"President Zelenskyy is a true statesman acting with zeal, honor and humility"

Echo opinion letters published in the Houston Chronicle:

Dear Editor:  Donald Trump and JD Vance's bullying of Ukrainian President Zelenskyy in the Oval Office was an embarrassment.

I have never been so mortified by the behavior of an elected official than I was by the reprehensible display by our president and vice president. They made a mockery of their public meeting with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. 

President Zelenskyy is a true statesman acting with zeal, honor and humility in valiantly fighting Russia to a virtual standstill for three years. He has rallied his people and the civilized nations of the world in the defense of Ukraine in the face of unspeakable atrocities. He has unified the NATO alliance nations in a hitherto common goal of stopping the unbridled aggression and lust for conquest of Vladimir Putin. Zelenskyy should've been honored with a hero's welcome in his visit to our country.

Instead, he was met with an outlandish display of unprofessional rudeness, insults, lies and effrontery by two weak bullies who have shown themselves to be wholly unfit to represent our once proud country. These churlish clowns tarnished the good name of the United States. Zelenskyy did nothing to provoke the onslaught and he certainly did not deserve it. I am wholly unable to even imagine any legitimate purpose in treating an ally in such deplorable fashion.

For his part, Zelenskyy was a dignified gentleman, even while our president and vice president embarrassed our country on the world stage.

I am writing this with the hope that by some miracle it could reach President Zelenskyy so that I could extend my sincerest apologies. I am ashamed of what happened. I hope he could forgive the United States and know that our supposed leaders were not speaking or acting for us all.

From Tanner Garth, in Houston Texas

Dear Editor:  President Zelenskyy respectfully pointed out the numerous times that Vladimir Putin has blatantly violated “signed” agreements, and trusting the Russian president is a fool's game. I can only hope that one day, and sooner rather than later, some of our gutless GOP congressional members will wake up to where Donald Trump’s infatuation with Mr. Putin and his autocratic counterparts is leading us.

Trump and Vice President JD Vance showed their true bully colors when they tag-teamed President Zelenskyy in front of the whole world. They attempted to force him into an agreement to give up Ukraine’s vast mineral resources as payment for our help in fighting Russian aggression, with no guarantee that the U.S. would hold Russia to any ceasefire agreements potentially achieved by peace talks.

Their behavior was a mirror image of the tactics used by Adolf Hitler in his first year as chancellor of Germany when he began his blitz through Europe: bully, humiliate, intimidate and, Trump's most ubiquitous tactic, lie.

We cannot continue to normalize the egregious behavior of Trump and his kangaroo court of Cabinet members. Trump and Vance will heartily give up our country for a selfie at the Kremlin.

From Barbara Drozdowski Mackey, in Houston Texas

Ukraine: A first person status report in May 2023

Echo opinion published in The New York Times by 

David French. 

Just Arrived in Kyiv. The Ukrainian Valor Is Breathtaking.

The combined power of Ukrainian valor and American technology may be even greater than we recognize.

KYIV, Ukraine — This week, I was jolted awake by an air raid siren for the first time since my service in Iraq, just over a decade ago. It was roughly 3 a.m. on Monday night, and I was sleeping soundly here in Ukraine’s capital. I’m visiting with a group organized by the Renew Democracy Initiative, a pro-democracy organization founded by the Russian dissident (and chess grandmaster) Garry Kasparov, and our small band was of course warned this was likely to happen. Missile and drone attacks are common in Kyiv. But this night was different. Ukrainian officials called it “exceptional.”

The inbound missiles included Kinzhal hypersonic missiles, among the most vaunted weapons in the Russian arsenal. Last August, the Russian defense minister, Sergei Shoigu, said the weapons were unstoppable, “impossible” to detect or intercept.

Well, they were detected and intercepted. I watched (and heard) it happen. The skies lit up over Kyiv as the Ukrainians launched air defenses, including what appeared to be American-made Patriot missiles. At the end of the exchange, Ukrainian and American officials claimed that Ukrainian air defenses intercepted all six of the hypersonic missiles launched by Russia, and in a meeting on Thursday, the Ukrainian defense minister Oleksii Reznikov specifically attributed the Kinzhal kills to Patriot missiles. A Patriot battery was damaged, but reportedly still operational. And yet again Russian military capabilities had proven to be exaggerated. Not toothless, certainly — it was an anxious night — but hardly invincible.

I share this story for multiple reasons. First, it highlights a fundamental reality of this conflict: Russia has been waging an unrestricted, gloves-off military campaign against Ukraine since the opening moments of the war, while the United States has continued to constrain Ukraine’s response. For example, while Russia attacks civilian targets across the length and breadth of Ukraine with long-range missiles and drones, we’ve denied Ukraine the use of the long-range (i.e., effective to about 190 miles) Army Tactical Missile System, or ATACMS, which could be used to strike military targets deep in Crimea or across the Russian border.

A still image taken from video shows a flying object exploding near the dome of the Kremlin on May 2.

While the world spent weeks discussing a single, mysterious (and ineffectual) apparent drone attack on the Kremlin, large-scale terror attacks on Ukrainian cities and civilian infrastructure are routine. Indeed, the attack on Kyiv on Monday was notable mainly for the nature of the weapons used, not for the relatively routine fact that Russia aimed missiles at the capital. I’ve seen destroyed and damaged apartment buildings with my own eyes. We’ve grown accustomed to overwhelming Russian aggression. Yet we fret about far smaller Ukrainian responses.

I understand the reasons for the concern. Russia is a nuclear power, and the specter of nuclear escalation has haunted the conflict from the start. Thus, the debate about American military aid has been dominated by a key question: How much aid is enough without being too much? What kind of weapons and tactics can defeat Russia in Ukraine without threatening Moscow so much that the conflict escalates out of control?

