotiating format – the contact group – and together with Berlin and Paris – in the Normandy format, which formulates recommendations to the parties to the conflict and monitors their implementation.

        To de-escalate the situation around Ukraine, it is fundamentally important to take the following steps. These are forcing Kyiv to comply with a set of measures, stopping the supply of weapons to Ukraine, withdrawing all Western advisers and instructors from there, refusing NATO countries from any joint exercises with the Armed Forces of Ukraine and withdrawing all foreign weapons previously delivered to Kiev outside Ukrainian territory.

        In this regard, we draw attention to the fact that Russian President Vladimir Putin, at a press conference following the talks in Moscow with French President Emmanuel Macron on February 7, 2022, stressed that we are open to dialogue and call for “thinking about stable security conditions for all, equal for all participants in international life.

        Force configuration
        We note that in its response to the Russian proposals, the United States insists that progress in improving the European security situation “can only be achieved in terms of de-escalation in relation to Russia’s threatening actions against Ukraine”, which, as we understand, implies the requirement withdrawal of Russian troops from the borders of Ukraine. At the same time, the United States is ready to talk only about “mutual obligations … to refrain from deploying permanently based forces with combat missions on the territory of Ukraine” and “to consider the possibility of discussing the problem of conventional armed forces.” As for the rest, the American side passes over in silence our proposals contained in sec. 2 tbsp. 4 and par. 1 st. 5 of the draft bilateral treaty and declares that ”

        We presume that the deployment of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation on its territory does not and cannot affect the fundamental interests of the United States. We would like to remind you that there are no our forces on the territory of Ukraine.

        At the same time, the United States and its allies were moving their military infrastructure to the east, deploying contingents in the territories of new members. They bypassed the CFE restrictions and rather loosely interpreted the provisions of the Russia-NATO Founding Act on the renunciation of “additional permanent deployment of substantial combat forces.” The situation that has developed as a result of these actions is unacceptable. We insist on the withdrawal of all US armed forces and weapons deployed in CEE, SEE and the Baltics. We are convinced that the national potentials in these zones are quite sufficient. We are ready to discuss this topic on the basis of Art. 4 and 5 of the Russian draft treaty.

        The principle of the indivisibility of security
        We did not see in the US response confirmation that the American side is fully committed to observing the immutable principle of the indivisibility of security. General statements about the consideration by the American side of this postulate directly contradict Washington’s unwillingness to abandon its counterproductive and destabilizing course of creating advantages for itself and its allies at the expense of Russia’s security interests. This is exactly what is happening as a result of the unrestrained implementation by the North Atlantic Alliance, with the leading role of the United States, of a policy of unrestricted geostrategic and military development of the post-Soviet space, including the territory of Ukraine, which is of a particularly sensitive nature for us. All this is happening directly on Russian borders. Thus, our “red lines” and fundamental security interests are ignored and Russia’s inalienable right to provide for them is denied. For us, this is, of course, unacceptable.

        Additionally, we remind you that this principle is enshrined in the preamble to the 2011 Treaty between the Russian Federation and the United States of America on measures to further reduce and limit strategic offensive arms, which the parties agreed to extend for five years without any exceptions in February last year, as well as in a number of high-level OSCE and Russia-NATO basic documents adopted: in the preamble of the 1975 Helsinki Final Act, the 1990 Paris Charter for a New Europe, the 1997 Russia-NATO Founding Act, the 1999 OSCE Istanbul Charter for European Security, the Rome Declaration Russia-NATO 2002 and the Astana Declaration of the 2010 OSCE Summit.

        We note that the response received mentions Washington’s adherence to the concept of the indivisibility of security. But in the text it boils down to the right of states “to freely choose or change the methods of ensuring their security, including union treaties.” This freedom is not absolute and is only half of the well-known formula fixed in the Charter for European Security. Its second part requires, when exercising this right, not “… to strengthen one’s security at the expense of the security of other states.” We cannot regard the letter received from NATO dated February 10, 2022 as a response to the message sent by Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov on January 28, 2022 to US Secretary of State Anthony Blinken on this issue. We asked for a response in a national capacity.

        NATO Open Door Policy
        The US reaffirms “strong support” for NATO’s “open door” policy. But it contradicts the basic commitments adopted within the framework of the CSCE/OSCE, above all the commitment “not to strengthen one’s security at the expense of the security of others.” This policy is not consistent with the guidelines of the alliance itself, which, following the meeting of the NATO Foreign Minister on June 6-7, 1991 in Copenhagen, undertook “not to take unilateral advantages from the changed situation in Europe”, “not to threaten the legitimate interests” of other states, not to strive for them ” isolation” or “drawing new dividing lines on the continent”.

        We call on the United States and NATO to return to fulfilling their international obligations in the field of maintaining peace and security. We expect concrete proposals from the members of the alliance on the content and forms of legal consolidation of the renunciation of NATO’s further eastward expansion.

        Batch nature of offers
        We note the readiness of the United States to work substantively on individual arms control and risk reduction measures. At the same time, it was recorded that Washington has finally recognized the justification of a number of Russian proposals and initiatives in these areas that have been put forward in recent years.

        At the same time, we once again draw the attention of the American side to the fact that Russia, in the documents we submitted on security guarantees, proposed to follow the path of a comprehensive long-term settlement of the unacceptable situation that continues to develop in the Euro-Atlantic area. First of all, we are talking about creating a stable foundation for a security architecture in the form of an agreement on NATO’s refusal to take further actions that harm Russia’s security. This remains a constant imperative for us. In the absence of such a strong foundation, interrelated arms control and military risk reduction measures that ensure restraint and predictability of military activity in separate areas, even if they can be agreed upon, will not be sustainable in the long term.

        Thus, the Russian proposals are of a package nature and should be considered as a whole without singling out its individual components.

        In this regard, we would like to focus on the lack of a constructive reaction from Washington and Brussels to the most important elements of the Russian initiative that we have clearly identified. As for arms control issues, we consider them exclusively in the general context of a comprehensive, package approach to resolving the problem of security guarantees.

        “Post START” and the “security equation”
        The United States proposes “immediately” to engage in the development of “measures in the development of START” within the framework of the dialogue on strategic stability. However, at the same time, the American side is trying to fix an approach that has not been coordinated with us, which provides for focusing exclusively on nuclear weapons, regardless of the ability of certain weapons to pose a direct threat to the national territory of the other side. Such a one-sided view of things is contrary to the understandings reached at the Russian-American summit on June 16, 2021 in Geneva regarding the comprehensive nature of the strategic dialogue, designed to lay the foundation for future arms control and risk reduction measures.

        Russia continues to advocate an integrated approach to strategic issues. We propose to engage in the joint development of a new “safety equation”.

        A set of elements of the concept we propose, which remains fully relevant, was brought to the attention of the American side – incl. during the meetings within the framework of the strategic dialogue and in the working document submitted by us on December 17, 2021 on its completion.

        Deployment of nuclear weapons outside national territory
        In its document, the United States did not react to such an element of the “package” of measures proposed by us as the withdrawal of nuclear weapons deployed outside its borders to the national territory and the refusal of their further deployment outside the national territory, and limited itself to mentioning the need to deal with the problem on the platform of strategic dialogue. non-strategic nuclear weapons without taking into account the peculiarities of their deployment and other factors affecting the security of the parties.

        We would like to clarify that our proposals are about solving the problem of the presence on the territory of some non-nuclear NATO states, in violation of the NPT, of US nuclear weapons capable of hitting targets on Russian territory. This would include the elimination of the infrastructure for the rapid deployment of such weapons in Europe, as well as the termination of the NATO practice of training and exercises in the handling of these weapons, which involve non-nuclear NATO member states. Without removing this irritant, discussion of the topic of non-strategic nuclear weapons is impossible.

        Ground-based intermediate and shorter range missiles
        We regard this issue as one of the priority areas of the Russian-American dialogue on strategic stability. We believe that this category of weapons is a necessary component of the new “security equation” that should be worked out jointly by Russia and the United States.

        We continue to proceed from the relevance of Russian initiatives in the field of “post-INF Treaty”, which are based on the idea of ​​reciprocal verifiable moratoriums on the deployment of ground-based INF Treaty in Europe.
        In principle, we are open to substantive consideration of the ways of its practical implementation. At the same time, we note the continuing uncertainty in Washington’s approaches to the main parameters of potential control measures over these weapons, primarily to their coverage, which should cover all weapons of the appropriate range in nuclear and non-nuclear equipment.

        It was noted that the United States is taking the Russian approach as a basis, which provides for the mutual settlement of mutual concerns in the context of the previously existing INF Treaty. The version of the development of our idea of ​​mutual verification measures proposed by the American side in relation to the Aegis Ashore complexes in Romania and Poland, as well as some objects in the European part of Russia, can be further taken into consideration.

        As emphasized in a statement by Russian President Vladimir Putin dated October 26, 2020, and subsequently brought to the attention of the United States on numerous occasions, potential transparency measures for Russian facilities subject to agreement could include monitoring the absence of the Russian 9M729 missile there. We remind you that this step is a manifestation of goodwill, given that the characteristics of the 9M729 missile do not contradict the requirements of the former INF Treaty in any way and that the United States has not provided any evidence that would confirm the accusations against Russia. At the same time, the American side ignored the voluntary event organized by us during the period of this Treaty on January 23, 2019 to demonstrate the device and technical characteristics of the 9M729 missile and its launcher.

        Heavy bombers and surface warships
        We note the attention of the American side to the Russian idea of ​​additional risk mitigation measures in relation to flights of heavy bombers near the national borders of the parties. We see a subject for discussion and the potential for mutually acceptable agreements.

        We remind you of an equally important element of our “package” proposal concerning similar cruises of combat surface ships, which also involve serious risks.

        Military exercises and maneuvers
        The United States did not respond to the proposals contained in sec. 2 tbsp. 4 Russian draft treaty. The American side, apparently, proceeds from the fact that it is possible to reduce tension in the military sphere by increasing transparency and additional measures to reduce the danger in line with the proposals of the West to modernize the Vienna Document.

        We consider such an approach unrealistic and one-sided, aimed at “seeing through” the activities of the Armed Forces of the Russian Federation. Confidence- and security-building measures under the Vienna Document 2011 are adequate to the current situation. To start discussing the possibility of updating them, the necessary conditions must be created. And for this, the United States and its allies should abandon the policy of “containment” of Russia and take concrete practical measures to de-escalate the military-political situation, including in line with para. 2 tbsp. 4 of our draft agreement.

        As regards the prevention of incidents on the high seas and in the airspace above it, we welcome the readiness of the United States for appropriate consultations. However, this work cannot replace the settlement of the key problems posed by Russia.

        February 17, 2022

      2. Putin had no intention to negotiate. Just as he has been running mouth about Ukraine, he wanted to dictate surrender terms. That is the Soviet way and always has been. The problem is, you can sign an agreement, but he will violate it. He is a liar, and inveterate liar and no agreement is worth the paper it is written on.

