FBI, 5 Other Agencies Probe Covert Kremlin Monetary Aid to Trump

On Friday Donald Trump, perhaps the most unfit individual to every be elected president, will be sworn into office.  Meanwhile, the American people still don't know whether or not Trump and/or his campaign staff collaborated with Russian officials to influence the election outcome or whether or not Russian money was used to finance attacks on Hillary Clinton.  Trump, of course has denied any complicity, but then again, Fact Checker found that 76% of Trump's campaign statements were untrue.  Plus, Trump denied mocking a disabled reporter even though it was all captured on video.   Now, McClatchy is reporting that the FBI and five other federal agencies are investigating to determine if Russian funding was behind anti-Hillary and pro-Trump activities.  In short, the investigation has gone beyond only the Russian hacking efforts to actual monetary involvement. Then, of course, there is the continuing concern about Trump's potential respectability to Kremlin blackmail efforts.   And people wonder why I plan to dress all in black on Friday!  Here are highlights from McClatchy:

The FBI and five other law enforcement and intelligence agencies have collaborated for months in an investigation into Russian attempts to influence the November election, including whether money from the Kremlin covertly aided President-elect Donald Trump, two people familiar with the matter said.

The agencies involved in the inquiry are the FBI, the CIA, the National Security Agency, the Justice Department, the Treasury Department’s Financial Crimes Enforcement Network and representatives of the director of national intelligence, the sources said.

Investigators are examining how money may have moved from the Kremlin to covertly help Trump win, the two sources said. One of the allegations involves whether a system for routinely paying thousands of Russian-American pensioners may have been used to pay some email hackers in the United States or to supply money to intermediaries who would then pay the hackers, the two sources said.

On Jan. 6, the director of national intelligence released a declassified report that concluded Russian President Vladimir Putin had ordered an influence campaign to “undermine faith in the U.S. democratic process,” damage Hillary Clinton’s election prospects and bolster Trump’s. The campaign included the hacking of top Democrats’ emails and fake news distributed by Russian sources.

The president-elect, who will be inaugurated Friday, has said he believes Russia was involved with the hacking, and he has called allegations that he or his associates were involved a “political witch hunt” and a “complete and total fabrication.”

Trump's presidential transition team did not respond to a request for comment about the inquiry.

U.S. intelligence agencies not only have been unanimous in blaming Russia for the hacking of Democrats’ computers but also have concluded that the leaking and dissemination of thousands of emails of top Democrats, some of which caused headaches for the Clinton campaign, were done to help Trump win.

The BBC reported last week that the joint inquiry was launched when the CIA learned last spring, through a Baltic ally, of a recording indicating the Russian government was planning to funnel funds aimed at influencing the U.S. election.

The BBC reported that the FBI had obtained a warrant on Oct. 15 from the highly secretive Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court allowing investigators access to bank records and other documents about potential payments and money transfers related to Russia. One of McClatchy’s sources confirmed the report.

Susan Hennessey, a former attorney for the National Security Agency who is now a fellow at the Brookings Institution, said she had no knowledge as to whether a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant had been issued in the investigation of Russian influence. However, she said such warrants were issued only if investigators could establish “probable cause” that the target was a foreign power or its agent and that the surveillance was likely to produce foreign intelligence.

At the Republican National Convention in Cleveland last July, Trump’s campaign associates successfully changed the Republican Party’s platform to weaken a provision advocating more military support for the Ukrainian government in its fight to defend itself against the Russian-backed incursion in Crimea. 

#NotMy President.

Did Russia Just Install Trump As President of the USA?

This post follows up on previous ones and links to a piece in Newsweek written by an expert cyber security research and asks the disturbing question: did Vladimir Putin just install Donald Trump to the presidency?  It's a question that one would think more would be investigating, yet most of the media seems blind to the possible significance.    America's allies around the world must be mystified by the fact that nothing is being done to further investigate and address this concern.   Here are article highlights:

From Iran to Chile, covert CIA-backed operations were responsible for installing leaders friendly to the U.S. in countries around the world in an attempt to gain supremacy over the then-Soviet Union during the Cold War. Russia seems to have taken a page from the U.S. playbook and one upped it, as it may have significantly contributed to the election of Donald Trump as the next president of the United States.