"Russia has been waging an unrestricted, gloves-off military campaign against Ukraine since the opening moments of the war, while the United States has continued to constrain Ukraine’s response."

Yet excessive restraint also has its costs, potentially prolonging the war and leading Russia to believe that it can outlast Ukraine — or, more realistically, the commitment of Ukraine’s Western allies. 

To put it another way, excessive restraint can mean that the costs of the war, as great as they are, remain more or less sustainable for Russia, even as it strains the limits of its conventional capabilities to make those costs unsustainable for Ukraine.

Virtually every meaningful inch of Ukrainian territory is subject to Russian strikes, while Russia itself effectively serves as a giant safe haven for its military and military infrastructure. And if military history teaches us anything, it teaches us that combatants who enjoy true safe havens possess considerable advantages over their more vulnerable opponents.

At the same time, is it really true that there is a meaningfully greater risk of nuclear war if Ukraine can target the Russian military throughout all of Russian-occupied Ukraine (including Crimea) and in the periphery of Russia close to Ukraine? The recent decision by Britain to supply Storm Shadow cruise missiles, which have a range comparable to ATACMS, suggests it is skeptical that is the case.

In a meeting I attended with the Ukrainian foreign minister Dmytro Kuleba, he argued that the West has long been able to deter Russian nuclear use, including during what he called “more difficult” past crises. He noted that fear of escalation has been used to delay virtually every new delivery of weapons. In his words, “From Day 1 the concept of escalation was the concept of excuse.”

But Monday’s attack wasn’t notable simply for once again highlighting the moral and tactical disparities of the conflict. Ukraine’s ability to defeat the Kinzhal should be a startling moment for America’s peer or near-peer military competitors. As Fabian Hoffmann, a doctoral research fellow at the Oslo Nuclear Project, wrote on Twitter on Tuesday, “If I was a Russian nuclear strategist today, I would be very worried. You just received proof of concept that Western air and missile defenses can intercept 100% of your tactical nuclear delivery vehicles (SRBM, BM, aircraft) in a time-coordinated, multi-vector attack.”

In plain English, this means that we may have a greater ability to defeat many of Russia’s most fearsome delivery vehicles than we once thought. I’ll withhold judgment on our ability to defeat China’s comparable weapons systems, but this moment can’t be reassuring to Chinese military planners, who like the Russians have developed their own hypersonic missile capabilities. In the most significant combat test so far between Western air defenses and hypersonic missiles, the air defenses prevailed. 

Yet this was not their first success. Last week Pentagon officials confirmed that Patriot missiles shot down a single Kinzhal missile in a smaller strike on May 4.

And that brings me to the next key point: The most important advances in Ukrainian air defenses have come from Americans. For all my critiques about our unwillingness (so far) to supply ATACMS missiles to Ukraine, or my concerns that we’ve (so far) refused to supply advanced fighter aircraft or greater numbers of Abrams tanks, the bottom line is that American weapons and American support have proved remarkably effective at blunting the Russian advance, and Ukrainians know it.

Americans are weary of military entanglements. The Afghanistan withdrawal was a shocking, humiliating debacle. Most Americans believe invading Iraq was the wrong decision. We’re exhausted after a pandemic that would be an ordeal under the best of circumstances and proved particularly polarizing in our divisive times. In parts of the American right in particular, there is a sense of American failure and American decline. Yet in the most strategically important military conflict in generations, the reality is completely different. Here, the combination of Ukrainian valor and American technical and intelligence capabilities is proving decisive.

It is difficult to communicate the level of Ukrainians’ affection for Americans and gratitude for American support that one experiences here. They know how important our help is. They know that we’ve given them — to a far greater extent than any other nation — the tools and resources to repel a vicious invasion. 

Moreover, our strategy has largely worked. Ukraine defeated Russia’s initial attempt to take Kyiv. It has pushed Russia back from Kharkiv. It has retaken Kherson. It has apparently stopped the most recent Russian offensive. Yes, it has taken immense losses, but no rational person could look at the military situation in Ukraine and think that Russia has achieved its objectives. It is Russia, not Ukraine, that faces the greatest military peril at the moment.

I had a mixture of feelings on Monday night as we watched Ukraine’s new air defenses arc up into the night sky, but one of them was pride. We did this. We saved lives. We are helping a courageous people confront and defeat a truly evil regime. This does not happen by accident. There are very capable American diplomats, soldiers and intelligence officials who are helping make this happen, and we should be grateful for their service.

This is primarily a Ukrainian story, of course. We know from bitter experience that we can supply “allies” with billions of dollars of American weapons, only to watch them collapse in the face of a determined attack. But Ukrainian valor and resolve are breathtaking. Most Ukrainians I’ve talked to since arriving don’t say “after the war”; they say “after the victory.” 

But, this is also an American story, and at the risk of sounding a bit corny, when I watched the air defenses we helped build intercept Russian hypersonic missiles above Kyiv, I felt proud to be an American.

David French is a New York Times Opinion columnist. He is a lawyer, writer and veteran of Operation Iraqi Freedom. 

Evil Putin and the historic back story about revenge

History nearly always has a back story to tell about every consequential event. This drill down analysis about why Vladimir Putin is demonically driven to destroy the innocent people of Ukraine may have deeper and unexpected motivation.

This David Ignatius essay echo discusses this is published in The Washington Post. 

When people try to comprehend the catastrophe of President Vladimir Putin’s invasion of Ukraine, they often draw a straight line back to his apprenticeship as a KGB spy, his nostalgia for a fallen Soviet Union and his rage at NATO enlargement. And that may indeed be the way future historians read this tragic story.

The coat of arms of the Chechen Republic is the official symbol of the Chechen Republic. Approved by acting President of Chechnya Sergey Abramov on 22 June 2004.

