Living in Australia I hadn't even heard of Politico's oral history and given its length I wonder if I"d have read it. But it's clearly an important piece of work. By subscibing to this substack I get to learn a bit about it from a commentator who doesn't clearly have a partisan axe to grind. (They seem to be an endangered species in the US). That's why I subscibe to this subtack and plan to do so for the long haul.
It's good to see the US undertood that Putin is not a rational actor. I suppose the world knows that after watching the last 12 months. Dealing with such an actor is a real challenge for the states-craft of other nations.
Just like other US media regulars Politico's piece could just as well have been titled 'comments from within the blob'...
Anyway, it reads like Apparatchiks salvaging their role in a(nother) mess. If the US gov was so drivin to prevent the invasion, how come they didn't stop UA from shelling the hell out of Donbass? 4/5 of shells landed in the ethnically RU part (the 'rebel's' territory) as OSCE and UN observers and reports showed. Looking at the increased rate of shelling from UA into rebel territory during the days leading up to the invasion one does not come away with the notion of a UA / US gov fearing that invasion let alone trying to prevent it.
As for this:
'Also interesting was NSC director Daleep Singh’s explanation for why they seized yachts and other property from the oligarchs: it was less about economic pain and more about highlighting Russian corruption:
In 2014, we didn’t win the narrative within Russia — so this time, let’s seize the physical assets of the kleptocracy, the yachts, the fancy cars and luxury apartments — not so much because we thought the owners of those assets would influence Putin, but it was intended to be a demonstration to the Russian people that they’d been getting ripped off for a very long time.'
Here you are, you supposedly have all the information in the world, you have access to RU media, you have embassies, spies and other boots on ground, sats, RU opposition on your side...
...and then you seize boats to show the RU people something they have known not for years but for generations, for ages?
You 'unveil' an age old truth about RU politics, bureaucracy & business, that is as much Tsarist, Soviet as it is Putinist. Really?
Does Daleep Singh truly believe the RU people didn't know? Of course he doesn't believe that. If he did he'd be 100% unfit for his job.
Sanctions flunked so they're now replacing the original objectives of with b.s. objectives.
"What the hell are you guys thinking?"
Exactly what many (most?) people were thinking in the run-up to W's war.
This quotation applies equally well to Lindsey Graham’s remarks.
Living in Australia I hadn't even heard of Politico's oral history and given its length I wonder if I"d have read it. But it's clearly an important piece of work. By subscibing to this substack I get to learn a bit about it from a commentator who doesn't clearly have a partisan axe to grind. (They seem to be an endangered species in the US). That's why I subscibe to this subtack and plan to do so for the long haul.
It's good to see the US undertood that Putin is not a rational actor. I suppose the world knows that after watching the last 12 months. Dealing with such an actor is a real challenge for the states-craft of other nations.
Just like other US media regulars Politico's piece could just as well have been titled 'comments from within the blob'...
Anyway, it reads like Apparatchiks salvaging their role in a(nother) mess. If the US gov was so drivin to prevent the invasion, how come they didn't stop UA from shelling the hell out of Donbass? 4/5 of shells landed in the ethnically RU part (the 'rebel's' territory) as OSCE and UN observers and reports showed. Looking at the increased rate of shelling from UA into rebel territory during the days leading up to the invasion one does not come away with the notion of a UA / US gov fearing that invasion let alone trying to prevent it.
As for this:
'Also interesting was NSC director Daleep Singh’s explanation for why they seized yachts and other property from the oligarchs: it was less about economic pain and more about highlighting Russian corruption:
In 2014, we didn’t win the narrative within Russia — so this time, let’s seize the physical assets of the kleptocracy, the yachts, the fancy cars and luxury apartments — not so much because we thought the owners of those assets would influence Putin, but it was intended to be a demonstration to the Russian people that they’d been getting ripped off for a very long time.'
Here you are, you supposedly have all the information in the world, you have access to RU media, you have embassies, spies and other boots on ground, sats, RU opposition on your side...
...and then you seize boats to show the RU people something they have known not for years but for generations, for ages?
You 'unveil' an age old truth about RU politics, bureaucracy & business, that is as much Tsarist, Soviet as it is Putinist. Really?
Does Daleep Singh truly believe the RU people didn't know? Of course he doesn't believe that. If he did he'd be 100% unfit for his job.
Sanctions flunked so they're now replacing the original objectives of with b.s. objectives.
Apparently some buy it.
Do you prefer the analysis using Russian talking points on Real Americas Voice?
Are there any Americans left who don't reason like 16 yos?
ad hominem attacks are the best you can do?
A childish first reply and now hurt feelings...
Have you ever written anything original?
In terms of original thinking: you still have no response to the fact that your entire post is based on Putin’s myth of a greater Russia. https://newlinesmag.com/argument/history-stokes-putins-dream-of-a-greater-russia/