Russian President Vladimir Putin has been vocal in his support of Trump, calling him the “absolute leader in the presidential race” in a December 2015 news conference. Many of Trump’s positions—including his expressions of admiration for Putin and his July 2016 comments that he “would be looking at” recognizing Crimea as Russian territory and lifting sanctions—have curried the favor of the Russian leader.

The KGB mastered the use of propaganda during the Cold War, and its successor the FSB has become adept at using these same tactics in the digital realm. Russia regularly makes use of “cyber proxies,” or hacker groups that act with some level of state sponsorship, for its information operations. The proxy group CyberBerkut, for instance, typically claims to have hacked a site and then disseminates the stolen information (generally a mix of fact and fiction that supports the Russian narrative in Ukraine and elsewhere) via a Kremlin-backed Twitter and social media army.

What is clear is that in a close race in which—despite losing in the electoral college, Clinton appears to have won the popular vote at 48 to 47 percent at the time of publication—the information leaked in the emails was a serious disadvantage to Clinton and may have been the deciding factor in putting Trump over the top.

Russia’s role in the election of Trump is significant because, at a time in which the relationship between the U.S. and Russia has been at its most strained since the end of the Cold War over Russia’s annexation of Crimea and other issues, Moscow has helped ensure that the only candidate that will be friendly to Russia has gained office. While this may have the advantage of making the outbreak of outright hostilities between the U.S. and Russia less likely, it also means that the future U.S. president now owes a debt of gratitude to Russia, once the principal adversary of the U.S.

This may make Trump even more conciliatory to a country whose illegal occupation of Crimea has drawn the widespread condemnation of the international community. It also means that Russia, buoyed by its successful use of cyber theft and propaganda in order to install its supporters in key political roles, is likely to further ramp up its use of cyber means to influence elections, both in the U.S. and around the world.

I have zero trust in Mr. Trump and based on interactions with some of his outspoken supporters, they are ready and waiting to become modern day brown shirts who want to quash any opposition or criticism of their new Fuhrer.  All I can say about Trump is #NotMyPresident.

Is Vladimir Putin playing Trump?

Many in America's foreign policy and national security agencies have expressed alarm over the apparent bromance between Donald Trump.  Many fear that either Putin is playing Trump for a fool - one hears constant concern over his ignorance in foreign affairs and disinclination to educate himself, always claiming to know everything.  Now, a piece in Politico looks at parallels between the Trump-Putin relationship and that of former Italian prime minister Silvio Berlusconi who ultimately left office amidst numerous scandals.  As the piece noted, many believed that Berlusconi had personal financial benefit from his ties to Putin.  With rumored Russian money propping up Trump's business empire, one needs to wonder whether Trump would sell out America and its allies to further enrich himself.  Here are article excerpts:

In January 2009, the U.S. ambassador in Rome cabled Washington to raise an alarm. Russian President Vladimir Putin, the diplomat wrote, had cultivated a troubling relationship with the country’s prime minister, Silvio Berlusconi.

“Berlusconi admires Putin’s macho, decisive, and authoritarian governing style, which the Italian PM believes matches his own,” wrote the ambassador, Ronald P. Spogli. “From the Russian side, it appears that Putin has devoted much energy to developing Berlusconi’s trust.“

The ambassador noted with concern that the brash Italian billionaire, who was driven from office by scandal in 2011, was openly challenging U.S. policy toward Russia and echoing Putin’s views on issues from NATO expansion to Kosovo to missile defense.

And he shared reports from opposition party contacts of a more “nefarious” factor: talk that “Berlusconi and his cronies are profiting personally and handsomely” from business ties to Russia.

Seven years after that cable, disclosed by WikiLeaks, the Berlusconi-Putin bromance has acquired a new resonance, as foreign policy analysts and even some U.S. officials see unsettling echoes in the recent long-distance kinship between the Russian leader and Donald J. Trump.

It may even suggest that Putin is applying a specific method to the GOP nominee. In recent years Putin has befriended several major Western European politicians, including former leaders of France and Germany, who openly challenge U.S. and European policies toward Russia, including NATO’s buildup in Eastern Europe and economic sanctions punishing Putin’s annexation of Crimea from Ukraine.

But Trump is most frequently compared to the 79-year-old Berlusconi. Both men are wealthy populists known for their expensive tastes, outrageous rhetoric, relationships with women and all-around showmanship. Like Berlusconi, Trump has demonstrated an unusual affinity for Putin — along with notable dissent from confrontational U.S. and Western European policies toward Russia.