But another, more complicated version emerges in some recently declassified documents from the George W. Bush administration. Bush had maintained a surprisingly close relationship with the Russian leader, centered on a counterterrorism alliance. The United States was battling al-Qaeda at the time; Russia was fighting Chechen separatists. But Putin came to believe that America was an unreliable, hypocritical partner — and that belief would curdle into the open feud that has deepened, year by year.

This view that Beslan marked a turning point is shared by many other senior officials from the Bush years. “Our relations with Russia were calm, even warm,” wrote Condoleezza Rice in her 2011 memoir, “No Higher Honor.” Rice, a Russian speaker, was Bush’s national security adviser in his first term and then secretary of state. She noted that Bush and Putin developed a “strategic dialogue group” and a “presidential checklist” to address common problems.

This “alternative history” doesn’t condone or excuse Putin’s horrific crimes in Ukraine. His invasion of his neighbor was the illegal, unjustifiable act of a ruthless authoritarian. But in assessing the roots of such a conflict, it’s useful to understand the mind of the adversary — and to see clearly the pathway to disaster.

So, here are some little-known facts: The Russian-American counterterrorism alliance ruptured after a Sept. 1, 2004, attack by Chechen separatists on a school in Beslan, in the Russian region of North Ossetia. When the Russian authorities regained control on Sept. 3, 333 people were dead, including 186 children, plus 31 attackers.

In the aftermath, Putin blamed the United States for encouraging the separatists by offering asylum to “moderate” Chechens and urging Russia to negotiate with them. A headline in Pravda argued: “How would Americans feel if Russia offered sanctuary to Osama bin Laden?”

Russian overreaction contributed to the slaughter at Beslan. The European Court of Human Rights found in 2017, that Russia had used tanks, grenades and flamethrowers to crush the hostage-takers, adding to civilian casualties. 

Russia’s brutal campaign against the Chechens was a foretaste of what was to come in Syria in 2015, and now in Ukraine. But in 2004, Russia and the United States were partners in a “global war on terror.”

Three days after the September 2004, terrorist attack at Beslan, Putin delivered a blistering speech from the Kremlin voicing his indignation at the West in language he hadn’t used before: “We showed ourselves to be weak. And the weak get beaten.” And then, in an unmistakable reference to the United States, Putin added: “Some would like to tear from us a ‘juicy piece of pie.’ Others help them … reasoning that Russia still remains one of the world’s major nuclear powers, and as such still represents a threat to them.”

“We never got back on track” after the Beslan incident, argues Thomas Graham, who was Bush’s National Security Council senior director for Russia at the time.

“Putin concluded — wrongly in the U.S. view — that the U.S. counterterrorism campaign was just a smokescreen to cover American geopolitical advance in Eurasia at Russia’s expense,” Graham wrote in an afterword to the Russia section of the new book “Hand-Off: The Foreign Policy George W. Bush Passed to Barack Obama,” a collection of declassified transition memos prepared for the incoming Obama administration.

From their first meeting, Rice wrote, Putin and Bush were “two men who enjoyed a certain degree of personal chemistry.” 

Bush expressed this in his now-chilling 2001 encomium: “I looked the man in the eye. … I was able to get a sense of his soul.” But beyond Bush’s overenthusiasm, there were real signs of partnership, as one of the declassified documents explains.

“Not only was Putin the first world leader to reach out to President Bush following the September 11 terrorist attacks, but he was also broadly receptive to President Bush’s initiatives, demonstrating early support for the War on Terror and U.S. operations in Afghanistan,” noted a January 2009, secret memo prepared by the Bush NSC’s Russia directorate.

To help the CIA organize its post-9/11 campaign against al-Qaeda in Afghanistan, “Putin overruled his security people and said that Russia would not block U.S. efforts to find bases in Uzbekistan and Kyrgyzstan,” Graham told me. Russia also provided the United States with intelligence from its network of agents inside Afghanistan.

One vivid anecdote from that time: Rice recalled in her memoir that when CIA Director George J. Tenet said he needed supplies for Northern Alliance allies fighting the Taliban, she called Sergei Ivanov, the Russian defense minister. Ivanov said his agents would find the Americans some donkeys that could traverse the narrow mountain paths.

Then came Beslan. Did Putin have any grounds for his claim afterward that America was aiding the Chechen separatists? According to a careful review of the evidence by the Belfer Center at the Harvard Kennedy School, Putin was “partially correct.” The Belfer report noted that the United States in 2004, granted asylum to Ilyas Akhmadov, who was foreign minister of a Chechen separatist government in exile. The Bush administration initially opposed Akhmadov’s asylum request but then changed position.

Chechen separatism was a popular cause among some conservatives. Sen. John McCain (R-Ariz.) met with Akhmadov (foreign minister of the Chechen Republic of Ichkeria. He currently resides in the United States) at least three times. The National Endowment for Democracy awarded him a federally funded fellowship. Chechen separatists also raised money in the United States to support their cause, Graham recalled.

Putin later made the extravagant claim that U.S. intelligence agencies had aided the Chechen separatists. The Belfer Center report, again after careful review, found “no evidence of the U.S. government’s direct support for armed groups operating in Chechnya and/or other parts of the North Caucasus.”

In late 2004, Putin’s anger at what he saw as the West’s machinations would increase when Ukrainian opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko won the presidency over the Kremlin-backed candidate, Viktor Yanukovych. Russia’s power was slipping around its borders, and Putin was unable to reverse the disintegration.

Although Putin argued that NATO expansion was the reason he felt betrayed, Bush administration officials say he didn’t express it at the time. “While displeased, Russia swallowed with little acrimony NATO’s admission of seven Central European states in 2004,” Graham writes.