        There is no dividing line between tactical nukes and strategic nukes. When the first is launcher, the rest will be launched. The west will not accept his surrender terms.

      3. Ohengineer, I’m not sure with the “leaders” we have. But I hope they dont. We’ve gotta go sometime. Far better to go not kowtowing to a short, balding little dictator, lol

      4. Barth, that is a lot to write to simply say that you are an utter ignoramus. The only thing Putin has ever offered were surrender terms couched as a treaty. All you have done is insult our intelligence.

      5. President Reagan said of the Evil Empire, “Trust, but verify.”
        JR Nyquist said, that Reagan forgot to verify.

        I posted Putin’s response, which was not mentioned by Biden or in the US media. The United States used to negotiate with the USSR, all throughout the, Cold War. Perhaps the US Government believed that with the dissolution of the Soviet Union, that NATO could then have their way with Russia? Maybe that’s what Russia wanted them to think?

        If you’ve already read Putin’s letter, it’s still good that Jeff didn’t delete it from here. That letter coincided with the expulsion of the number two US Ambassador from Russia. Did you read that in the US media? The expulsion and withdrawal of diplomats is generally considered to be a prelude to or severe warning of war.

        Did Biden ignore Putin’s repeated pleas for talks, because he’s a Russian asset, or because he’s looking out for Americans, or because he’s working for a third party whom Jeff insists does not exist?

      6. No, what I said was “Trust and verify” is a useless slogan because if you trusted and they cheated you dare not verify because you will only verify that you WERE A FOOL.

      7. Barth wants us all to bow before Palpatine. He expects us all to raise the white flag and go quietly into the night, because the Great Putin, whom no man must defy, and who will get us sooner or later anyway has demanded it.

      8. Barth, Putin’s lips are moving, but I just cant hear a word he’s saying, because I’m too busy watching what he’s doing while he lies.

    2. It’s interesting that Putin chose Western recognition of Crimea as Russian. I think that has zero percent chance of happening and Putin knows it. So Putin wants this to continue.

  11. Jeff, your website is now being used to publish TASS articles.

    I doubt you’re okay with that.

      1. I agree with BBrown777. These trolls are also very detrimental to a sincere discussion and they clog up the chat. There is a time and place for analyzing enemy propaganda, but passing it off as a legitimate source is not OK.

      2. I understand Jeff’s rationale for wanting to know the mind of the enemy, but I do think there also comes a point where they succeed in diverting the dialogue from accurate analysis. They are here to muddy the waters.

        I would wager that the communists have sent at least one paid agent to comment here, if not more.

      3. Arguments can be sharpened and points driven home better when you are responding to something. So you have to be careful. And I am not a baby-sitter, despite the childish things that sometimes happen here.

      1. Barth’s inconsistent. I can’t speak to motives, but most of what he has posted is just a distraction. Putin knows his terms are ridiculous and can never be agreed to. To suggest otherwise is lunacy and madness.

    1. Pry in his article linked above: “Now that Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has begun, President Biden should do nothing that gives Moscow an excuse to make a bigger war against NATO. The U.S. recently raised the nuclear stakes by flying a few B-52 strategic nuclear bombers to Britain and then, for the first time ever, to Poland…. Russia recently conducted nuclear forces exercises to warn Washington that Moscow will strike first—and prevail—if NATO resorts to nuclear escalation. Reportedly, as of this writing on Sunday (February 27, 2022), Moscow has placed its nuclear forces on “high alert.”

      Putin now has an excuse for a first Strike. B-52 Nuclear bombers in Poland gives Putin that excuse imo.

      1. He has no excuse. If Putin is half the KGB agent people want to think he is, he knows there are no nukes stored in Poland. If they flew into Incirclik, it would be a different story.

    2. I wonder what level of Communist political/military/intel penetration and subversion Dr. Pry is aware of?
      It is hard to see how a gentleman of his experience and intellect would not have knowledge of this.
      Specialized knowledge, which could very useful to both “sides.”

  12. Jeff, i find this article to be rather vague. Would you be so kind as to explain why was ukraine invaded and what will putin and his allies’ next moves will be

    1. Ukraine was invaded as part of a larger strategy to defeat the West. It is the first move in several, and we know that because of the way they have prepared for a larger war. Russia and China have been preparing for decades, . They have already agreed to spheres of influence. We are now very vulnerable and we need to rally. I can see some hopeful signs.

  13. Probably best for everyone to just stay out of it already. But thats obviously asking too much. In the past few days the Dutch government has announced arms-shipments to Ukraine. That btw by a ruling class that never has been overly concerned with defence. We dont have many nuclear powerplants but we do have pumps keeping the country dry., And this process generally no longer involves windmills. EMP or cyber could spell disaster.

    In the 1980s our government financially supported the ANC and even provided a known terrorist (Klaas de Jonge) sanctuary in our Pretoria embassy. I think that its very foolish to suppose others would emulate the restraint the Southafrican whites showed in the face of clear hostility.

    1. Unfortunately, the only way to stay out of it for the near term, is for NATO to exit former USSR. Nobody wants to do that, though, so once again, they have to learn the hard way.

      1. Is Latvia safer as a member of NATO, or would it be better for Latvians to move to Finland?

      2. None of us are safe. Even sitting here, in the middle of North America, I am not safe. Russia’s missiles can reach anywhere. We must defend our civilization and freedom as best we can, realizing that it is a spiritual battle and also a physical one.

      1. No, but Putin has called them nazis, so that is likely how he sees things. As to what the consequences might be, the Russian foreign ministry yesterday warned that providers of ‘lethal weapons will be held to account’.

      2. Putin certainly does not believe he is fighting Nazis in Ukraine. He is using this language to blacken the Ukrainian cause in the eyes of his people.

      3. no he doesnt believe they’re nazis, he’s just looking for a justification -my bad. But let no-one forget that Western countries let terrorists pass for freedom-fighters. So we ourselves have been guilty of word-games. And this includes Ronald Reagan, who in 1985 said the policies of the Southafrican government constituted a national emergency..

        Proverbs 26:17 “He that passeth by, and meddleth with strife belonging not to him, is like one that taketh a dog by the ears.” Back in the day some might actually have understood this.At least in the sense that they understood they potentially were playing with fire. After the Olaf Palme-murder, fingers were automatically,albeit bereft of any proof, pointed at the ‘apartheid-regime’.

        What I wanted to say is this: we cant stop the Russians, so whats the point of trying? Especially if the end result will be our destruction. We are being painted as accomplices and this is very dangerous. Besides, if concerns about human-rights/freedom/self-determination ever had been genuine, they would have been raised long ago in regards to the genocided, erstwhile US-allies: the Boers.

    1. Why has my post not been approved??? I see others that have come after mine that are approved. Jeff — I have been one of your most ardent supporters and follwers! Why am I being discriminated against???

      1. Patriot: I keep approving your post and the stupid system keeps bouncing it back as unapproved. I have been hitting this button all evening to approve our post, and a minute latter it disapproves it. I have this trouble sometimes. I do not understand why. A glitch.

      2. Thanks Jeff!! I should have known it was a technical issue. Thanks again, bud!!

      1. I had no idea! Do you think they will do this? 500 seems like overkill. Even 100 would be bad enough. Concerned about tomorrow being the SotU address coming on the heels of that video. I can’t believe we haven’t seen at least cyber attacks yet.

      2. The Russians are putting their “own house” in order; that is, they are putting the USSR back together. This may take until the ground dries in June. So we may have a little time unless China erupts suddenly.

  14. 2 hours ago
    The Moscow Times

    Ukraine has offered Russian soldiers 5 million rubles and amnesty if they surrender voluntarily.

    Wild. Ukrainian Defense Minister @oleksiireznikov says, “We offer Russian soldiers a choice: die in an unjust war, or be granted full amnesty and 5 million rubles compensation. If they lay down their arms and voluntarily surrender.”
    — Christopher Miller (@ChristopherJM) February 28, 2022

    5,000,000.00 Russian Rubles =
    46,700.876 US Dollars
    1 RUB = 0.00934018 USD
    1 USD = 107.064 RUB

    1. Seriously? How much is the life of a countryman worth to you? anything?All the money in the world is worth nothing to Ukrainians without freedom from the Russian jackboot. How many people can one soldier kill? 46K is cheap, if it saves even one life, and this is likely being funded by the few billionaires who have turned against Putin.

      1. Cheap is one thing, but affordable in another. How much money does Ukraine have to spend on mercenaries, and how many enemies would need to be killed to be worth fifty grand?

  15. I read over and over again how the leaders in the West, particularly in the US, are ignorant, stupid, unable to understand what is happening, ad nauseam. I see above in this thread that Putin will not bring nukes to bear because of retaliation, blah, blah.

    100 years ago the US Government was being heavily infiltrated by Communists. By McCarthy it was infested. By Golitsyn they had sufficient control of .Intel, .Gov and .Mil to kill his warning. Today they are elected and dominate the US Congress and the White House. Every facet of American life has been compromised, from the career Flag Ranks in the military, to Academia, to Hollywood, et al.

    The average American consumer and business owner will buy from China and Vietnam and demand that trade be allowed no matter what is happening. The average American gunner will buy Russian ammo and AKs and look perplexed and angry when you call them unpatriotic. You have more neighbors who demand socialist .Gov policies than neighbors who would re-elect Thomas Jefferson or George Washington.

    What evidence does anyone have that Biden and his ilk, who are fundamentally power-hungry and in agreement with Leftists around the world, would actually launch a counter-attack of significance? These traitors loathe American ideals and see them as obstacles to exercising the raw power to which they believe themselves entitled.

    There are 3 Leftist superpowers on planet Earth today, and they are run from Beijing, Moscow and Washington DC. Until the average American takes a stand against these traitors in DC, in their state capitols, and in their neighborhoods, any assertions that the US Government will do anything to seriously protect the American people or soil or traditional ideals, is just a bunch of rabblerabblerabble.

    Putin and Xi are confident that America has been sufficiently compromised – and they are not wrong.

    1. I don’t think there will be a counter attack. I can’t see Biden ordering such a thing! A better question is — woyld Russian commanders follow through with launch orders. Those Generals looked kind of frightened in a recent video with Putin.

      1. Foreign Minister Lavrov looked frightened right after the COVID outbreak began. They are committed to doing really scary things.

  16. Hola, te leo hace tiempo ya desde Buenos Aires, Argentina.

    Coincido con tu análisis de la situación: el masivo movimiento de tropas y armamentos por parte de Rusia mas otras acciones que han tomado de naturaleza interna, hacia dentro del pais, nos hablan a las claras de una voluntad, siniestra, de llevar a cabo no solo una invasión a Ucrania sino también al resto del Europa.