To some, however, it hints at something more.

“The parallels with Trump are a little too disturbing,” says a U.S. government analyst who closely tracked Russia’s relationship with Europe when Berlusconi was in office. “Putin is very strategic. He would focus on people’s vulnerabilities — whether their vanity or greed or financial needs.”

That view echoes the analysis of former deputy CIA director Michael Morell, who recently wrote in The New York Times that Putin, drawing from his background as an intelligence officer, had made a “calculated” overture to Trump early in the presidential campaign, “playing upon Mr. Trump’s vulnerabilities by complimenting him,” and turning Trump into an “unwitting agent” of Russia.

Though Trump, in recent interviews, has downplayed his affinity for Putin, the Republican nominee has also taken several policy positions that echo the Kremlin line. He has questioned the relevance of the 67-year-old NATO alliance, called for U.S.-Russian cooperation against the Islamic State, and questioned U.S. and European sanctions imposed on Moscow after Putin’s forcible March 2014 annexation of Ukraine’s Crimean peninsula.

Trump’s relationship with Putin — whom Trump says he’s never even met — remains embryonic compared to the extraordinary kinship between the Russian leader and his Italian chum.

As the January 2009 cable noted, the officials also suspected that illicit money might be fueling the friendship. One October 2008 U.S. cable from Rome noted that “many (including his own party officials) suspect [Berlusconi] has a personally and financially enriching relationship” with Putin’s oligarch allies.

In recent weeks, allies of Hillary Clinton have fanned rumors and speculative press reports suggesting that Russian investments in Trump business ventures have influenced his views. Trump and his son Donald Jr. have made numerous trips to Russia exploring business deals there, and in 2008 Donald Jr. told an audience that Russian money makes up a “disproportionate share” of the family company’s assets. Trump has denied having financial ties to Russia, though his refusal to release his tax returns makes that impossible to verify.

What Is Trump Hiding By Not Releasing His Tax Returns?

Other than Kool-Aid drinking Trump supporters, I suspect most Americans have caught on to the fact that Donald Trump has something to hide and the disingenuous IRS audit excuse aside, he is refusing to release his tax returns because there is something damning in them.  Or at least damning in The Donald's mind, if for example, the returns show his income/wealth to be far less than he likes to boast.  Another hypothetical is that the returns would confirm that Trump gives little or nothing to charities despite his claims to the contrary.  Then, of course, there is the renewed speculation over possible ties to Russian money.  A piece in Salon takes a look at what Trump may be hiding from voters.  Here are excerpts:

First things first, Donald Trump: Release. Your. Tax. Returns. No excuses.

Second, if we have to have a cartoon character running for president, I would prefer Bart Simpson. He has better writers and a healthier sense of self-awareness.  Like Donald Trump, Bart clings to a life’s philosophy best summed up as, “Whatever it is, I didn’t do it, unless it’s something good, in which case I did do it, even if I didn’t do it.”

But back to those tax returns. According to experts, the old “I’m being audited and can’t release them” argument does not hold water. For the umpteenth time, what is Trump hiding?

Of course, many have speculated for months that his obfuscating is because he has much less money than he claims; some have suggested that the returns would reveal that Trump is a complete chiseler when it comes to contributing to charity.

No, what’s truly disturbing is the prospect of Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin, each an exemplar of thuggish ultra-nationalism, joining hands and merrily dragging the rest of us down the lane to a kleptocratic, even fascist hell. And in the end, it’s all about the money.

Like others, I believe that what’s in those documents would reveal how deeply in hock Trump is to overseas investors, especially the Russian oligarchs. How could we have a president with hundreds of millions of dollars in foreign debt? How effectively could Trump engage as a leader of the United States when he personally owes other countries’ financiers a fortune? This is almost as frightening as the prospect of Trump waking up in a cranky pants mood and eighty-sixing the planet. Almost.

The relationship among Trump, his advisors and Russia is deeply troubling and not because of Cold War-era paranoia about the Communist threat (although it is fascinating to see how the possible involvement of Russia in this election is both stirring up that nostalgic paranoia while at the same time opening old fissures on the left, as if we were back debating Khrushchev’s 1956 denunciation of Stalin and the cult of personality).

