USA Politics (redux)

[drogulus]

     Operation TrumPutin just might fall apart at both ends all at once.

     Former Fox News Director Jack Hanick Indicted for Helping Russia

     I'm a Former Russian TV Anchor. Fox News Mimics State TV

Among the Americans that currently host television shows on RT are a range of voices on the extreme ends of the left-right ideological spectrum. Scottie Nell Hughes, a former pro-Trump pundit on CNN and Fox News, hosts a show that claims to provide unbiased coverage, while Canadian actor William Shatner hosts a program where he uses his star power to interview other celebrities like astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Far-left journalist Chris Hedges, meanwhile, hosts a show featuring "dissident voices," ostensibly dedicated to the cause of anti-imperialism, yet has failed to even mention Russia's actual attempted authoritarian land grab of a democracy.

Other American voices frequently amplified on RT include former Democratic congresswoman-turned-CPAC speaker Tulsi Gabbard, libertarian politician Ron Paul, and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)—all of whom share foreign policy positions that Russia now finds beneficial to amplify.


     

[Fëanor]

     Operation TrumPutin just might fall apart at both ends all at once.

     Former Fox News Director Jack Hanick Indicted for Helping Russia

     I'm a Former Russian TV Anchor. Fox News Mimics State TV

Among the Americans that currently host television shows on RT are a range of voices on the extreme ends of the left-right ideological spectrum. Scottie Nell Hughes, a former pro-Trump pundit on CNN and Fox News, hosts a show that claims to provide unbiased coverage, while Canadian actor William Shatner hosts a program where he uses his star power to interview other celebrities like astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson. Far-left journalist Chris Hedges, meanwhile, hosts a show featuring "dissident voices," ostensibly dedicated to the cause of anti-imperialism, yet has failed to even mention Russia's actual attempted authoritarian land grab of a democracy.

Other American voices frequently amplified on RT include former Democratic congresswoman-turned-CPAC speaker Tulsi Gabbard, libertarian politician Ron Paul, and his son, Sen. Rand Paul (R-KY)—all of whom share foreign policy positions that Russia now finds beneficial to amplify.

RT, (which doesn't broadcast in Russia), is Putin's state sponsored & controlled, "Merchant of Doubt" that aims to spread misinformation to world audiences.  Though not a blatant as some American and other Right-wing, conspiracy-mongering, anti-science sites and blogs, the intent is even more cynically intended to undermine confidence in western democratic governments and institutions.

As for Chris Hedges, I've read several of his books, and IMO, I find him not so much "far-Left" as merely eccentric.  Though I often find myself agreeing with his observations and reason on specific aspects I tend to find many of his overall conclusions pretty whacky.  I'd say Hedges' whackyness and often perverse eccentricity serves RT's agenda very well.

Chris Hedges, (together with Putin), flogs the notion that NATO promised not to expand eastward at the time of unification of Germany, and that Russia as a "legitimate fear of encirclement" by hostile nations lead by the USA.  This whole line of reasoning is BS.

For a start, there has never been any evidence that NATO planned to preemptively invade Soviet or Russian territory.  It's bogus to see NATO's military potential as a threat unless that potential is used in response to Russia's own military forces.

Other than that, from early in his presidency it's well-know that Putin consider the dissolution of the Soviet Union to be "The greatest geo-political tragedy of the 20th century".  For their part, eastern European nations remember not only Soviet occupation of their countries but also the Tsarist Russian empire.  Reasonably, they were eager to join NATO, and existing NATO members have done nothing other than to oblige them.

To me it's utterly clear that Putin's actions stem from is romantic dream of a reconstituted Russian empire, and nothing at all to do with Russian security interests, much less his stated intent to "de-Nazify" Ukraine.  There has been nothing but lies and disinformation coming out of Russia.

At this point we should understand that the USA's and NATO's direct military inaction in Ukraine is appeasement of Russia -- with the legitimate intent of not participating a nuclear war which Putin by now has threatened.  However unless we are willing to allow surrounding nations' freedom destroyed and a neo-Tsarist empire created, the time to draw the line is now.  Guarantees to the Baltic nations, for example, for military assistance must total and unequivocal.