    El que no quiera ver esto, se engaña y es un tonto; por lo tanto: hombre precavido, vale por dos; es tiempo de quitarse la venda y empezar a ver la realidad de frente sin razonamientos absurdos o alucinaciones hipnóticas generados por los medios de comunicación y sus respectivos “especialistas”.

    Rusia es comunista y como tal, desea conquistar a sangre y fuego el mundo entero. No escatimara ni vidas humanas ni recursos materiales; su objetivo es claro y esta apoyado en los escritos de Karl Marx: establecer una dictadura marxista en todo el planeta bajo la dirección de vanguardia leninista de Moscú.

    Sin corazón ni conciencia, querrán apoderarse de todas las naciones de la tierra.

    Muchos saludos, Dios te bendiga y siempre esperando con ansias tus escritos.

    1. Sí, completamente de acuerdo con tu análisis. Rusia quiere conquistar el mundo y es hora de quitarnos la venda antes de que sea demasiado tarde. Se está llevando a cabo una estrategia bien planeada durante muchos años según los escritores y analistas tales como Golitsyn. Saludos desde EEUU

      1. Yes, I am rereading New Lies for Old right now. It makes sense on an instinctive level to me. And, what would he (or the communists) have to gain by making up such a narrative, especially given the timing? So far as I know, he never swayed from his views since he wrote New Lies and Perestroika Deception. He certainly didn’t gain personal fame or fortune. Quite the opposite. He was largely ignored except by a few people within the CIA from what I’ve read. His views seem to concord with many others from the former Soviet bloc such as Yuri Bezmenov, Sejna, etc. To me, it’s more than ironic that he was so accurate in his predictions and yet ignored while people takes as gospel the ravings of half-baked media hacks. Maybe the book is just too dry for the average person to get into. Anyone with his level of accuracy should be taken seriously.

  17. We are dealing with mass formation psychosis on more than just Covid.

    It started with Trump. Trump derangement was so severe, no facts could penetrate the scorn and hatred. Even when someone with TDS would accept a fact – for example, that Obama introduced the “cages,” or that he actually WAS spied on, or that he was the only president since Reagan not to initiate an armed conflict – they don’t care. The don’t even deny the facts. It just changes nothing.

    Same with Covid. Very few people trust big Pharma. Most people generally know that our government “selectively” provides facts. But even with this background knowledge, even a *whiff* of skepticism about the Great Vaccine Campaign is met with total derangement.

    And now it’s happening with Putin, vs. the Bush/Clinton/Obama/Biden NeoCon-Neolib alliance and legacy. People are so angry over various crimes and corruption over the last decades, they simply cannot compute that Putin, all this time, has been a malevolent force in the world who should be treated as conniving and dangerous, and now executing a long-hatched plan.

    Honestly, this derangement may be the most understandable or sympathetic. People have had it with the greed, destruction and conceits of the neocon-neolib cabal (for lack of better label), epitomized by Bush and Clinton. But the certain rage is blinding people just the same. It’s the same sort of derangement, where facts are a threat. And so, to explain what’s happened with communism these past years is understood as an effort to exonerate the crimes and malfeasance of our own leadership. Certainly, it creates cognitive dissonance (I’ve felt that myself). But people can grapple and reconcile cognitive dissonance when they stay disciplined to facts and truth. Mass psychosis is like a truth blocker. The vitriolic rage becomes total and blocks out any incongruencies.

    So, we are in quite a predicament as a society. We’ve lost our ever-loving minds.

    Ironically, we have, on one hand, the very same craven NeoCon-Neolib axis fanning over the airwaves saying repugnant things, and trying to frame our situation in the simplistic terms that Putin is a “madman,” as if the current moment is some aberration caused by the fever dreams of a dictator (a dictator, by the way, all these same elites sucked up to when they were lining their own pockets with deals and investments). The view foments a rabid lust for quick, destructive fixes.

    On the other hand, we have a mass of people, on the left and right, so angry at the U.S. governing class that it cannot transcend its own fever, to see the forest for the trees.

  18. Sorry, but based on my hard-earned life experience, the only way to deal with a bully is to punch back harder. Bullies are invariably cowards at heart, and are betting on you folding. Here, Putin is saying: “give me what I want and nobody gets hurt.”

    And if you give him your wallet today, what’s to stop him from demanding your car keys tomorrow? And then your kids?

    1. Virtualconservative, what if the bully is standing behind you with a gun pointed at your head? You gonna try and punch him?

    2. Actually this street fight analogy is pretty apt. Just not in the way you intend. I’ve taken Bjj for a couple years off and on, done a little boxing and muay thai. Every Joe Schmo wants to show how tough they are winning a street fight. But fighters will tell you the safest thing you can do is run away. You never know just how crazy your opponent is. And what are they holding? A knife? A gun? A street fight can go very very badly even for the best fighter. The absolute last thing we should be doing is getting into a street fight w the psychos in Moscow

      1. Dan, to use your analogy, we are BOTH pointing guns at one another. And there’s really no where to run, particularly for the Ukrainians.

      2. And you learn to fight so that you have some chance if you can’t run away. I carry concealed so that I don’t have to worry about bringing a black belt to a knife fight. If I can leave I will, but I will do my best to kill the assailant if he gives me no choice except to fight.

    3. I personally don’t see it that way. I am not even convinced the people in DC controlling our govt are American in any meaningful sense. They may just as easily be representing Moscow and Beijings interests. Even if they are American, they are senile, woefully incompetent, and obsessed with weird transgender issues. The people in Moscow are evil, but on some level competent. They have been building nukes while we have been dismantling ours.

  19. Great entry.

    Americans are absolutely delusional about what is going on now. So complacent. My estimate is that 90% are sure Russia won’t attack us, would lose if they did, that Russia has a worthless weak military, and are terrified like us of mutually assured destruction. That we are like puppet masters who control the world, one side says we own Zelensky and Ukraine, the other that we can stop and take out Putin whenever we feel like it.

    Time is running out and I need to leave the Boston area before it is too late lol

    1. They really are complacent and delusional. The most painful aspect is to watch some conservatives fawn over Putin. Let’s hope what is going presently will wake up at least some of them. Many things can happen once people begin to realize the seriousness of the situation. I hope and pray it’s not too little too late. At least, the brave Ukrainians are showing the way. Freedom is never free.

      1. The term “New World Order” was used by President G.H.W. Bush at the end of the Cold War to signify the post-Soviet world order. A Ukrainian fighting to prevent the reestablishment of the Soviet Union would naturally use this expression while thinking of the promises of freedom given to those in Eastern Europe oppressed by communism. Conspiracy theorists have seized on this term to claim Bush was championing a global conspiracy.

      2. @KevinTopalian, she referred to the “new world order” in its original sense— meaning the post-WWII order, Pax Americana, that has been present in Europe since 1945. She also used the term “new world order” to describe what Putin’s attack is ushering in— a new, multipolar, post-American world order that begins right now, in 2022. She is not part of some grand conspiracy, as certain news publications would have everyone believe. It’s sad to see thousands of people turning against the Ukrainians and siding with Russia because of the selective reporting on the use of this badly misunderstood term.

    2. Putin is having the low quality of his Army rubbed in his face. Stalin was able to beat back the Germans by drowning them in Russian blood as he did the Finns in the winter war.

      1. They are now warning civilians to get out of Kyiv. It’s about to get a lot uglier I’m afraid. 🙁

  20. From Psalm 37:

    7 Be still before the LORD and wait patiently for him; do not fret when people succeed in their ways, when they carry out their wicked schemes. 8 Refrain from anger and turn from wrath; do not fret—it leads only to evil. 9 For those who are evil will be destroyed, but those who hope in the LORD will inherit the land. 10 A little while, and the wicked will be no more; though you look for them, they will not be found. 11 But the meek will inherit the land and enjoy peace and prosperity. 12 The wicked plot against the righteous and gnash their teeth at them; 13 but the Lord laughs at the wicked, for he knows their day is coming. 14 The wicked draw the sword and bend the bow to bring down the poor and needy, to slay those whose ways are upright. 15 But their swords will pierce their own hearts, and their bows will be broken.

  21. Greyknight – I just read Sundance’s latest at CTH. You were right. A “manufactured Russia-Ukraine crisis” to blame for collapsing US economy.

    We need to be holding two thoughts at the same time – it’s true that we’re being sold out by both our political parties, AND this reality is a helpful (cultivated) condition for the other REALITY – we are under lethal attack by Russia/China.

    1. Yes. I agree. And I personally cant trust Sundance anymore. Something just isnt right about him. To take such a reality defying stance, and try to “prove” it. Something doesn’t add up.

      1. I think I finally found words for the big question marks in my mind about CTH, as well as other conservative sites/pundits who are supporting Putin and painting him as some sort of good guy.

        Could it be, that all the things they “got right” was bait so that they could get the trust of a lot of people, so that we would swallow misdirection and lies on the bigger picture, ie Communism moving in for full control, or the Last Phase as some are calling it?

        We know Communists are committed to the long -very long- game, and very strategic in their thinking and planning.

        Could these guys, or at least a lot of them, have been plants all along?

        That seems to fit the missing puzzle piece that has been in my mind for some time now.

        How else can you describe the persistence in the narrative that Putin is good, NATO has been encroaching on Russia, and America has nothing to fear?

        Especially when these guys have been so correct on other sophisticated issues?

        I smell plants, or willin dupes at the least.

        Thoughts anyone?

      2. Putin is a hero to all these people because they believe in conspiracy theories. The Russians exploit Western crackpots to advance their cause.

      3. If I had never found your blog, I think I would have been susceptible to a couple of the conspiracy theories out there. But, thanks to one of my history professors in college, who was a lot like you in his mental prowess and voracious reading, and and his ability to see through things, I already firmly believed that Soviet Communism was alive and well. Finding your site some 20 years later has given me much evidence.

      4. But Greyknight, who is he really working for?
        It is not the DemoRats, or the RepubliCons, or even “The State” but perhaps Big Intel, who he claims is invulnerable to “oversight.” He is playing a very small role in a very big game of discrediting the US government and its institutions (DOJ, FBI, Judicial) all in the service of, wait for it, ………….
        Communism! And you know what, they, Communists, are immune from “OVERSIGHT.”

        His personal stories are in a word, outrageous. Yes, he went to DC to “straighten them all out” and met with this group, and that group, and showed them they couldn’t see the forest for the trees, “compartmentalization” was the “excuse.” these “investigators” don’t watch the news, don’t read any blogs, especially not his! Then he “threatened” the top “investigator” with “exposure.”
        He is the “smartest man in the room” according to himself! Just ask him. LOL
        He never replies to “inconvenient” questions. EVER.
        Mixes “facts” with his own personal form of disinformation, innuendo, propaganda, and then reaches these “conclusion” that have all his puppies praising him as a “patriot.”

        You are exactly right, trust your instincts. And yes, he is not alone, you are right again.