You don’t have to be a hawk on these issues or an hysteric on the dangers of Russia — and I’m neither — to be deeply concerned that outside influences could so easily manipulate a potential president. Worrying, too, to see the recent interference, reportedly by Trump staffers, with the Republican Party platform plank calling for the protection of Ukraine’s security against Russia, as well as Trump’s own comments praising Putin and Russia while questioning America’s continuing role as the linchpin member of NATO. Not to mention a campaign manager, Paul Manafort, whose work as a political consultant to former Ukrainian president and Putin pal Viktor Yanukovych is deeply suspect and an advisor, Carter Page, who has ties to Gazprom, the Russian, state-controlled energy giant. In July, Page spoke at Moscow’s New Economic School and said that the chance for better relations with Russia has been diminished because, “Washington and other Western capitals have impeded potential progress through their often hypocritical focus on ideas such as democratization, inequality, corruption and regime change.”

As Josh Marshall of Talking Points Memo wrote a couple of weeks ago, “Those associations might simply be unsavory if the candidate were an experienced political figure or surrounded by knowledgeable advisers. Neither is the case…My own concern is mainly that this kind of mix of ignorance, grifters and disorganization is the kind of seed bed where influence operations and malign influence tend to thrive and take root. We’ve seen more than enough to know this knot of connections requires deep scrutiny, extreme vetting as Trump might say. This is no joke.”

But most important, follow the money. Trump denies that he has any investments in Russia, which as many have pointed out is not for lack of trying, and which essentially raises the question, what have the Russians invested in Trump? “There is a lot of Russian money flowing into Trump’s coffers,” Marshall wrote late last month, “and he is conspicuously solicitous of Russian foreign policy priorities.”

We know that Trump’s son, Donald Jr., told a real estate conference in 2008 that “Russians make up a pretty disproportionate cross-section of a lot of our assets…We see a lot of money pouring in from Russia.” The Guardian reports there are “several Russian billionaires tied to Trump” and notes Trump’s sale of a Palm Beach mansion for $95 million to Russian fertilizer billionaire Dmitry Rybolovlev, “who was reported in the Panama Papers leaks to have used offshore law firms to hid more than $2 billion worth of artworks, including pieces by Picasso, Van Gogh and Leonardo, from his wife in advance of their divorce.”

Perhaps most damning is The New York Times’s April account of accusations that arose from the building of Trump SoHo, a hotel and condo tower in downtown Manhattan, “one of several instances in which Mr. Trump’s boastfulness — a hallmark of his career and his campaign — has been accused of crossing the line into fraud.”

Times reporter Mike McIntire wrote that one of the associates at Bayrock, the development company behind the Trump project, “brokered a $50 million investment in Trump SoHo and three other Bayrock projects by an Icelandic firm preferred by wealthy Russians ‘in favor with’ President Vladimir V. Putin, according to a lawsuit against Bayrock by one of its former executives.” Another lawsuit “was filled with unflattering details of how Bayrock operated, including allegations that it had occasionally received unexplained infusions of cash from accounts in Kazakhstan and Russia.”

The aforementioned Josh Marshall has been taking all of this in and covering Trump’s Russia ties with the persistence and eagle eye of a superb investigative reporter. He writes:

“Trump has been blackballed by all major U.S. banks with the exception of Deutschebank, which is of course a foreign bank with a major U.S. presence. He has steadied and rebuilt his financial empire with a heavy reliance on capital from Russia. At a minimum the Trump organization is receiving lots of investment capital from people close to Vladimir Putin.

“…Even if you draw no adverse conclusions, Trump’s financial empire is heavily leveraged and has a deep reliance on capital infusions from oligarchs and other sources of wealth aligned with Putin. That’s simply not something that can be waved off or ignored.”

Yes, the body of evidence, while large, is circumstantial. But where there’s smoke, which makes it all the more imperative that Trump let the press and public see his tax returns so we have a chance at piecing together the truth.

There is no sense in allowing a man with this potentially monstrous amount of foreign debt to be our president, especially when he is someone monumentally indifferent to understanding America’s place in the world, a fool whose entire worldview seems equivalent to that of the blowhard at the local tavern whose total knowledge comes from something he heard from a guy once. 