From 2004, on, the movie begins to roll toward the nightmare scenes of today. In a 2007, speech at the Munich Security Conference, Putin denounced the West. “NATO has put its front-line forces on our borders,” he said. “We have the right to ask: Against whom is this expansion intended?” In 2008, he told William J. Burns, then ambassador to Russia and now CIA director: “Don’t you know that Ukraine is not even a real country?”

Putin’s turn away from the West may have been inevitable. The Russian leader is an authoritarian, and he wanted to protect Russian influence in the former Soviet space. But Graham poses an intriguing query in summarizing the classified record: “Did the United States and Europeans miss something fundamental in the Russian situation and psyche at the time? Did they misread the situation and fail to craft an offer of cooperative relations that adequately accounted for Russian interests and perspectives?”

Regardless, a current U.S. official who follows Russia closely argues that “2004, was a turning point, there’s little doubt about it.” 

By late that year, U.S. intelligence was gathering reports that Putin’s security chiefs were urging him to break decisively with Bush and adopt a more aggressive policy. And ultimately he did, with a vengeance.

Republicans must support Ukraine and oppose brutal Russian aggression

Ukraine’s fight benefits US national security. The House GOP is on the wrong side: Echo opinion published in the Vail Daily, a Colorado newspaper, written by The Dispatch columnist Jonah Goldberg.

Unfortunately, the world is entering the 12th month of a “Russian special military operation” that was supposed to be over in well under 12 days. 

Putin's unprovoked Ukraine war is a financial disaster for Russia.

.In fact, the Kremlin even told Russian officers to pack dress uniforms and medals for the intended military parades in Kyiv a few days after the shooting started.

Things turned out differently. By launching the first land war in Europe since 1945 with the expressed intent to stop both the expansion of NATO eastward and the political and economic migration of Ukraine westward, Putin’s adventure is already well on its way to being remembered as one of the great strategic blunders in living memory.

Sweden and Finland — which shares more than 800 miles of border with Russia — are applying to the North Atlantic Treaty Organization. The process to admit Ukraine to the European Union is underway, and Ukraine’s military is rapidly switching to newer, better and NATO-compatible weapons. Germany, which recently agreed to ship tanks to Ukraine, has jettisoned much of its non-interventionist foreign policy and committed to much more robust defense spending. Putin’s long-standing strategy of using energy to hold Western Europe hostage has largely backfired.

China, which made a big show of its “no limits” partnership with its neighbor, has so far only offered extremely limited support for Russia. It’s almost as if the Beijing government is embarrassed by its ally’s pathetic showing — which appears to have taken the Chinese leaders by surprise.

In short, these are wildly momentous events, which mostly benefit  American national security. But you wouldn’t necessarily know that from political debates about Ukraine. Indeed, there’s an otherworldly aspect to the whole conversation.

For instance, going into the midterms, Rep. Kevin McCarthy, R-California, now the House speaker, settled on the talking point that Republicans wouldn’t give Ukraine a “blank check” the way Democrats had. But that wasn’t happening.

As the Hudson Institute’s Luke Coffey noted at the time, most of the dollars “allocated for military assistance to Ukraine never leave the United States,” he wrote. “Funds for military support are not wired to Ukrainian government bank accounts.” We send Ukraine weapons — including, eventually, Abrams tanks — and other equipment, and that money goes toward replenishing our stockpiles.

President Biden has handled things fairly well behind the scenes, but his public statements tend to be weighed down by things he won’t do — like send tanks and other weapons systems — which he inevitably ends up doing. He’s also very fond of insisting — for more understandable reasons — that we will not be sending American troops to fight in Ukraine. Indeed, the only thing that garners bipartisan support regarding Ukraine is that we shouldn’t get into a direct war with Russia, and therefore NATO shouldn’t do anything that “provokes” Putin.

Provoke him to do what, exactly? to invade Ukraine and target civilians by the millions? He’s doing that already. Not supplying these weapons in a more timely manner was what was actually provocative. The dithering encouraged Putin to wage a missile and artillery war on Ukrainian population centers in the hope that he could beat Ukraine into submission before the West realized it needed to send the weapons Ukraine needed.

No one wants a nuclear war, of course. Which is why Russia keeps threatening one. If the policy is going to be, Russia can do whatever it wants because it has nuclear weapons, then make that argument.

But if the strategic goal is for Ukraine to win back its own territory using its own troops, then the tactical imperative is to give Ukraine what it needs to win. Normally, when America sends troops to fight, the refrain from critics is to let the Iraqis or Afghans or whomever fight for their own freedom. That’s what Ukraine is doing.

Mitt Romney was right — and Barack Obama was wrong — in 2012 when he described Russia as our “geopolitical foe.” Enabling Ukrainians to degrade Russia is in our national interest. And, if the new “nationalist” Republicans were serious about the sanctity of national borders, they’d recognize that Ukraine is literally the front line of that fight.

Some seem to think it’s provocative to let Russia believe NATO is using Ukraine as a proxy for its interests. But that horse left the barn long ago. That’s the official Russian view, blared out constantly on Russia state media. Russian Security Council Secretary Nikolai Patrushev recently declared, “The events in Ukraine are not a clash between Moscow and Kyiv — this is a military confrontation between Russia and NATO.” Moscow is “not dealing with Ukraine — we’re past that,” prime-time Russian TV host Vladimir Solovyov announced last October. “We’re dealing with the entire NATO bloc, with the might of its military industrial complex.”

If only that were true.
Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast.

Ukraine military continues an inspired offensive against a defeated Russian military

Reported in The Guardian by 

Putin loyalist Kadyrov criticized Russian army’s performance. Ramzan Kadyrov, who is the Kremlin's appointed Chechnya leader, suggests Putin might not be fully aware of the true state of affairs.