        We should clue him in on the 100+ year Communist Conspiracy, maybe he’d go back to DC.
        And he would, to warn them of all of we anti-communists.

        A pleasure reading your comments, sir.

      5. Good points 907ie. Yes, his personal stories are pretty self-glorifying.

        I enjoy your, and several others’ comments as well. I am not nearly as knowledgeable on a lot of these things as a lot of yall, but I read up on things when I can. Mr. Nyquist, and several of you other commenters here give a lot of food for thought. I was fortunate to find his blog.

        I pray God protects us all in the days ahead. I believe dark days are upon us. We all must look to the Lord to be with us, for we are going to need Him.

      6. Greyknight, re your question about CTH and conservatives valorizing Putin –

        I don’t get the sense their part or aware of the “long con.” Here’s the thing – deception works, even on smart people (someone said *especially* on smart people), and Putin has worn the mask for a long time, and played to certain “populist” sensibilities on both the left and the right. It tends to be the “anti war” faction of both parties that are sympathetic to him.

        On the right – I find that the ones valorizing Putin tend to be social conservatives, instinctively populist, who bought into the NeoCon justification for Iraq and have since felt duped, and want to repent, for supporting what they now believe was an unjust war. And so, they apply this new insight about the past as a prescription for current conflicts, without fully appreciating the particular history and context of the current moment. I’m thinking of Tucker Carlson and Rod Dreher, in particular.

        Honestly, I could have been one of them – which probably is why I don’t assume it is deliberate. As Nyquist pointed out in an earlier comment – anti-communists are ridiculed and derided. From at least the 70s onward, it’s been cast as paranoid and anachronistic to worry about communist infiltration. People *believed* that Reagan won the Cold War – that was the whole point of the China-Russia deception; it was very successful! From that context, one has to seek out, study, and keep an open mind to re-process things we thought we’d understood for many formative years.

        Prior to reading Nyquist, I regarded communism as an academic fad, that the far-left liked to appropriate as a label to be hip and edgy. I tested Nyquist’s theory against geopolitical realities, and the picture clicked into place (like those famous paintings where you stare to finally see the object). But I could have just as easily skipped along blaming the “deep state” and military industrial complex for all the evils in the world. Because they are legitimately corrupt. And China and Russia have been disciplined and effective at maintaining the mask – IF you don’t know what you’re looking for.

        My whole point being, I give a decent amount of slack to intellectuals who are otherwise generally on point; maybe they haven’t done the deep dive, and/or the pieces haven’t clicked into place. Remember, we are the targets of a sophisticated deception campaign by professionals. Also – and I guess there’s no way to say this without implicitly patting all of us here on the back – but even a lot of smart people just aren’t that curious. Few people, as a rule, re-visit old assumptions. Conservatives like Carlson and Dreher uncharacteristically reflected on their past support for the Iraq war – even as they now repeat the same insularity with respect to current geopolitics. Maybe one day, in hindsight, they’ll see it. As for CTH, I don’t have guesses as to what his deal is. I agree, it’s perplexing that he is seemingly so astute on the machinations of US government/politics, but with such apparent blinders on our foreign enemies.

        This might be where I differ with some others here. I’m far more inclined to suspect people have been brainwashed – or simply have bad, self-serving character – than to believe they’re witting, card-carrying members of the communist party. If partly because, it takes a lot of conviction to adhere to a cause (even a bad one), and I see many among our elite just to be kind of intellectually lazy, self-satisfied, and self-interested. In other words, easy to co-opt and manipulate. Maybe that’s naivete on my part.

      7. I agree visitor. I hadn’t thought about it in the way you describe. Makes perfect sense, and probably applies to a lot of, or most of them.

        I do believe at least a handful of them are probably knowingly sowing lies and misinformation. I suspect Alex Jones is. I also suspect Sundance is, because of how sophisticated he is, and how he had nailed other things so intelligently and thoroughly. I could be wrong though.

        At any rate, I know we have a good and trustworthy analyst here. I dont have time to look deeply into a lot of these guys, but I detected a ring of truth and sincerity from the first I read Mr. Nyquist.

  22. From Jeff in the previous thread: “It looks like they are moving up thermobaric weapons for use on three cities.”

    And now this:

    Ukrainian ambassador to the U.S. Oksana Markarova said Monday that Russia used a bomb “prohibited by the Geneva convention” in Ukraine.

    “They used the vacuum bomb today, which is actually prohibited by the Geneva convention,” after a briefing with members of Congress, according to Reuters. “The devastation that Russia is trying to inflict on Ukraine is large.”

    1. Satellite images show there is a 17 mile convoy of Russian troops headed to Kyiv. They are about 15 miles from the city. Praying!

      1. A target rich environment.

        Remember the slaughter of the fleeing Iraqi Republican Guards along the highway out of Kuwait in ’91?

        They are quite vulnerable, but can Ukr. take advantage?

      2. The Ukrainians held and reinforced Kiev so that they attained a momentary defensive advantage. The Russians must put more troops in to continue their envelopment.

      3. Douglas Lute sounds a lot like what you are saying, Jeff:

        But military experts caution against confusing a war’s initial days with its likely result. Russia has now begun to use even more brutal tactics, including a bombardment of a residential area in Kharkiv, Ukraine’s second-largest city, home to universities and long considered a center of national culture. On Tuesday morning, a large explosion hit the center of the city.

        “We’re only in the opening days of this, and Putin has a lot of cards to play,” Douglas Lute, a former U.S. ambassador to NATO, told The New York Times. “It’s too early to be triumphalist, and there are a lot of Russian capabilities not employed yet.”

        The Russian military has an established strategy for taking over hostile cities, one it has used in both Syria and Chechnya. The strategy revolves around firing missiles and bombs into residential neighborhoods, both to destroy infrastructure and to terrify civilians into fleeing, before advancing into the city on the ground.

      4. From what I’ve been reading, the skies over Ukraine are not uncontested. Those convoys look pretty vulnerable to me by air. They are barely moving, and supposedly morale of the Russian troops is low. I say this not seeing the entire scope, but only basing my comments on the information that’s out there.

      5. Following all of this makes me wonder why bridges and highways haven’t been blown. Seems that would be a priority. As foe strafing, does Ukraine even have the resources?

  23. It seems like a good time for readers to review this Nyquist article from 6-15-2015.

    Strategic Bungling
    Commentary for 16 June 2015
    JR Nyquist
    “We must be prepared to extend our influence and save the world.”
    -Russian President Dmitri Medvedev, 2007

    “In the big boys’ game, it’s cutthroat, it’s bloody and it’s not pleasant.”
    -Prince Bandar bin Sultan to President George W. Bush


    “If you wipe out your enemy on the battlefield, in fact, his diplomatic position is entirely negated. Consider the following conversation, recorded in Berlin on 1 May 1945:”

    Gen. Krebs (representing German Chancellor Joseph Goebbels): What I am about to say is absolutely secret. You are the first foreigner to know that on 30 April, Adolf Hitler committed suicide.
    Gen. Chuikov: We know that.
    Gen. Krebs: [Reads Hitler’s last testament and then quotes Goebbels plea for peace] “…the aim of this declaration is for the benefit of those peoples who had the greatest loss of life in this war. The document can be given to your commander.”
    Gen. Chuikov: Are you speaking for Berlin or all of Germany?
    Gen. Krebs: I am empowered to speak for all German armies. [I am] empowered by Goebbels.
    Gen. Chuikov: I will advise Marshall Zhukov.
    Gen. Krebs: My first question. Will the guns fall silent during the negotiations?
    Gen. Chuikov: [picks up the telephone receiver] Connect me with Marshall Zhukov. [To Zhukov over the phone:] Report from Chuikov. General of infantry Krebs is here. He is authorized by the German government to negotiate with us. He confirms that Hitler has committed suicide. I request that Party Member Stalin be informed that Goebbels, Bormann, and Gross Admiral Doenitz, according to Hitler’s testament, have assumed power. Krebs is empowered to negotiate with us for an armistice. Krebs suggests a ceasefire during the negotiation. [A pause while Zhukov speaks.] I will ask him now. [To Krebs:] When did Hitler end his life?
    Gen. Krebs: Today at 1550 hours. Pardon me. Yesterday.
    Gen. Chuikov: [To Zhukov on the phone] Yesterday at 1550. About peace? No, he has not spoken of that yet. I will ask him at once. Yes, understood as ordered. [To Krebs:] Marshal Zhukov asks if we are talking about a capitulation.
    Gen. Krebs: No, there are other possibilities.
    Gen. Chuikov: [To Zhukov:] He says there are “other possibilities of making peace.” No … they have no contact with the allies. Krebs is only empowered to negotiate with the USSR. [Chuikov listens to Zhukov’s instructions.] Yes, yes, he is empowered by Goebbels, the Reich Chancellor and Bormann remains the [Nazi] Party leader. He says we are the first to have been told about Hitler’s death and his testament…. You want to ask Moscow? I will wait by the receiver. [Zhukov speaks with Stalin and returns to give Chuikov instructions.] Understood. Krebs is not empowered but he can talk about it. Good, understood Party Member Marshall. I will ask. And the others? [A pause] Understood. I have understood. [Turning to Krebs:] We can only negotiate with you for a total capitulation to the USSR….
    Gen. Krebs: In order to have an opportunity to discuss your demand I request a temporary ceasefire.
    Gen. Chuikov: [into the telephone] He cannot negotiate a total capitulation while he does not know the overall situation of the new government of Germany. He is only empowered to negotiate. [Pause] Yes I will ask him. [Turning to Krebs:] Do you wish to capitulate immediately?
    Gen. Krebs: I would have to discuss that with my government…. I am requesting an armistice.
    Gen. Chuikov: [into the phone] They are requesting an armistice…. [Zhukov’s is barking instructions] Yes, understood. I hear you. I understand. Good! As ordered! [To Krebs:] An armistice can only be decided on the basis of a total capitulation.
    Gen. Krebs: Then you will take over the entire area where the government has residence and kill all the Germans.
    Gen. Chuikov: We have not come to annihilate the German people.
    Gen. Krebs: [attempts to argue] The Germans will have no chance to work.
    Gen. Chuikov: The Germans are already working for us.

    “This exchange is what an unconditional surrender sounds like. It is the ultimate form of diplomatic coercion.”

    “That our best minds have been misinformed, that they will continue to misunderstand, is given. In consequence, the West’s position will continue to erode away. This is not seen, however, because today’s prevailing mode of thought sees the future as an extension of today’s normal life. From this perspective it does indeed appear that Russia has suffered a defeat. Russia’s economy has suffered and Russia has lost diplomatic prestige. But Moscow has not changed course because Russia is not trying to preserve today’s “normal life,” and diplomatic prestige is not as important as nuclear supremacy. The sum of diplomatic approval from militarily ineffectual countries is of no value. Temporary economic losses are meaningless. If strategic nuclear supremacy is acquired, the world can beg for negotiations as Gen. Krebs begged General Chuikov. But negotiations will not take place. Only surrender will take place.”