Valdimir Putin's Insane Jihad Againt "Illegal" Imported Food and Goods

With oil prices plummeting and economic sanctions in place due to Russia unlawful annexation of the Crimea and unofficial invasion of Ukraine, Russia's economy is headed towards potential collapse and consumers are facing a possible return to a consumer market akin to that of the bad old days of the Communist era.  One of Putin's retaliation against European countries that have applied sanctions against Russia for its Nazi regime like behavior is to ban the import of various meats, cheeses, fruits and food stuffs form nations imposing and/or supporting sanctions against Russia.  Now, both the government and self-styled vigilantes are penalizing those who have continued to purchase and consume such foreign foods.  With all of the huge problems that face Russia, one would think that Putin would have larger worries to dwell upon.  Cynics - or perhaps they are realists - believe there is a method to Putin's madness: he is preparing the Russian public for the harsh austerity that is looming in the future in no small part due to Putin's own mismanagement. A piece in The Atlantic looks at Putin's outwardly insane behavior.  Here are highlights:

Russia’s Federal Customs Service has drafted legislation classifying banned foreign foods as “strategically important.” Until now, that label only applied to weapons, explosives, poisons, and radioactive materials.

If it becomes law, the new classification will mean those caught importing banned fruits, vegetables, meat, and poultry can face up to seven years in prison. French cheese is apparently now just as dangerous to the security of the state as plutonium, uranium, assault weapons, and dirty bombs.

And speaking of cheese, the Interior Ministry this week released footage of a bust of what it called a “major cheese-smuggling ring.” Some 470 tons of forbidden cheese was found and six members of the alleged cheese mafia were arrested.

And why stop with food? The head of the Russian Association of Textile Manufacturers says contraband foreign clothing should also be destroyed. Russian authorities have also begun removing household products manufactured by Colgate-Palmolive, Procter & Gamble, and other leading Western companies from stores, claiming health risks.

It’s hard to wrap your head around all this craziness. At first glance, the Kremlin’s jihad against all things Western looks like the post-imperial temper tantrum of a regime that is truly losing the plot. And perhaps it is. Russia’s leaders want their empire back, dammit, and if they can’t have it they’re going to smash their dinner plate on the floor and trash their room.

“All the falling regimes share an interesting pattern. Before a fall they start acting crazy, they are struck by the epidemic of mass idiocy,” political analyst Valery Solovei wrote on Facebook.

Or perhaps there is a method to the madness. Perhaps Putin’s Kremlin is preparing society for what is coming in an era of low oil prices, a weak ruble, sanctions, and a long-term confrontation with the West. Consider it reverse shock therapy. 

[T]he director of the Moscow-based Center for Post-Industrial Studies, wrote that the Russian economy was heading for an era of austerity and autarky, with thousands of private businesses going under and the state sector expanding.

“The real consequence will be Russia’s retreat from the global market and its economy’s transformation into one which is much more closed,” Inozemtsev wrote. “This way leads us towards a quasi-Soviet economy detached from the world and, at the same time, proud of its autarky; towards a deteriorating economy which compensates for the drop in living standards with pervasive propaganda.”

How long the regime can remain stable, to a degree, depends on people like Nikolai the food snitch and Polyakov the food vigilante. It depends on how long patriotic fervor can keep the population supportive with patriotic appeals as living standards plummet. But much of it also depends on how long the elites—who have become accustomed to their comfortable globalized lives—remain cohesive.

We should soon learn whether we are witnessing the death throes of the Putin regime or the birth of a new fortress Russia.

Putin's one misjudgment may be that he has forgotten that Russia's inferior standards of living compared to the West and the Communist police state led to the fall of the Communist regime.  Ironically, Putin is reinstating the exact situation that led to the downfall of the system he so reveres.  The tsars learned to their chagrin that calls for patriotism only go so far when standards of living are falling and oppressive government control is riding.  I know that Putin sees himself as Russia's new tsar, but does he really want to emulate the policies of Tsar Nicholas II (who had good intentions compared to Putin)? 

Will A Regime Change Occur in Russia?

This blog often looks at the parallels between the misrule of Russian dictator and would be tsar, Vladimir Putin, and the lies and tactics used by Adolph Hitler in the lead up to World War II and the Holocaust.  Like Hitler, Putin uses claims of encirclement by a hostile west to play to the fears and xenophobia of the Russian people while seizing increased dictatorial powers for himself.  He has used the claim of protecting Russians living beyond Russia's borders as an excuse to invade Crimea and Ukraine akin to what Hitler did to justify invading Poland and Czechoslovakia.  And he has demonized gays much as Hitler demonized Jews.  While some fear that Putin may push the world to war, others think that Putin's demise may be approaching - a welcome prospect.  Here are excerpts from a op-ed in the New York Times:

Graham Allison, director of the Harvard Kennedy School’s Belfer Center for Science and International Affairs, and Dimitri K. Simes, president of the Center for the National Interest, warned of a growing risk of nuclear war. But they offered a contrasting explanation.