[LKB]

Direct military action by the US and/or NATO against Russian forces MUST remain out of the question, regardless of the situation within Ukraine.

While the arguments for direct intervention certainly are worthy in terms of saving innocent lives, defending Ukraine's independence ( if not their very existence ) and punishing Putin, the ramifications would be practically endless; Putin could point to such actions as justification for the full range of retaliatory options available to him, and not just in Ukraine or Europe but everywhere.

As frustrating as things are having to witness these crimes, a strike by NATO or any member nation against Russia could light the fuse for the true ( and probably terminal ) World War III.

[Spotted Horses]

The correct response to Russia is long term. Develop sufficient energy sources (hopefully including a lot of non-fossil fuel sources) that make Russia's energy production non-essential to the world economy.

[Karl Henning]

Direct military action by the US and/or NATO against Russian forces MUST remain out of the question, regardless of the situation within Ukraine.

No doubt!

[Karl Henning]

The correct response to Russia is long term. Develop sufficient energy sources (hopefully including a lot of non-fossil fuel sources) that make Russia's energy production non-essential to the world economy.

Putin has played the long game. It is time we learnt to.

[Fëanor]

The correct response to Russia is long term. Develop sufficient energy sources (hopefully including a lot of non-fossil fuel sources) that make Russia's energy production non-essential to the world economy.

Angela Merkel made the big mistake phasing out nuclear energy in Germany.  Her government insisted they had replaced the nuclear with renewable sources.  OK, but as I hear it, Germany's dependency on oil and gas was not reduced at all. I.e. one emissions-free resource was replaced by another to no avail in terms of reducing greenhouse gas, all the while not reducing need for foreign, fossil fuel resources.

[Fëanor]

Direct military action by the US and/or NATO against Russian forces MUST remain out of the question, regardless of the situation within Ukraine.

While the arguments for direct intervention certainly are worthy in terms of saving innocent lives, defending Ukraine's independence ( if not their very existence ) and punishing Putin, the ramifications would be practically endless; Putin could point to such actions as justification for the full range of retaliatory options available to him, and not just in Ukraine or Europe but everywhere.

As frustrating as things are having to witness these crimes, a strike by NATO or any member nation against Russia could light the fuse for the true ( and probably terminal ) World War III.

I do agree that direct US/NATO intervention must not happen with respect to Ukraine.  But it must be very clear that it will if Russia undertakes the same aggression against the Baltic nations that would otherwise be his likely next targets.

Given Baltic NATO membership and that resolve, Putin will likely look east towards the "Stans" -- too bad for them.

[Florestan]

Direct military action by the US and/or NATO against Russian forces MUST remain out of the question, regardless of the situation within Ukraine.

While the arguments for direct intervention certainly are worthy in terms of saving innocent lives, defending Ukraine's independence ( if not their very existence ) and punishing Putin, the ramifications would be practically endless; Putin could point to such actions as justification for the full range of retaliatory options available to him, and not just in Ukraine or Europe but everywhere.

As frustrating as things are having to witness these crimes, a strike by NATO or any member nation against Russia could light the fuse for the true ( and probably terminal ) World War III.

Agreed. The best course of action is cooperation between secret services of the West and Russia for ousting Putin and giving compensation to Russia (Crimea, the currently Russian-held territory of Luhansk and Donetsk, military neutrality for the rest of the country).

[Florestan]

Angela Merkel made the big mistake phasing out nuclear energy in Germany. 

She should be trialed for high treason, along with Gerhard Schroeder.

[Florestan]

To me it's utterly clear that Putin's actions stem from is romantic dream of a reconstituted Russian empire USSR.

Fixed.

Guarantees to the Baltic nations, for example, for military assistance must total and unequivocal.

The Baltic republics are members of NATO*. A Russian attack on any of them is equivalent to a Russian attack on the USA. What more total and unequivocal guarantee for military assistance could you wish for?