    If you don’t read any of Jeff’s old columns make sure you read this one, or at least the conversation between General Chuikov and General Krebs posted above and Jeff’s comments after.

    “It’s not pleasant.”
    No, it is not.

      1. I banned this article because it is communist propaganda advanced inadvertently by conservatives. It paints America as being guilty of helping the worst criminal of the twentieth century escape justice. It is such rubbish that I do not want it here.

    1. quote: “After World War II ended in 1945, the Soviet Union encouraged many countries in eastern Europe to set up Communist governments.” “Encouraged” -ha!

  24. Zelensky has a professional education – a law degree. He was offered a scholarship to an israeli University but his parents advised him to stay in Ukraine. perhaps you should look at the OSINT twitter feeds instead of russian state-run media. or consider Igor Girkin’s twitter @girkingirkin, for images of the destruction and death. Yes, exactly what Russians want, capitulation. Just as Potemkin demanded of Poland in 1939.

  25. I’ve found myself wondering more and more throughout the last day or so if Putin’s whole foray into Ukraine thus far was a gambit to elicit a more or less immediate, direct response from NATO that he could then play up into a pretext for wider and more devastating military actions. It seems that many of the troops involved in the Ukraine operation are not his best, first line troops – in an American context, as though we sent a division of the Oklahoma National Guard to perform a mission instead of sending the 1st Infantry Division or the 82nd Airborne Division.

    Economy of force only explains so much. I think it’s possible that Putin may have been “put on the wrong foot” to at least some slight degree by NATO’s somewhat slow roll response. I think it’s possible that Putin expected some more direct action by NATO within the first 24-48 hours that did not materialize and now they’re having to adapt on the fly.

  26. ah, we have an undercover Russian agent among us. He seems so certain of the outcome, he must be in the know.

  27. Jeff,
    You quote – LAWRENCE KOHN, “RUSSIA’S TURKISH TARGET” at the beginning of ten article.
    What was his point? That Turkey was Russia’s target? How does this play into the big picture? Control of Black Sea access, and near direct access to the Mid East through Georgia, Turkey, and Syria?
    Why did the Russians move in Georgia first, and Syria second? Ukraine and Turkey are just more puzzle pieces to control the Black Sea and access the Mid East. Control oil, control fertilizer raw materials.

    1. General Grachev was quoted to show the Russian attitude since the end of the Cold War. The point is to give the reader context. The quote is from an article on Turkey and the Caucasus, but it applies to Ukraine.

  28. Jeff,
    Also, I can see how the West could be pulled into a nuclear war/

    A madman has his thumb on the nuclear button, and has completely unreasonable demands. What do you do?

    If all else fails…

    Preemptive nuclear strike – its the only logical choice.

    Simple conclusion without further development. But when faced with total annihilation, or reduced total annihilation, then choose the least evil. Not much of a choice.

      1. Depends on who does the pre-emptive strike. If I read the situation correctly, the Soviets have enough nuclear warheads to knock out most, if not all, our ICBMs which are under orders to absorb the first strike, most of our air force, all of our navy that is in port, as well as target military bases. If done as a surprise attack from submarines just off shore, our forces will have just minutes of warning, if even that long, too short to get ready to defend. The Soviets, who don’t believe in MAD, see this as the way to victory.

        The question remains, will such an attack lead to their victory? Or will enough of our forces survive to mount a successful counter attack?

      2. We do not have enough warheads to effectively destroy more than a fraction of Russia’s missiles. They are in super/hardened bunkers under a massive ABM defense.

      3. Even after they’ve blown their wad, i.e. shot off all their nukes, they still need to put boots on the ground to secure their victory. My question is: even after being mauled by nukes, would we be able to drive out their boots? I don’t expect them to hold nukes in reserve, as they would want to assure their victory in the first, surprise attack followed immediately by an invasion. At least that’s how I view it.

      4. We do not know how communist bloc war plans have been modified since the days of scorched earth nuclear war against North America. China needs to win Asia and Russia needs to win Europe. China wants to occupy the lower 48 states. Russia wants Alaska and parts of Canada. How do they get to the point of making that practicable short of a nuclear first strike?

    1. PS — We are not prepared for a nuclear war as they are. We have no fallout shelter system for the whole population. They do. We have very poor ABM defenses. They have large numbers of ABMs with state of the art technology.

      1. Dr. Pry says “deployment of at least 2,000 tactical nuclear weapons on aircraft carriers, attack submarines, and missile cruisers, to match at least the lowest estimated number of Russian tactical nuclear warheads.”
        Our “Carrier Battle Groups” are outgunned by frigates, a fact.

        A better question is “Do we have a brain tumor?”

        Sorry Jeff, this is all very upsetting and is actually playing out just as you have described for decades but worse, much worse.
        And with mRNA, we probably will have brain tumors, if the cardiac inflammation doesn’t get us first!
        “Don’t Take the Spike.”
        Don’t take any damn prisoners either!

      2. True, we have not had civil defense in this country since, what…?…the 60s? And even if we did, would you want to live like that? I wouldn’t. Yes, the Russians have holes to crawl into, but consider that people living in tight quarters with no natural light for extended periods of time will likely not get along with each other for long. Humans were not meant to live in bunkers for extended periods of time. Frankly, I’d rather just be a casualty.

      3. You do not want to live if you have to struggle? If life is harder? And if all Americans felt that way, then who is up to the standard of the pioneers who came and carved a nation out of the wilderness; for those same skills and attitudes are all one would need to start again. Let the native Americans have it, then, if they have retained the ways of their ancestors. The white man is now unworthy of it.

      4. Patriot: you need to learn. Learn about how long a person needs to be cooped up in a shelter after a nuke attack (not as long as you probably think) and skills that you can use to help rebuild afterwards. I personally plan to live as long as possible, and be useful during that time. I have skills in a variety of areas that can be a hobby now, but be a real help in hard times. Even in hard times, life is worth living in order to help others.

      5. @Jeff — You’re making assumptions on the core message of my comment about “bunker life”. I was thinking of a situation as described by Putin’s mouthpiece who — the recent video — said they would hit us with 500 warheads.

        In a situation like that, I highly doubt anyone would be coming out of shelters and “living the pioneer life” for a long, long time.

        In any case, such shelter is not — as you have pointed out on several occasions — not available to most of us in the US. So, it’s a moot point.

        Do I want to die? No, of course not. But people don’t put much thought into all the details/necessities of life that we take for granted that would no longer be available.

    2. I’m just awfully glad “John” here isn’t the guy with his hand on the button.

    3. If Putin were seriously deranged, wouldn’t the Duma just have him shot him in the back of the head?

      1. The one Duma member with a spirit of independence was shot in the back of the head already — Galina Starovoytova, who was elected to the Duma in 1995. She was gunned down in the entryway of her apartment building in St. Petersburg on 20 November 1998. As Putin would say, shoot them at the first opportunity. Take no chances with them.

      2. Putin made a comment not to far back, in reference to his reorganizing government, that if he didn’t consolidate power that “They” would kill him. Do you know the circumstances where he said that, and who the They were?

  29. Hi Jeff, what do you make of the reports that Putin has a brain tumor? I think I speak for many when I say I trust your perspective and appreciate your insights greatly.

    1. Putin has always talked and acted like he does now. Only now his military is strong enough to challenge the West. People who have misread him are looking for an explanation of his current behavior, and find him scary. He has always been a thug. No brain tumor necessary.

      1. I think the only reason Putin thinks his military can challenge the west is our own stupidity in social engineering n the forces. On one of Peter Zeihans videos, of a presentation he gave at Fort Benning, Gen. Milley was babbling about the changing nature of war. The only thing that has changed is the increasing lethality of weapons. We have some of the most lethal and powerful conventional weapons available anywhere in the world. But if you play games and kill the cohesion of your forces, which has been intentionally done by the idiots in DoD and the political apparatus, the weapons don’t matter much.

        The Russians have some high tech stuff, but I have serious doubts about the availability of some of his “super weapons.” a for StartCom Intel officer that used to go to my Church, said he believed that the nuke torpedo was available, as that doesn’t take any tech that did not exist back in the 90s. He seriously doubted they hypersonic weapons, and others.

        In the end, men still win wars. You can destroy the world at the “push of a button,” but you can’t win a war until you put a 19 year old with rifle on that hill. You don’t do that without a cohesive force, unless you are the recipient of raw, blind luck. That rarely happens.

      2. I am really tired of reading about his supposed “health issues”…and the Putin apologists out there who all ready and willing to blame ourselves rather than the true devils — the totalitarians in the Russian government and in China.

        I realize people may be frightened at the prospect of what is coming. Who isn’t? Who would want WW3? Only a psychopath. However…to think blaming ourselves will save us from our enemies is incredibly naieve.

        We (the West at large) are only to blame for failed policy for over 50 years — vis a vis, not accepting our enemies for who they are and thinking we could bring them over to our side.

        Jeff, I’ve been telling people about what is in your books and “The Fourth War” for decades now and people just don’t get it. It’s almost like people can’t compute the notion of long-range deceptive strategy…it’s inconceiveable to many. But, we see it playing out today!

        But rather than accept what they see, the look for “reasons” why Putin/Russia/China does what it does…surely we were “threatening” them in some way? LOL!! SMH.

  30. Hi, Jeff. Do you agree with Dr. Pry when he suggests that the US and NATO pull back and stop arming Ukraine, so that Putin has no pretext to launch his full attack on Europe and thud the West buy some time to rebuild its military? He seems to believe Russia might be brought into a strategic alliance against China? Of course they are allies, but Hitler and Stalin were allies as well and yet the former betrayed the latter.

    1. People thinking that Russia can be brought into some sort of alliance against China are kidding themselves. Putin’s country is weak and poor. Russia is still a a 3rd world country with nukes, and part of the reason for the fight in Ukraine is that Putin is trying to resurrect something he does not have the power or funds to resurrect. China, at least on paper, is much more powerful, has nukes, and is looking to reclaim what was taken from them in the north by Russia many years ago.

      Siberia is being conquered by Chinese immigration, and one day China will simply say “it’s ours” and Russia will have no ability to deal with it. China is leading Putin along the primrose path, and waiting for their opportunity to take a chuck of Siberia from Russia. At the bottom line, Putin has little to offer that can’t be taken from him by China. Putin knows this and he thinks he can manage it by cozying up to Peking. Frankly, he’s a fool.

    2. The only way Russia will be brought into alliance with America is if Putin falls from power. As for Western assistance to Ukraine, we had better prepare for war on our end. We are next.