“When the Soviet Union collapsed in 1991, Russia was on its knees,” they wrote. “But since Vladimir Putin took over in 1999, he has led a recovery of Russia’s sense of itself as a great power.”

These two strands of the Kremlin narrative — recovery on one hand; encirclement on the other — have been fashioned to appeal to the Russian people and used to justify more than 15 years of authoritarian rule. But both strands are suspect. In the early 1990s, Russians rose up against Soviet authoritarianism. The first — and last — popularly and fairly elected president, Boris N. Yeltsin, had a mandate to pursue the true national interest of catching up with the advanced, democratic West.

The situation in Ukraine now, after a popular uprising against a corrupt, authoritarian regime, resembles Russia then.

Tragically for Russia, from the mid-’90s an oligarchic bureaucracy monopolized oil and gas exports and has used the profits to purchase luxuries and homes in the West. The general population, meanwhile, has remained under the custody of a K.G.B.-style state security and propaganda apparatus.

For a decade, the rising price of oil provided soaring growth and veiled the inherent deficiency of the regime. In reality, Russia’s government is simply incompatible with the reforms needed for sustainable economic development, which demands liberalization and competitiveness.

When the petrodollar windfall dried up, that reality reasserted itself. Today, the nation is truly on its knees — beneath a leader who cannot be changed, and as hostage to the capricious price of oil and a gluttonous military-security complex.  

Sooner or later, economic hardship will awaken the people, too.

This year alone, Russians have suffered a 3 percent loss in real disposable income (6.4 percent year on year). In the 12 months to April, exports — vital for providing foreign currency — fell 33.9 percent, and imports shrank 40.8 percent. The outlook is very poor.

Like their Soviet predecessors, the Kremlin’s present rulers see the example of the democratic West, above all the United States, as a threat. Instead of preaching a Communist-style supremacy, most realize that their regime will be uncompetitive in the long run. Yet the oligarchs cling to power as long as possible through intimidation and disinformation, seeking to undermine Western norms, from human rights to business transparency and international law.

 

[T]he potential of American soft power and leadership, together with a strong response from European countries and Ukraine, is far from exhausted. Economic sanctions have bitten, magnifying the regime’s inefficiency.

The firmness of the West in protecting the sovereignty of Ukraine and restoring its territorial integrity is a prerequisite not only to rein in the Kremlin’s aggressive impulses, but also to engage Russia in a constructive dialogue on a broad agenda.

Regime change in Russia is inevitable, maybe imminent. But the West should not bet on that eventuality or make it a policy goal. The Russian people will rise up again, but the path to a sustainable democracy and stable economy will be challenging. The West should be ready to help then.

What the Western democracies must do now, for Russia and for themselves, is prove that they will defend their values and international law.

I hope the author is correct and that Putin's days in power will soon end - for the good of Russia and the world.  Putin is but the latest in Russia's failed dictators who have held the country back and harmed the Russian people.

Vladimir Putin Continues Hitler Like Agression

As noted before, Vladimir Putin must be keeping a biography of Adolph Hitler and a history of the Third Reich on his night stand.  Hitler's moves in the 1930's that lead up to World War II continue to be the model for Putin's demands and bellicose claims.   Claims that have ranged from invading the Crimea to threatening neighboring countries to now, threats of renewed nuclear weapons threats.  The man is a maniac who will ultimately harm Russia and perhaps other parts of the world if he remains in office.  Sadly, by playing on Russian nationalism and depicting Russia as a victim - just as Hitler did - Putin has duped far too many Russians into failing to see that he is their biggest enemy of all.  A piece in the New York Times looks at Putin's dangerous moves,  Here are highlights:

President Vladimir Putin of Russia has added new, chilling nuclear threats to his aggression in Ukraine, where 6,000 people have been killed in a war with Russian-backed separatists. Mr. Putin wants to expand his country’s influence and standing, but his alarming behavior has estranged Russia from most other major powers, damaged its economy and narrowed its future options.