Ramzan Kadyrov, the Kremlin-appointed leader of Chechnya, has criticized the Russian army’s leadership, after it appeared to be caught off guard by Ukraine’s fightback against the Russian invasion in the north-east.

Stand with the Ukraine 💙

In a sign that the Kremlin may face serious fallout over the loss of territory that the Russian occupation administrations had repeatedly stated they planned to keep “for ever” (❗- )   

Danger!

 

Hello? 

Kadyrov also suggested that Vladimir Putin might not be aware of the real state of affairs.

“They have made mistakes and I think they will draw the necessary conclusions,” Kadyrov said in an audio message posted to his Telegram channel on Sunday.

Vladimir Putin is a defeated monster.

“If today or tomorrow no changes in strategy are made, I will be forced to speak with the leadership of the defense ministry and the leadership of the country to explain the real situation on the ground to them. It’s a very interesting situation. It’s astounding, I would say,” said Kadyrov, a former rebel turned Kremlin ally who rules Chechnya – a Russian republic in the Caucasus – with an iron fist and has a paramilitary force at his command.

Since the invasion in February, the Kremlin has focused on silencing liberal voices critical of the war, but as things go sour on the battlefield, Putin faces a headache with what to do with former cheerleaders who want Russia to commit more forces to the war to turn the tide.

Many units from Chechnya have taken part in Russia’s war effort, and while Kadyrov is ostensibly hyper-loyal to Moscow, he is one of the few Russian political figures whose messaging the Kremlin does not fully control.

All eyes will be on how Putin responds to the retreat. He has previously glossed over claims that he made a terrible miscalculation in February when he thought the Russian army could overrun Ukraine in a matter of days. In a recent appearance he said Russia had “lost nothing” during the war, but the major losses of recent days could be a harder sell to the Russian population.

On Saturday, October 1,  as the disastrous news from the front trickled through, Putin was busy opening a huge observation wheel in a Moscow park as part of celebrations for Moscow Day. Military bloggers sharply criticized him for going ahead with the celebrations.

The Guardian: So, is (evil!) Vladimir Putin willing to risk nuclear war so that he can avoid admitting defeat? Andrew Rothin Moscow writes: In fact, the irrational Russian leader’s escalatory threat to annex parts of Ukraine in efforts to halt the Ukrainian counteroffensive is fraught with risk.

A premonition? "This would take us a hundred years back to 1917..."

“It's pretty clear that Russia will become poorer and more technologically backward, the choices for its citizens will be radically diminished and for many, many years to come,” Alden said.

Russia's ties to the global economy are rapidly unwinding as crushing sanctions and the Kremlin's response upend decades of post-Soviet reforms.

Echo essay published in The Hill: Russia's efforts to salvage economy could have devastating impacts, by Sylvan Lane and Karl Evers-Hillstrom

In fact, the Kremlin announced strict banking and export limits meant to prop up its currency’s plunging value, at the expense of foreigners. 

Moscow has also pledged to seize the assets of any business leaving Russia and allow its companies to steal Western patents. Experts say the fallout could last long after the war in Ukraine ends and tarnish Russia's standing for decades, even if sanctions are eased.

“Measures like this are going to stay in place for a long time. I think this is going to cut Russia off from access to Western finance, trade and investment for years, if not decades, to come,” said Edward Alden, senior fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations.

“The conclusion will be now that Russia is both an immediate and long-term threat to European and American security, and economic ties with Russia are going to strengthen Russia, and anything that strengthens Russia is dangerous for the West,” he added.

President Biden announced the U.S. and Europe would end normalized trade relations with Moscow and seek its removal from the World Trade Organization (WTO), the latest blow to the Russian economy. Also, President Biden announced that the United States would ban certain iconic Russian imports, such as vodka and seafood, amid growing pressure from lawmakers.

Kicking Russia out of the World Trade Organization, and ending normalized trade relations would subject Russian exports to higher tariffs and trade barriers.

The Russian Revolution of 1917, one of the most momentous developments in modern history. It involved masses of “ordinary” laboring people doing something so extraordinary—overturning oppressive rulers, pushing aside their exploiters, and trying to create something new—a society of the free and the equal. It is to be expected that when people seek to make sense of such a story, sparks will fly.

Experts say the decision has a limited economic impact, especially as sanctions limit trade between the nations, but sends an important message to the Kremlin.

“It’s not going to be a huge punch, candidly, just because of the nature of the trade flows and the actions we've already taken,” said Emily Kilcrease, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

“Nonetheless, you're doing it with allies, so that will boost the economic impact. And I do think it's a really important step to show that we're not going to let Russia freeride on a rules-based system without actually being constrained by it,” she added.

New Planet, 1921 by Konstantin Yuon: painting of the Russian Revolution of 1917, depicts it as a cosmic event: the birth of a new world. The people are in commotion, filled with awe, perhaps fear. Yuon's scene was intended for a theatre curtain, which may explain its dramatic appearance. Source: The State Tretyakov Gallery.

The move to end normal trade relations follows weeks of deepening economic pain in Russia. Extreme steps have been taken by the Kremlin in Moscow and the Russian Central Bank, to prevent the Russian Ruble from even further devaluation and retaliate against crushing Western sanctions.

Moreover, the Kremlin and Russian Central Bank have taken extreme steps to prevent the worthless Russian Ruble from further devaluation and retaliate against crushing Western sanctions. 

Russia announced it will halt its foreign exports of grain, ban the purchase of dollars and other foreign currencies and limit the amount of foreign currency Russians can withdraw from their bank accounts.

Furthermore, Russia has frozen its battered stock market since the start of the invasion to prevent investors from pulling their funds. Russia has also begun to default on its bond payments, causing its credit rating to plunge amid a mass exodus of foreign businesses.