* and so is Romania, for that matter.

While a NATO-Russia war, ie WW3, cannot be dismissed out of hand, I think its probability is infinitesimal.

[Iota]

Putin has played the long game. It is time we learnt to.

He has a more-or-less de facto political tenure of course, giving him a distinct advantage. One of the downsides of Western democratic systems is the discouragement of long-term planning. The constant scrabble for popularity, often sidelines it for focus group thinking, alas.

[Fëanor]

To me it's utterly clear that Putin's actions stem from is romantic dream of a reconstituted Russian empire USSR ...

Fixed.

I think that's splitting hairs a bit too fine.  Putin has no interest in bringing back USSR-style central planning, etc.  He is perfectly happy with the current Russian-style authoritarian kleptocracy.

The Baltic republics are members of NATO*. A Russian attack on any of them is equivalent to a Russian attack on the USA. What more total and unequivocal guarantee for military assistance could you wish for?

* and so is Romania, for that matter.

While a NATO-Russia war, ie WW3, cannot be dismissed out of hand, I think its probability is infinitesimal.

Yet if pressed militarily in Ukraine Putin could decide push the nuclear button as he has threatened.  Putin understands that concerted NATO action, (which he's beginning to realize is possible), could easily defeat Russia in a conventional war.  Putin clears sees the nuclear threat as his umbrella of protection against NATO intervention -- and we can't be sure how crazy he really is.

OTOH, I believe he doesn't want nuclear war and sees only as a last resort.  All the more reason to make it very clear that use of force against he Baltic states will be resisted in kind.

Look out Moldova who will be next if Putin succeeds in Ukraine because it isn't a NATO member.  The "stans" in central Asia could follow although threatening them would quickly raise Chinese objections.

[drogulus]

     As fond as Putin might be for Stalin, his hero is Alexander III.


     

[Karl Henning]

Geo. Will: The 328 senators of the previous 50 years have illustrated the tyranny of the bell-shaped curve: a few of them dreadful, a few excellent, most mediocre. Although Josh Hawley, Missouri's freshman Republican, might not be worse than all the other 327, he exemplifies the worst about would-be presidents incubated in the Senate. Arriving there in January 2019, he hit the ground running — away from the Senate. Twenty-four months later, he was the principal catalyst of the attempted nullification of the presidential election preceding the one that he hopes will elevate him. Nimbly clambering aboard every passing bandwagon that can carry him to the Fox News greenroom, he treats the Senate as a mere steppingstone for his ascent to an office commensurate with his estimate of his talents.

[Karl Henning]

The Challenge of Diversity (with Yascha Mounk)

[Karl Henning]

Kim Wehle: A Deep Dive on Roe

[Karl Henning]

So much for the wankmaggot dotard's endorsement:

Former U.S. senator David Perdue lost Georgia's Republican primary for governor to incumbent Brian Kemp by a stunning 52 points.

[Karl Henning]

So much for the wankmaggot dotard's endorsement:

Former U.S. senator David Perdue lost Georgia's Republican primary for governor to incumbent Brian Kemp by a stunning 52 points.

The back-to-back appeals to violence and white supremacy provide a caution to those celebrating Trump's apparent loss of his kingmaker status in Republican politics: As ugly as things have been with Trump holding an iron grip over the GOP, they could actually get worse if he feels his grasp slipping and becomes even more incendiary in his provocations.

Opinion  As Trump loses kingmaker status, he becomes more dangerous

[Karl Henning]

Will Biden Run in 2024?

Spoiler: There is no alternative.

I've been saying since November 2020 that, barring a health event, Biden will run for re-election in 2024 for one simple reason: There is no other option.

The Democratic coalition is currently made up of a giant mass of factions, some of which are in tension. They cannot win the presidency without getting close to 52 percent of the popular vote and even that margin gives them only about a 50-50 shot of winning the Electoral College.

Democrats need to hold together (and turn out) progressives, African Americans, young voters, women, Hispanics, and college-educated suburban voters. They need to do this without losing even more ground to white, high-school-educated men.