Even for Mr. Putin, the recent nuclear threats have set a new benchmark for hostility in the conflict he has ignited with the West. Two weeks ago, The Times of London reported on a meeting between Russian generals and American officials in which the Russians threatened a “spectrum of responses from nuclear to non-military” if NATO moved more military forces into the Baltic States.

Last month, the Russian ambassador to Denmark, Mikhail Vanin, warned that Danish warships “will be targets for Russia’s nuclear weapons” if Denmark follows through on its expressed interest in joining NATO’s missile defense system.

Some Russian officials have also hinted at the possibility of reintroducing nuclear weapons to Crimea, which has been free of them for two decades.

American officials say they have seen no evidence that Russia has actually begun to reposition or make ready a nuclear arsenal that still contains thousands of weapons. But even if the Russian threats are loose talk to intimidate adversaries or curry favor with nationalists at home, they reflect a cynical disregard for Russia’s post-Cold War role as a partner with America in arms control treaties designed to discourage the spread of nuclear weapons. These threats inevitably raise tensions and could increase the chances of deadly miscalculations.

The Russian leader’s decision to proceed with the long-delayed sale of an S-300 missile defense system to Iran was another bad choice. Experts say the system does not threaten Israel, which has nuclear weapons and the best military arsenal in the Middle East, but the move could make it harder for the Obama administration to get congressional support for a nuclear agreement with Iran.

Mr. Putin’s aggression is rooted in intense nationalism, which plays very well to his people and fuels the war against Ukraine. Despite a cease-fire agreement signed in Minsk in February, Russia has continued to arm, train and direct separatist rebels. Fighting has surged and there are grave concerns that Mr. Putin is planning an offensive to seize more territory in eastern Ukraine.

The Europeans and the United States have to stay united in maintaining sanctions on Russia and in continuing air patrols and training exercises, as it becomes increasingly difficult to predict Mr. Putin’s next move.

Germans cheered as Hitler annexed Austria and Czechoslovakia just as many Russians cheered Putin's moves into Crimea and Ukraine.  Perhaps Russians need to look at photos of bombed out cities in Germany - especially Berlin - in the spring and summer of 1945 to grasp where Putin could be ultimate leading them..In his megalomania, Putin ultimately cares nothing about the Russian people.

Berlin 1945

The Price of Oil and Changes in Russian Politics

Much of Vladimir Putin's bellicose actions in Crimea and Ukraine have been motivated by a desperate need to distract the Russian People from the rank corruption and mismanagement that are a hallmark of the Putin regime.   As a piece in The Economist discloses,  past Russian aggression has corresponded to periods when oil prices and hence revenues flowing into Russia have been high.  Now, with oil prices plummeting - when I filled up my car this weekend with premium (a drawback of a Mercedes) the price was $2.249/gallon - Russia's economy is reeling.  Thus, past behavior makes one wonder whether or not Russia may find it necessary to mollify nations it has been antagonizing of late or whether Putin will continue his Hitler want to be policies.  Here are some article highlights:

IN DECEMBER 1979 Soviet troops invaded Afghanistan. The oil price at the time was at its peak of $101 a barrel. The high price combined with fast-growing production of oil in Western Siberia provided the Soviet Union with unprecedented revenues. Instead of saving this money for a rainy day, the Soviet government financed foreign adventures and imports of food. Seven years later the Brent crude oil price fell to around $30 a barrel and Mikhail Gorbachev launched the policy of Perestroika (restructuring) and convergence with the West. The high oil price coincided with Soviet aggression, but as the price fell the Soviet Union became more democratic and friendly to the West.

That the oil price correlated with Soviet politics is not surprising – in the uncompetitive command economy oil and gas revenues accounted for 67% of all exports. But the correlation remained just as strong after the end of the Soviet Union and transition to a market economy, and oil and gas remained the main source of Russian export revenues. When Vladimir Putin came to power the price of oil was $25 a barrel. Mr Putin allied himself with America, did not object to NATO’s enlargement that took in the Baltic States and saw September 11^th 2001 as Russia’s chance to get closer to NATO. Seven years later the oil price was at $105 a barrel and Russia invaded Georgia and the relationship with America was at the point of nadir, but thanks to the global financial crisis oil prices fell to $67 a barrel and Russia accepted America's reset policy even though it soon went sour.

Russia’s latest and most serious foreign adventure in Ukraine and its annexation of Crimea took place when the price of oil was still over $100 a barrel. But as the oil price fell Russia has not (so far) become any friendlier to the West nor to its neighbours. Mr Putin seems determined to break that correlation.