      1. But if the offense of aiding and abetting Russia’s enemy was mitigated, that might allow us some time, no?

      2. All Putin has to do now is say that the “sanctions” were horrible and destroying his country and he “warned” the west…he already has the narrative to use to launch the attack. It could happen at any time, in my opinion. He had nuclear exercises just today! Subs moved out with ships involved and ICBMs were moved into position. I can’t believe there is not more alarm over this. But I suspect there’s been a deal made with the devil between Biden and his fellow Marxists and Russia/China. I’ll bet when the attack comes, we don’t even get a warning. I’m considering what Putin and his spokesmouths as THE WARNING.

  31. Interesting interview with Rebekah Koffler posted on a national show:


    This was a war planned under the Madam Clinton presidency the moment she came in. The question is if Trump was placed into power to uncover the patriots who would oppose, or if he was/is a foil to this horrific plan? The Ukraine people are being used as pawns and their leadership are puppets to Davos/West. All this covid nonsense was a huge money making effort and to weaken the masses. There are many players with many agendas. The 2030 gang are entrenched to reset a world in their image, China will never agree to anything that does not give them dominance and unity of the Asian race, and 90% of DC is rotten to the core. This spells nothing but suffering to the masses. There are no good guys and bad guys in this Russia/Ukraine conflict, there is only corrupt elites and the masses of a crumbling world being used as pawns and cannon fodder.

  33. This morning I was reading an article by Ron Paul about how big a mistake it was to consider Georgia for NATO membership (implying that was part of the cause of the present mess with Ukraine), and it angered me greatly. Such Americans’ attitude seems to be “freedom for me, but not for thee.” In my reading about the conflict in 2008 (and somewhat limited knowledge), Georgia was more than justified in wanting to become a member of NATO — a defensive organization — that member states join voluntarily. The Libertarians have fallen prey to their own delusions. If I understand the conflict correctly, Russia supported the separatists — many of whom were ethnic Russians — in South Ossetia and basically did the same thing there, they are doing in Ukraine, using that as a pretext to invade. Of course, Russia’s motives were pure and noble, right? It had nothing to do with wanting to control the Tbilisi oil pipeline. Yeah, sure.

    1. I met with Ron Paul for coffee during an event in Huston, in April 2001, at which we were both speakers. I talked to him about the threat from Russia, China and their client states. He dismissed me out of hand. He said the big threat was from Washington and not Moscow or Beijing. I could not get him to see that all these threats had a common thread and a common end game.

      1. Typical. Bunch of idiots!!! This is why we are where we are. Had the CIA listened to Golytsin to begin with, we would not be here dealing with what we are!

      2. Interesting. That’s not surprising. He seems clueless on these issues as if the US exists in a vacuum or something. It all ends up being ‘freedom for me, but not for thee.’ Don’t encourage these other nations to join NATO because that might cause us problems, or at least that was the opinion he was pushing in the article I read this morning.

      3. Paul does not understand that collective security has become essential in terms of these totalitarian military powers. A normal country alone cannot cope with them. In fact, we have been unsuccessful in coping with them over the last several decades.

      4. Conversely, I’ll bet Paul takes it black, and that you take cream and sugar.

      5. There you go again, talking about things you know nothing of, Barf. What a small soul you must be to stoop to such petty insults.

        There’s a good phrase I’ve heard throughout my life, in reference to certain people, that applies nicely to you: you are “educated beyond your mentality.”

        Another good one folks in my area like to use: “Dont let your bulldog mouth overload your chihuahua butt.”

        Get a life, Barth. Putin doesn’t love you, no matter how hard you shill for him.

    1. If true, then it just shows that unlike Zelensky, who stays with his people to lead them and fight, Putin is simply the coward and tyrant we all know him to be. It seems he is definitely targeting civilians with more frequency in Ukraine as things are not going his way. That’s how tyrants operate. I saw about a foreign student — I think from India — being killed in the shelling.

      1. Yes, Emilkc, the targeting of civilians by Putin has certainly begun. In JR’s last blog, I observed that the Russian invasion had stalled in view of the fierce (and unanticipated) Ukr. resistance, and that Russia would either have back down or double down. Well they are doubling down now. And we are entering a very dangerous phase for the Ukr. people, who are facing siege, starvation, and urban fighting/bombing. Not to mention the steep losses in Russian lives and materiel.

        Putin has taken the gloves off. But what a Pyrrhic victory it will be — a bombed out, hostile, impoverished, vassal state that will only become a drag on Russia’s economy and a constant source of trouble via partisan attacks and terrorism.

        And consider the price Russia will pay, not just economically, but in waking up the Nato countries and spurring them to rearm — when they were well down the road toward pacifism and disarmament. How can this possibly be a good thing for Russia, now a pariah state?

      2. Stalin did all of it, killing 11 million Ukrainians. He called it “building a state.” The outcome here is not a forgone conclusion.

      3. I would make the Russians have to destroy it all, everything they would like to preserve in order to use for themselves.

        Easy for me to say, as I’m not in the Ukranians’ shoes. But I believe I would try to make them destroy everything. It would be hell, but so will surrendering.

      4. I worry about Zelensky. He spoke before the WEF and is apparently a member. Like Putin.

        I suppose that the naivete of a non-professional politician could account for things like failure to mobilize, joining the WEF thinking it is a some kind of service sodality, but I wonder. Any thoughts?

    1. Hey, with an all girl Army, that’s a no brainer. Still, I think I’d rather go to nursing school.

      1. Please note the vocative in the beginning of the question. It’s “Jeff”, and not “Useless imbecile that can’t notice that spending all day commenting on other people’s work is self-denigrating”.
        Besides, for the first time I agree with you: your effeminate temperament and gossip skills match a nursing school much better than a respectable circle of geopolitcs debate.

      2. Tulsi Gabbard is in the Army Reserve. She just gave a speech to Republicans and now the Democratic Party wants to kick her out. She’s kind of pretty, don’t you think?

      3. She is easy on the eyes. But if she had been in the Garden of Eden, I believe she would have gotten the snake to eat the forbidden fruit.

  34. I’m hearing two different types of assessments now.
    1. Russia is committing less than frontline resources and not using AirPower or A2AD.
    2. Hearing from mil community the current conclusion is Russian mil has apparently low capability, and threatened nukes out of fear because their impotence has been revealed.

      1. You think Russia is strategically prolonging their invasion? This makes absolutely zero military sense. Even in mud, the faster the better. They are in damage control mode now: still dangerous, but more scared than bold. Putin fears an international response, which is why he went in light. But he vastly underestimated the resistance, so we are here. As opposition forces grow, and international outrage comes home to roost, this war will be over with Ukraine still standing.

      2. I did not say Russia was strategically prolonging their invasion. They are going as fast as they can given the weather conditions. Yet they chose to attack in this weather. Ask yourself why? The answer is not that they are stupid. The answer is, the attack had to go forward for a reason that you have not as yet fathomed. Originally the weather was supposed to be colder, but it was not. So why did Russia attack anyway? I doubt you would know how to answer that. Clearly you are unfamiliar with military science or the history of war. And you have no idea of military strategy. Therefore, you are judging something you have no background in. You are like those pundits who now claim that Putin has made a mistake and Russia is losing the war. Real military experts, however, do not all take this approach. The Ukrainian forces have been flanked in the southeast and their positions are not tenable. There is no prospect they will recover their balance before a large section of their forces are rolled up and forced to surrender. Ukraine is going to lose its sovereignty, one way or another — either by some form of agreement or outright conquest. The Russians will make a mess of that country in the near term, and they will be hated. The aftermath won’t be nice. But look at Chechnya. Wasn’t Chechnya pacified? How do you think that happened? Why aren’t the Chechens still fighting the Russians? Why are they fighting FOR the Russians now? The most hostile people imaginable were reconciled to Moscow. How?

      3. Because Chechnya is small and overpowered. It couldn’t mount a defense even close to that of Ukraine. Holding their own against an invading Russian army sends a message across the world that these days, it’s not guaranteed that a tyrant will win, even if he is much stronger. If a madman really wants to use his nukes to enact his personal agenda, that’s probably what’s going to happen. There is almost no way to stop that. But the madman can’t win the war of public opinion. He won’t be forgiven or forgotten on a global scale, and there will be consequences for that.

        Putin could continue to throw the rest of his amassed invasion force into Ukraine and advance further. He could even take the large cities and Capitol. But he will not end Ukraine unless he exterminates them as a people, and if he does this he signs the death warrant of his beloved Mother Russia from within. The power of people has awoken and is being wielded across the globe to unify, yet you seem to deny that we are in a new era of morality and influence. You believe people can’t and won’t change, as if our animal nature somehow trumps the potential of our complex minds. I’m saying this is shortsighted, and denies the massive strides of progress humans have made through compassion, tolerance and cooperation. You’ll likely laugh these traits off as useless and feminine in the big bad game of war and politics, and you’d be ignorant in doing so. It’s odd to me that you claim to be a man of faith yet you find no faith in your fellow man (unless he shares your beliefs, but those are few and far between). Fearing an irrational madman makes as little sense as revering him, and does not make us safer. Madmen come and go leaving behind only lessons learned. If it’s time for the next one, so be it. We will move forward.

      4. Russia is the largest country in the world because of their ability to force large foreign populations into submission. If you kill or jail all troublemakers in a country you can pacify that country. Ukraine was always been a problem for Moscow. Stalin killed 11 million Ukrainians and he put down partisan groups that were fighting him for several years after WW2. If you think a country cannot be conquered and pacified then you have no history.

      5. PS – Radiofort: Your analysis here assumes that Russia is led by one madman. You reduce our problem to one crazy person. You do not see that it is a system of people at work here, and this working is not the “personal agenda” of one man, Vladimir Putin. You say he cannot win because he cannot win over world public opinion. Please read Kierkegaard, who warned that public opinion is a nullity. It is an invented thing — a hypostatized monster without any substance. Your idea that we are in a “new era of morality” is nonsense. We are in a new era of childishness, in which our feelings determine our actions, unfiltered by discretion, readily exploited by enemies. Your massive strides of human progress reflect your own hubris, vanity and ignorance. You live in a comfortable world where your every need is met by a market system you yourself despise. You are incredibly soft and naive and ignorant of history, imagining that a new era of human wisdom has dawned. This is deluded. You having been protected by a civilization that is crumbling from decay. You yourself are proof of this decadence, as an unwitting witness. Your make-believe world can be brought to its knees in less than an hour by nuclear strikes. You and your public opinion can be eradicated by weapons you refuse to counter. You are clueless. You think your “philosophy” is supreme in the world, yet it derives from a temporarily victorious hedonism which is now doomed to defeat. Your wish is: We are all destined to feel good all the time. And anyone who questions the party atmosphere is evil. That is where your weak human nature has led you. Of course, you expect your political demands will be met. You do not realize that your continued existence depends entirely on the thinking, planning and foresight of people like me — people you despise because we say things that make you uncomfortable. We say things that threaten the childish cocoon of illusion in which you live. Perhaps you think I am mean for warning you, for explaining to you how harsh existence ultimately is. The truth is, compassion rules out tolerance for things that destroy life and moral order.