In response to sanctions and public outcry, more than 300 multinational corporations have suspended some or all of their operations in Russia, including iconic American brands such as Apple, Visa, McDonald’s, Disney and Coca-Cola. Russian citizens are no longer able to use many of their credit cards, watch Netflix shows or even purchase new electronics.

“It's pretty clear that Russia will become poorer and more technologically backward, the choices for its citizens will be radically diminished and for many, many years to come,” Alden said.

“That's an astonishing series of penalties in a very short period of time,” Alden added.

Putin has vowed to seek “legal solutions” to seize the assets of Western companies that leave the country. The Kremlin aims to take control of businesses with foreign ownership of 25 percent or more and then auction them off to Russian investors. (Maine Writer- So, how will those potential Russian investors pay for these auctioned businesses?)

Moscow is already refusing to return hundreds of airplanes it leased from Western companies, which have a combined value of $10 billion. Russian lawmakers are also weighing taking over auto plants owned by Ford, Stellantis, General Motors, Volkswagen and Toyota, among others, and multibillion-dollar energy projects partially owned by ExxonMobil and BP.

U.S. business leaders and even one of Russia’s wealthiest oligarchs say that the move will effectively bring an end to international investment in Russia, potentially causing permanent damage to the country that would linger even if sanctions were eventually lifted.

"This would take us a hundred years back, to the year 1917, and the consequences of such a step would be the global distrust of Russia from investors, it would be felt for many decades," Russian billionaire Vladimir Potanin said in a statement Friday on the Telegram messaging app.

Neil Bradley, chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s top corporate lobbying group, said in a statement that such a step “would only add to Russia’s increasing isolation, show its disregard for the rule of law, and ultimately inflict more pain on the Russian people.”

Worsening investors' fears, the Kremlin is greenlighting a rule that allows Russian firms to steal intellectual property from companies that are home to “unfriendly” nations such as the U.S. and its allies. Under the Kremlin’s plans, Russian oligarchs could take over assets such as Coca-Cola’s bottling factories or Ford’s commercial van manufacturing plant and attempt to continue to manufacture and sell those products under the existing brand.

Russia's ties to the global economy are rapidly unwinding as crushing sanctions and the Kremlin's response upend decades of post-Soviet reforms.

President Biden announced the U.S. and Europe would end normalized trade relations with Moscow and seek its removal from the World Trade Organization (WTO), the latest blow to the Russian economy. He also announced the U.S. would ban certain iconic Russian imports, such as vodka and seafood, amid growing pressure from lawmakers.

Kicking Russia out of the WTO and ending normalized trade relations would subject Russian exports to higher tariffs and trade barriers.

In response to sanctions and public outcry, more than 300 multinational corporations have suspended some or all of their operations in Russia, including iconic American brands such as Apple, Visa, McDonald’s, Disney and Coca-Cola. Russian citizens are no longer able to use many of their credit cards, watch Netflix shows or even purchase new electronics.

“It's pretty clear that Russia will become poorer and more technologically backward, the choices for its citizens will be radically diminished and for many, many years to come,” Alden said.

“That's an astonishing series of penalties in a very short period of time,” Alden added.

Putin has vowed to seek “legal solutions” to seize the assets of Western companies that leave the country. The Kremlin aims to take control of businesses with foreign ownership of 25 percent or more and then auction them off to Russian investors.

Moscow is already refusing to return hundreds of airplanes it leased from Western companies, which have a combined value of $10 billion. Russian lawmakers are also weighing taking over auto plants owned by Ford, Stellantis, General Motors, Volkswagen and Toyota, among others, and multibillion-dollar energy projects partially owned by ExxonMobil and BP.

U.S. business leaders and even one of Russia’s wealthiest oligarchs say that the move will effectively bring an end to international investment in Russia, potentially causing permanent damage to the country that would linger even if sanctions were eventually lifted.

"This would take us a hundred years back, to the year 1917, and the consequences of such a step would be the global distrust of Russia from investors, it would be felt for many decades," Russian billionaire Vladimir Potanin said in a statement Friday on the Telegram messaging app.

Neil Bradley, chief policy officer at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the nation’s top corporate lobbying group, said in a statement that such a step “would only add to Russia’s increasing isolation, show its disregard for the rule of law, and ultimately inflict more pain on the Russian people.”

Worsening investor fears, the Kremlin is greenlighting a rule that allows Russian firms to steal intellectual property from companies that are home to “unfriendly” nations, such as the U.S. and its allies. Under the Kremlin’s plans, Russian oligarchs could take over assets such as Coca-Cola’s bottling factories or Ford’s commercial van manufacturing plant and attempt to continue to manufacture and sell those products under the existing brand.

Steven Fox, founder and CEO of Veracity Worldwide, a consulting firm that advises businesses on geopolitical and regulatory risks, said the controversial moves amount to a “nail in the coffin” for foreign investor appetite in Russia.

Russian Ruble Currency Crash

“There were always questions with regard to the rule of law in Russia from an investment perspective, and intellectual property theft has long been a concern,” Fox said. “Now, that’s all out in the open, there’s not even a semblance of law.”

Russia's ties to the global economy are rapidly unwinding as crushing sanctions and the Kremlin's response upend decades of post-Soviet reforms.

The Kremlin announced strict banking and export limits meant to prop up its currency’s plunging value this week at the expense of foreigners. Moscow has also pledged to seize the assets of any business leaving Russia and allow its companies to steal Western patents.

“The conclusion will be now that Russia is both an immediate and long-term threat to European and American security, and economic ties with Russia are going to strengthen Russia, and anything that strengthens Russia is dangerous for the West,” he added.