      6. I believe Russia attacked in less-than-ideal conditions because Putin believes he is invincible. He has lost touch with reason and is enacting a personal and delusional military agenda while the world watches in shock. I believe he thought there would be a cultural dilemma in America while he invaded under a guise of supposed anti-fascism, prompting fractured condemnation of his actions, which would spread through NATO partners and Eastern Europe, diluting the international response. This is not what happened. Instead, the world has unified against him, leaving his supposed Communist partner countries flat-footed and silent. The weight of reason will gradually crush Putin’s moldy aspirations, and Russia as a nation will likely turn the page on an expired political ideology. Whether nuclear missiles are launched before that happens or not decides our fate, but Russia will not win the conventional war.

      7. You dismiss Putin as a crazy person even as he aims his weapons to destroy you. Who is the real crazy person? — who is the person who believes he is “invincible”? That would be you, not him.

      8. Quite the opposite actually! I am content with my death coming tomorrow, because it’s out of my hands. Whether from a car wreck or nuclear strike, and in the grand timeline of history, my life in essence is already over. I have absolutely no delusions of my importance or lack thereof, and the “comforts” you claim make me soft and weak have not been certain throughout my life, nor unique to our nation; thus a commonality across various mass populations. You know nothing about me, but because I’m not afraid of madmen you paint me as pampered and naive. This is typical of a dying control ideology: seeing those who escape its paranoid grasp as soft and weak. This couldn’t be less true, and as time goes on, those who believe like you will eventually understand.

      9. Radiofort: I did not say you have delusions of grandeur. You have delusions about how history works. And so, you say you are already dead. You say history does not matter to you. Okay, so why are you here discussing history with me? Therefore, your response to me is an evasion. You are not dead. You are, in fact, alive. You write like a normal soft American person, so I can only address you as one. I can only relate to you as you present yourself. If you are not soft and naive, it is your own fault for presenting yourself as such. Do not blame me for misrepresenting you. If you are dead, we need to get the Society for Psychic Research here to investigate postings from a dead person. Do you have a headstone?

      10. Mr. Nyquist, seeing you try to get some sense into Radiofort has given me a deeper understanding of something I once read:, “If a wise man contendeth with a foolish man, whether he rage or laugh, there is no rest “.

        Radiofort, there is not a humble bone in your body. You are blind and arrogant. But by all means, keep walking according to the way you see things.

        You will understand in due time.

      11. And when there is nothing left but belittling bitterness, the sarcastic comedian emerges. Bravo, sir! You’ve become a jester.

      12. Greyknight: What you read is in Proverbs 29:9. In a somewhat free translation: “When a wise man is judged with a foolish man, the fool is aroused and laughs but he has no force.”

        Does this description of a fool describe Radiofort?

      13. He does seem rather haughty. Haughty people usually have a haughty laugh. But there is no substance to what he says, thus no force.

        But in the way it was worded that I typed, I was thinking of how no matter if Jeff is stern in his replies, or whether he has a touch of irony or sarcasm in his replies to Radiofort, it makes no difference to Radiofort.

        Mr. Nyquist might as well be talking to a brick wall as far as Radiofort is concerned.

        However, his replies are not wasted, for I have learned from them.

  35. La información y las imágenes que nos llegan a la Argentina delatan la tremenda crueldad rusa: mas de 500 mil refugiados, ciudades destruidas, familias rotas, niños llorando separados de sus familias y sus hogares, uso de bombas de racimo; les están disparando a personas que filman con sus celulares para impedirles registrar lo que ocurre, amenaza de uso de armas nucleares, miles de detenidos en Rusia por manifestarse contra la invasión, los soldados rusos capturados son poco mas que adolescentes.

    Esta es la verdadera cara del comunismo, esto siempre fue y será, no esa imagen que nos han vendido de compromiso político y social con los mas necesitados o esas falsas promesas de un paraíso materialista terreno.

    El comunismo es esto: ruina, miseria, destrucción, odio, crueldad, insensatez, locura, muerte.

    1. Así es. Se trata de una ideología satánica y la crueldad de los comunistas no tiene límites como estamos viendo con la situación en Ucrania. Putin va a seguir con eso de matar a los civiles para atemorizar a la gente de Ucrania. Como dijiste es hora de quitarnos la venda de los ojos para ver la situación tal y como es en realidad.

    2. Me recuerda a la Luftwaffe de Hermann Göring sobrevolando y aterrorizando una y otra vez ciudades que luego conquistarían sin realizar un solo disparo…aunque Putin es un mas cruel que Adolf Hitler (si esto es posible)

  36. Barth: you are not a serious person.

    There were folks like you in this country who apologized for Adolf Hitler’s aggression against Poland, Benelux, France, Scandinavia & Yugoslavia until … Pearl Harbor. Es verdad!

  37. ¡Oh! ¡Pero que bueno que es Putín!

    En un gesto de caridad insondable les pidió amablemente a los ucranianos que se vayan de sus hogares así el puede destruirlos sin resistencia alguna.

    Por el amor de Dios, las estupideces perversas que uno tiene que leer de los descerebrados comunistas.

  38. JEFF SAID**The Russians are putting their “own house” in order; that is, they are putting the USSR back together. This may take until the ground dries in June. So we may have a little time unless China erupts suddenly.**

    COMMENT- My understanding is that planting season for grain crops( corn & spring wheat) runs from mid April- late May in that part of the world ( Ukraine) If it is dry enough to plow&plant is is dry enough to roll heavy. Timeline may be tighter than you had noted above. Sorry….

    1. You can have a dry day or two for planting in May. Military operations require steady dry weather — not just an opening. May is usually the earliest for a long dry spell.

      1. I used to live in farming country. Tractors are designed to try to go over soft land, yet even they sometimes get bogged down. Some of the heavy equipment like sprayers have special large and wide tires to ride over soft soil. All of these farm equipments have a fraction of the weight and weight per square foot of a tank. The heavy farm equipment like combines don’t see fields until fall when the ground has dried out and gotten hard.

        This is why I didn’t expect a Russian invasion this early.

        This is also why I still don’t expect the Russians to move against the rest of Europe until summer. At the same time they will also attack the U.S. It looks like we have a few months to get ready. Don’t expect the government to help us.

  39. I have a friend in Poland feeding me info.
    I told him if possible to watch Kaliningrad 24/7
    If the Russians attempt a lan bridge through Lithuania
    things will get complicated

    Surprised no one has mentioned much about Kaliningrad.

    Jeff, if you have any questions for my friend, fire away.


    -Bill Freeman

    1. At some point, the Kaliningrad pocket needs to get returned to Germany, Poland, or perhaps as EU territory. It was a Stalinesque relic of WW2 — basically a post-war land grab. Russia has no historical claim to that territory, which was long ago the lair of the germanic Teutonic Knights. It is also a thorn in Poland’s and Lithuania’s backside.

      Perhaps if a larger war breaks out with Russia, it can be retaken by one of its neighbors and the Russkies ousted.

    2. Lithuanians are very aware of Kaliningrad and the ability of belarus to cut the baltics off at the Suwalki Gap. Been watching that space for a while. My family has already asked if we’ll take in the women and children. Which of course we will.

  40. Geeze my friend in Peru here thinks Chinese businessmen are world class capitalists. I don’t even know how to unravel that spaghetti brain .

    -bill freeman

    1. Peru is in the process of being taken over. I spoke, a few months ago, with the former vice president of Peru, who told me that the new president of the country is a communist. Oh my. Bad news and tragic for yet another South American nation.

      1. Yes, lots of changes for the worse in South America of late. My understanding is that Chile has taken a sharp left turn, as well.

      2. A Communist you say! Indeed the worst thing one can be whimsically labeled. Certainly a zero value human being. Without question.

      3. Yes, it really kind of is. They have no respect for tradition and are the wreckers of society whether that society is western, eastern, or somewhere in between. It is an evil ideology in the same way that its rightwing cousin, national socialism is. It’s about inciting hatred and divisions between different social classes and using this energy to destroy, wreck and exercise arbitrary control over others.

      4. One of the worst tragedies a country can face is having a communist ruler. Have you read about the Soviet Gulag or the Chinese labor camp system? I wrote nothing about the value of human beings who believe in communism. I am merely saying it is catastrophe when they get hold of political power. Why do you insist on twisting my words into something I never wrote?

    2. What makes you believe every successful Chinese business person is a hardcore Communist? You read their thoughts or something?

      1. Because their actions give them away….

        “Armand Hammer (May 21, 1898[1] – December 10, 1990) was an American business manager and owner, most closely associated with Occidental Petroleum, a company he ran from 1957[2] until his death. Called “Lenin’s chosen capitalist”, he was known as well for his art collection and his close ties to the Soviet Union.”

        “In 1978, Hammer, as a non-citizen of the Soviet Union, received the Soviet Union’s award the Order of Friendship of Peoples from Leonid Brezhnev because of his strong support of both the International Workers and Communist movement and the needs of the Soviet Union

      2. This is one example of one man from 40 years ago. Hardly a solid case you’re making, my man.

      3. You need to define “successful business person”. Jack Ma, head of Alibaba, is a member of the CCP. The same is true of the head of Huawei. And so forth. They are given the patina of being independent of the CCP, but in reality they are like the oligarchs in Russia, they wouldn’t have gotten where they are without the blessing of the CCP which comes with membership in the CCP.

        We’re not talking about the small shop owner who rents a stall in a local mall, or runs a business out of his garage, or even rents some retail space along the main drag, who can be shut down at the whim of the local authorities. Those people have a precarious existence. In fact, their continued allowance to do business may be dependent on bribes paid to the local CCP official.

        What may color the perception of many in third world countries is that Chinese immigrants have made a name for themselves as successful businesspeople. But we’re no longer talking about China in this case.

    3. Assuming someone brings bad news and tragedy to an entire country simply because they are labeled a Communist is just dumb. Flat out stupid. You think you know everything and everyone because you’ve read old books. I speak in the same extremes and generalities that you do. A real hurdle to honest discourse, isn’t it. And before you blame me for that, remember this is your blog. You set the tone.

      1. Places like Russia and China are closed societies. Sometimes these people that come over as “businessmen” are essentially forced to do so. It is a complicated situation, but it is not irrational to assume that some of these people have ulterior motives. This fact has been demonstrated many times over. That’s just the reality when you are dealing with folks coming from totalitarian regimes. That doesn’t mean they are all communists, but it is certainly not unreasonable to suspect this, given the closed nature of the society from which they come. I think you are being naïve in this regard.

      2. The communist movement is not one person. It is not a single believer in an idea bringing tragedy to a country. It is an international movement that operates under the same principles whenever it takes power.