President Biden announced the U.S. and Europe would end normalized trade relations with Moscow and seek its removal from the World Trade Organization (WTO), the latest blow to the Russian economy. He also announced the U.S. would ban certain iconic Russian imports, such as vodka and seafood, amid growing pressure from lawmakers.

Kicking Russia out of the WTO and ending normalized trade relations would subject Russian exports to higher tariffs and trade barriers.

Experts say the decision has a limited economic impact, especially as sanctions limit trade between the nations, but sends an important message to the Kremlin.

“It’s not going to be a huge punch, candidly, just because of the nature of the trade flows and the actions we've already taken,” said Emily Kilcrease, senior fellow at the Center for a New American Security.

“Nonetheless, you're doing it with allies, so that will boost the economic impact. And I do think it's a really important step to show that we're not going to let Russia freeride on a rules-based system without actually being constrained by it,” she added.

The move to end normal trade relations follows weeks of deepening economic pain in Russia.

The Kremlin and Russian Central Bank have taken extreme steps to prevent the ruble from further devaluation and retaliate against crushing Western sanctions. Russia announced it will halt its foreign exports of grain, ban the purchase of dollars and other foreign currencies and limit the amount of foreign currency Russians can withdraw from their bank accounts.

Russia has frozen its battered stock market since the start of the invasion to prevent investors from pulling their funds. Russia has also begun to default on its bond payments, causing its credit rating to plunge amid a mass exodus of foreign businesses.

In response to sanctions and public outcry, more than 300 multinational corporations have suspended some or all of their operations in Russia, including iconic American brands such as Apple, Visa, McDonald’s, Disney and Coca-Cola. Russian citizens are no longer able to use many of their credit cards, watch Netflix shows or even purchase new electronics.

“It's pretty clear that Russia will become poorer and more technologically backward, the choices for its citizens will be radically diminished and for many, many years to come,” Alden said.

“There were always questions with regard to the rule of law in Russia from an investment perspective, and intellectual property theft has long been a concern,” Fox said. “Now, that’s all out in the open, there’s not even a semblance of law.”

Experts do not think that Russia will find success replicating corporations’ activities. Moreover, the Biden administration has pledged to respond with even more sanctions if Russia follows through with its nationalization and patent plans.

White House press secretary Jen Psaki warned the Kremlin against seizing company assets, repeating business leaders’ warnings of economic catastrophe.

“Any lawless decision by Russia to seize the assets of these companies will ultimately result in even more economic pain for Russia,” Psaki tweeted. “It will compound the clear message to the global business community that Russia is not a safe place to invest and do business.”

Could Putin purposefully have put nearly all the Russian military far away from Moscow?

Surprising cracks, if small ones, appear in Kremlin support for Putin on Ukraine: Excellent echo opinion by David Igntius for The Washington Post.

File under, "Putinology 103"

Russian Revolution March 8, 1917 – June 16, 1923:
The Russian Revolution was a period of political and social revolution that took place in the former Russian Empire which began during the First World War. This period saw Russia abolish its monarchy and adopt a socialist form of government following two successive revolutions and a bloody civil war.

Maine Writer's two cents: With a huge chunk of Russia's military positioned around the Nation of Ukraine, these hungry soilders do nothing but wait for their KGB "wizard of oz", to give the order to advance.  Obviously, the world is furious with Putin for risking war in Europe without any provocation from the Ukrainians.  

In my opinion, Putin's political veneer is peeling away. Therefore, putting the Russian military far away from Moscow keeps him safe from another Russian Revolution. Obviously, as 1917 proves, the Russian people know how to start and end revolutions!  

David Ignatius writes- Vladimir Putin presented a theatrical justification for war with Ukraine on Monday, but initial Russian military actions along the border were limited — and there seemed to be a few small cracks in Kremlin support for Putin’s obsession with regaining Russian dominion in Kyiv.

Putin appeared to be setting the stage on Monday for an all-out invasion. Under the dome of a grand state chamber in the Kremlin, he signed documents recognizing two Russian-backed enclaves in eastern Ukraine as independent “republics.” He then ordered some of the 150,000 Russian combat troops surrounding Ukraine to enter the breakaway regions in a (#FakeNews!) “peacekeeping” operation.

Putin may hope to provoke an armed response from Ukraine that would provide a pretext for a larger assault. But the initial “peacekeeping” move into Donetsk and Luhansk was limited, and a senior Biden administration official was careful to avoid describing it as an invasion, noting that Russian forces have been operating covertly in the two enclaves for nearly eight years.

In fact, Biden administration seemed to be calibrating its response, reacting less sharply to Putin’s recognition of Donetsk and Luhansk than did some other world leaders. The administration clearly wants to leave the door open for Moscow to stop short of an attack on Ukraine that is opposed not only by a unified NATO alliance but — perhaps more sobering for the Russian leader — by China as well.

Putin is “the ultimate political performance artist,” as Fiona Hill and Clifford Gaddy put it in a biography. Monday’s carefully staged events evoked both the majesty of imperial Russia and the pettiness and paranoia of its modern-day leader.

The day’s events began with a televised command performance of Putin’s security council in the ornate Kremlin chamber. 

Putin asked each of his ministers for their recommendations (??) about recognizing Donetsk and Luhansk. Many responses were dutifully on script, but there were several surprises.

Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov said Russia’s demands for security guarantees were “not an ultimatum,” and he seemed ready to meet Thursday with U.S. Secretary of State Antony Blinken, for more talks. Lavrov also conceded NATO’s unity, advising Putin that at this past weekend’s Munich Security Conference, “every Western representative declared their absolute commitment to a unified approach,” which “confirmed that we need to negotiate with Washington.”

Some of Putin’s other ministers fed his passion to subdue Kyiv. Defense Minister Sergei Shoigu said Ukraine could obtain nuclear weapons and pose a greater threat than Iran or North Korea. And Nikolai Patrushev, head of the security council, said Western nations “are hiding their true goal — to destroy the Russian federation,” a favorite Putin theme.