      3. And you are convinced modern nations will blindly turn to that power, even though we’ve seen a better alternative? Even the most hardcore marxists in America could likely be talked down from their extremism to some degree, otherwise they’re not worth listening to or arguing with. Uncompromising radicals are a fringe, albeit loud minority these days, not the popular norm. They used to get away with stealing power through avoiding direct scrutiny and coralline the ignorant, but that time is over. The cat’s out of the bag. Maniacs can’t hide their mania anymore, and it’s not fashionable. They’re being escorted out of the Better Future Club. If they want to break stuff on their way out that’s the way it’ll be. But they’re a dying breed. A drowning man will swim extra hard in his final seconds. And while he can still bring others down with him, it doesn’t mean he is strong.

      4. Radiofort: you are out of touch with human nature and history. How are modern people different from their forebears, if not just dumber? Those whom you call “maniacs” are in power—Pelosi, Biden, Harris, and when they are removed from the scene, there are plenty of other maniacs ready to take their places, and I don’t mean just “The Squad”. People are not getting better. Society is not getting better. Unless there’s a new Reformation based on the past, as was the 16th century Reformation based on the Bible, the future is dark and foreboding. There is no “Better Future Club” based on man’s reason, there’s only the maniacs with their power that comes from the barrel of a gun.

      5. This is such a limited and sad perspective on life. You don’t think life is better in general for more people today than ever in the past? You don’t think more kids are born today with opportunity in front of them than in the past? Really? You don’t think people have gotten better at working together and doing great things? Is it really that hard for you to see the growing good in humanity? All you see is the things you fear? This is so very sad it breaks my heart.

  41. Hope U R right on your more optimistic timeline Mr Nyquist. If Wx cooperates it very well may play out that way.
    BTW I have plowed, planted, and served in a tank, though briefly.
    From this country boy / Engineers perspective- if you’re hoping for June before things go Hot/ Hotter- better pack your gear early. But you are already alluding to May now- I guess when its dry enough we’ll know because Ivan will leave the Tarmac-

    1. The current situation could go in any direction, but I would expect the finishing touches on Ukraine when the ground dries. NATO may not be able to avoid a heartfelt emotional intervention — however belated. People are watching the heroic Ukrainian defense and feeling ashamed of not helping. Fear of Russian nukes may be overcome by emotion.

      1. If the US/NATO become drawn into Ukraine, does that increase our vulnerability to direct attacks on the US and Western Europe? Maybe that’s an obvious yes, but I genuinely don’t know how it games out.

        Also, if we are directly attacked, is it a forgone conclusion that most of our population will/must die? I don’t see how any foreign power brings the US under control without killing or at least imprisoning most of us. Sorry if these are dumb questions, I am not militarily savvy.

      2. Jeff, how long do you believe it would take for China to mobilize its forces for an operation in the pacific? Also, I read that Russia’s current army is only about a tenth of the size of the Soviet army in World War 2. Will the Russians have to further mobilize and draft more troops if they intend on a wider war?

      3. The Russians will mobilize many more troops if this thing escalates, but the use of mass armies of the World War II type will not be effective unless the war degrades the social state and our technological capabilities. I suspect there will be a mass die-off across the globe if a war of mass destruction erupts. Most will die of starvation or even thirst.

  42. March 2nd 1919 marked the founding of the Communist International in Moscow. Here’s hoping (and praying) that Putin and Xi don’t decide to celebrate the anniversary with intercontinental ballistic fireworks.

  43. I remember my HS debate days and our number one rule was to be civil. The number two rule was to use our words and not resort to name calling which was considered as showing a lack of verbal ability if not intellect. Ah, but I am old and that was over 40 years ago. Things are different today, are they not?

    I’ve been looking at the map and, to my untrained military eye, it appears that the Russians are getting themselves rather well placed for a blitz-like pounce on Ukraine’s major cities, infrastructure and coast. I’m not hearing that in the news, so am probably way off base.

    Any thoughts on the actual success of these sanctions to Putin and his military? It does seem that the Russian people, Europe and my family (along with many others in the US) are going to be adversely affected. Some greatly. I dare not even think of those who live on the margins already world-wide. Will these sanctions come back to haunt us?

    Thank you Jeff for sharing your expertise. I’ve been battling the allure of communism for decades, but have not the extensive knowledge you do. And, yes, it has been difficult to be in such a minority. Thankful for my debate teacher. He gave me a foundation to be able to successfully maneuver all these years.

    1. Yes, the Russian movements are sensible. They will surround Kiev. They have flanked the main Ukrainian line and surrounded Mariupol, Much of the Ukrainian Army will surrender or face destruction in the eastern part of the country. The sanctions on Russia will make life harder for people. But Putin has prepared for this. There are always miscalculations, accidents and strange turns in war. We do not know how this will play out, but from a military standpoint Russia has already won this war unless the West intervenes. That is my opinion as an observer of the war as it has progressed.

  44. This is good news!

    A Chechen “hit squad” that was reportedly sent to Ukraine in an attempt to assassinate Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was “eliminated by Ukrainian forces.

    Secretary of Ukraine’s National Security and Defense Council Oleksiy Danilov told Ukrainian television that Chechen forces that “came to kill our president” were “eliminated,” according to reporting from the New York Post.

  45. Jeff, how are you dealing with all kinds of misinformation about this conflict right now? There’s so much falsehood going around, it is as if the mainstream journalists are trying to make the average person go insane from excess lies. It’s not exactly new, the whole CCP virus situation has a lot of deceit in every corner. We were told the Snake island folk were killed by the Russians, but then now the story is that they were taken captive, stories about that Ukranian ace pilot taking down 10 Russian fighter jets and it turns out people talking about this tale used footage from a flight simulator, it seems to get to know what’s really going on people interested in the truth are going to have to do some heavy duty sifting. It’s no wonder people prefer to believe there are reptilians behind all this, makes things much simpler

    1. It is always good to be skeptical of stories during war. However, people with access to satellites who are making makes, and showing what is happening with various military units gives you a better picture. The Russians are taking this slow because they have to stick with paved roads and paratroops to get things done. And they are being careful, I think, to avoid even worse losses. Unless Russia gives up, the war will end in Russia’s favor when the ground dries out.

      1. Jeff, I wouldn’t be so sure. Exactly what will victory look like for Russia? How many times did the U.S. conquer and reconquer Afghanistan during the past 20 years we were there? And who owns it now?

        Even when we ran Afghanistan, our military couldn’t go into most of the country without heavy armament — and quickly choppered out before nightfall to get back to safe bases. The Ukrainians have better weapons that the Taliban ever did, and many more are pouring in daily.

        No, this won’t end well for the Russians. I think Zelensky will eventually relocate to Lwiw and the Russians will get so bogged down, degraded, and drained, that Putin will be the one seeking a peace conference. All Zelensky has to do is keep resisting — and keep alive. Do you think the Russian soldiers even want to be there?

      2. The Russian leaders will not be using our rules of engagement. They do not care how many die. Keep killing until they quit. “Shoot them in the outhouse,” as Putin once said about the Chechen rebels. If it worked in Chechnya is can work in other territories.

      3. This is not your daddy’s Soviet Army anymore. The line soldiers and NCOs, and probably line officers, are not ideologues. They have no appetite or rationale for invading their neighbors. Some are already surrendering to the Ukr.’s. Professional soldiers might be induced to conquer and kill without regret. Not conscripts like this. The blundering execution of this invasion by the Russian generals shows that they are not in touch with their soldiers, nor have they bothered to prepare them.

        Jeff, I think if you had line military experience you would better understand what I am talking about. Generals can blather about and give out orders, but everyone down the line has to be on-board or the plan just doesn’t happen. Charging into enemy fire that may claim your life or blow your intestines all over the place takes a lot of motivation.

        Here it won’t work out, and in the end, the damage to the prestige of the Russian military will be so deep that they won’t be nearly as feared by their neighbors as before. Neighboring countries will see that they can meet and defeat the Russian threat, and that confidence will mean a lot in a future invasion. An isolated Russia, already experiencing demographic collapse, will fade into obscurity — albeit armed with nuclear weapons. Putin has badly erred.

      4. Soldiers often demoralize during a battle. They get killed, they surrender. You are claiming, from individual instances, that the whole Russian Army has demoralized. Maybe. But who is telling us about this? Ukrainians trying to raise their own morale? Already we know that the great Ukrainian fighter ace story is a fabrication. There is a fog of war. Measuring the enemy’s moral in the midst of a war is not so easy. Everyone on our side is eager to underestimate the Russians. They have their own propaganda stories. Are we watching those? I do believe, by the way, that there will be a revolution in Russia. It will occur after a Russian military defeat. I think that defeat may be some months in the future yet. Are they defeated now? Look at a map. Kherson just fell. Mariupol is about the fall. These are catastrophic losses for Ukraine. The Russians are turning their right flank.

    2. Virtual Conservative: “Neighboring countries will see that they can meet and defeat the Russian threat, and that confidence will mean a lot in a future invasion.” That’s a scary thought, because overconfidence is a sure fire recipe for defeat.

      1. Of course. There’s two sides to every coin. But isn’t this preferable to Russia quickly rolling over the Ukr. in a precision invasion in one week and then staring across the Ukr. border at …. Poland, Slovakia, {fill in the blank}?

        Let’s not all be so cynical, glass-is-half-empty folks

      2. You have to answer the question, “Why did Russia attack with poor ground conditions and overcast?” They knew this would slow them but they went anyway. What are we missing. All of this has been calculated.

  46. Mr. Nyquist one of the points you’ve made I’ve had to absorb is that while the West worships money, the communists worship power. This seems to be well-exemplified by the fact the West thinks it has a “gotcha” by going after Russian oligarchs, imagining they wield the same influence over Putin that billionaires exert over politicians in the West. It seems our policy wonks can’t imagine that for communists, it’s not who has the money, it’s who has the weapons. Likewise, we seem obsessed with the idea we can crush Russia by crashing their currency while meanwhile their gas and other exports keep flowing. To us, the financial economy trumps the real economy, but that’s kind of like thinking money matters if it’s unbacked by force. We never understood the enemy.

    It would be simpler if there were reptilians behind all this. Feeling extra heavy today.

  47. I read this comment on Twitter from someone who may have been an E European or Russian low level military guy in USSR. Not sure exactly. He wrote:

    “I was totally with Illarionov theory. Seemed obvious. When war started, I thought that Putin took Ukr resistance as cheating from Biden and snapped.

    But now the stuff surfaces that shows this war was planned well in advance.F.e.,GRU spies rented apartments in big cities since 2018 other indicators. And finally several ppl wrote that the plan was to grab Moldova after Ukraine and then Baltics. Yes, Baltics. After Kabul Putin was convinced that US and NATO are a paper tiger And to accomplish it for the 100s anniversary of the birth of USSR.
    It *feels* true”

    I had always assumed USSR was formed in 1918. His point that it was actually formed in December of 1922 is kind of alarming.