But the big surprise came when Putin quizzed Sergei Naryshkin, head of the SVR, Russia’s foreign intelligence service. Naryshkin advised that threatening to recognize Donetsk and Luhansk would be useful leverage for implementing the 2015 Minsk agreements to settle the conflict in the eastern region. Russia has claimed to support Minsk, but Monday’s recognition of the two breakaway enclaves as independent will probably derail any chance for the agreement. In response to Naryshkin’s answers, Putin got antsy.

Russian official, politician, businessman and the Director of the Foreign Intelligence Service since 2016.

Sergey Yevgenyevich Naryshkin

What followed was a rare Kremlin moment of quasi-dissent. “Speak clearly, do you support recognition?” demanded Putin. “I will,” answered his spy chief. “You will, or you do?” demanded Putin. When Naryshkin waffled and said he would support “bringing them into Russia,” Putin shot back, “That’s not what we are discussing. Do you support recognizing independence?” To which the vexed spymaster answered, “yes.”

The SVR chief may have been rattled by the astonishing ability of U.S. intelligence to read (and publicize) Russian intelligence plans about Ukraine. Whatever the reason, Max Seddon, Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times who translated the exchange in Twitter posts, noted that the session was “like the finale of the Sopranos.”

White House officials see other signs of dissension within the Russian leadership. Retired generals have criticized the invasion plan. Prominent Russian intellectuals have publicly challenged Putin. And public opinion polls have suggested limited support for war.

Putin tried to woo the public with a solo television performance after the Kremlin meeting. It was a meandering, seemingly unscripted monologue from his office, with Putin sitting at a big desk surrounded by three phones, two computer screens and a potted plant.

Putin sounded like a man trying to sell his country on the need for war. He offered a long, rambling history lesson, the gist of which was that Ukraine had become, in his words, a Western “colony with a puppet regime” that didn’t deserve to be independent of Russia. He even offered a WMD rationale for taking action, repeating Shoigu’s warning that a future Ukraine could obtain nuclear weapons.

The omnipresent chip on Putin’s shoulder has never seemed heavier. “We are being blackmailed, they are threatening us with sanctions,” he said. “A new pretext will always be found or fabricated. Irrespective of the situation in Ukraine.” And why? “To keep Russia behind, to prevent it from developing. … Just because we exist.”

Putin is very far out on a limb with the huge invasion force he has assembled, poised for action. He runs a one-man show in Moscow. 

In the Ukraine confrontation, anything can happen, but that limb has never looked shakier than it did on Monday.

Believing Vladimir Putin might as well say the earth is flat

It's worth the subscription of The New Yorker to read Andy Borowitz.  During this media era of manufactured fake news, making it up just because you can, the humerus "close to the issues" Borowitz Report provides a safe place where real news readers can enjoy facts that are tied to creative satire.  

It's like putting real news inside an effervescent bubble where the reader can watch the humor just pop right out, as soon as the puns are absorbed.  What's even more entertaining is how Borowitz writes these satirical gems nearly spontaneously with the real news (or fake news made real and visa versa).. Like an M & M's candy machine, the readers never know exactly what flavors will be dispensed when the tasty treats roll out of the trough.

This particularly hilarous treat appeared in my inbox on Sunday, about a day after Donald Trump told the international media about how he believed Vladimir Putin, who claimed innocence in the Russia meddling of the 2016 election.  This exchange happened in Vietnam, but nobody recorded the dialogue.  Nevertheless, Donald Trump said he has confidence that Vladimir Putin told him the truth, regardless of what the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) or the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) and Great Britian's intelligence services had as overwhelming evidence to prove otherwise. Obviously, Donald Trump is telling more lies about the exchange with Vladimir Putin. Yet, what's even more certain than the fabricated "innocence" is that the Kremlin is rolling in laughter about how easy it is to trick Donald Trump.

Kremlin folks are laughing and Andy Borowitz knows it! So we can all laugh together about Donald Trump.

Andy Borowitz immediately responded to this breaking news:

Mueller Immediately Closes Investigation After Hearing Putin Proclaim His Innocence

WASHINGTON (The Borowitz Report)—The special counsel Robert Mueller announced on Saturday that he was closing the Justice Department’s Russia investigation, “effective immediately,” after hearing that President Vladimir Putin, of Russia, said he was innocent of any election meddling.

Moments after learning about Putin’s assertion, Mueller hastily assembled his staff of investigators to inform them that, now that Putin had fully exonerated himself, there was no point in continuing the probe.

“Vladimir Putin says he did nothing,” Mueller told his staff. “That’s good enough for me.”

Speaking later to reporters, Mueller said that, by disbanding his investigation, he was following the time-honored law-enforcement tradition of taking a suspect’s word for it.

“For the past several months, we’ve assembled tax records, cell-phone recordings, bank transfers, and e-mail communications that indicated Russia was involved in the election,” a visibly shaken Mueller said. “Somehow, we got it wrong—very, very wrong.”

As for his future plans, Mueller said that his first order of business was to write a hearfelt letter of apology to Putin.

“I feel terrible knowing that I’ve spent all this time investigating a person who did absolutely nothing wrong,” he said. “Hindsight is 20/20, but I really should have called him first and asked him what really happened.”

(After reading the Borowitz satire, at least I can laugh along with Vladimir Putin over this exchange. Oddly enough, Putin, along with his Kremlin colleagues and I are all laughing about the same person - Donald Trump is the butt of our shared humor.)

On the other hand, those who chose to believe Vladimir Putin and trust Donald Trump to proclaim the innocence of the Russian government meddling during the 2016 election, might as well believe the earth is flat. Ant, surely, that is not funny.