Mr Putin seems determined to break that correlation. Indeed, he has offered the war and patriotic euphoria as a compensation for the falling oil prices and lack of economic growth. The only way to bend the trend is by escalating aggression. This year will see a contest between Mr Putin's regime and the oil price. It will not be a pretty sight.

 

NATO: Russians Open Fire in Ukraine

Vladimir "Hitler Want to Be" Putin seemingly is continuing to follow Hitler's game plan from the 1930's when Germany used the pretext of protecting ethnic Germans to seize Czechoslovakia.  New NATO reports indicate that Russian troops have opened fire within Ukraine's borders.  It's all part of Putin's feigned claim of sending "humanitarian aid" to those in need due to the fighting that has ensued between Kremlin backed separatists and the Ukrainian government.  It is telling that the supposed 200 truck convoy entered Ukraine without permission for Kiev or the International Red Cross.  One has to wonder when Putin will take the step of growing a Hitler style mustache.  The man needs to be removed from power and his supporters in Russian need to read their history books and recall the fate that Hitler brought to Germany.  The New York Times looks at the frightening developments.  Here are excerpts:

Russia on Friday escalated tensions with Ukraine to the highest level since its stealthy invasion of Crimea in the spring, sending more than 200 trucks from a long-stalled aid convoy into rebel-held eastern Ukraine over the objections of Kiev and, NATO said, conducting military operations on Ukrainian territory.

NATO officials said that the Russian military had moved artillery units inside Ukrainian territory in recent days and was using them to fire at Ukrainian forces. Russia has repeatedly denied sending troops or military hardware into Ukraine, just as it denied any link to the unidentified gunmen who paved the way for Moscow’s annexation of Crimea — until President Vladimir V. Putin stated in April that Russian troops were “of course” involved.

There has been “a major escalation in Russian military involvement in eastern Ukraine since mid-August, including the use of Russian forces,” Secretary General Anders Fogh Rasmussen of NATO said in a statement. “Russian artillery support — both cross-border and from within Ukraine — is being employed against the Ukrainian armed forces,” Mr. Rasmussen added. 

Russia’s Permanent Mission to NATO, in a statement, accused the alliance of indifference to humanitarian suffering in eastern Ukraine and described its protests over the entry of a Russian aid convoy into Ukraine without Red Cross escorts as “another cynical attempt to cover the crimes of Ukrainian authorities.”

The NATO statements added new pressure on Moscow before a flurry of diplomacy in coming days, including a visit to Kiev on Saturday by the German chancellor, Angela Merkel, and a scheduled meeting next week between President Petro O. Poroshenko of Ukraine and his Russian counterpart, Mr. Putin, in Minsk, Belarus.

Ms. Merkel spoke by telephone with the Russian and Ukrainian presidents on Friday and “expressed her great concern” over Russia’s unilateral decision to move its aid trucks into Ukraine, her spokesman said. She also spoke with President Obama and, according to the White House, both leaders agreed that the arrival of the convoy represented “a violation of Ukraine’s sovereignty and territorial integrity.”

“It is important to remember that Russia is purporting to alleviate a humanitarian situation which Russia itself created,” Caitlin Hayden, the spokeswoman for the National Security Council, said in a statement. “If Russia really wants to ease the humanitarian situation in eastern Ukraine, it could do so today by halting its supply of weapons, equipment, and fighters to its proxies,” she added.

[T]he arrival of Russian trucks — only 34 of which Ukrainian officials inspected Thursday evening on the Russian side of the border, and found to contain buckwheat, rice, sugar and water — appeared to be a Russian effort to stall an accelerating offensive by Ukrainian forces against beleaguered pro-Russian rebels in eastern Ukraine. 

The disingenuousness of the Russian statements is amazing and truly sounds like something coming out of Hitler's Nazi regime or the old Soviet Union.  Does Putin really think we are all so stupid that we believe his lies?  

Putin Continues to Mimic Adolph Hitler

Perhaps it's because I was a history major, but I am constantly shocked at how so many from politicians to average citizens seemingly know nothing about history and cannot see patterns from the past in current events.  One case in point is the parallels between Adolph Hitler's policies toward Czechoslovakia in the late 1930's and what is happening in eastern Ukraine now under the scheming  of Vladimir Putin.   Here are snippets from Wikipedia on what happened in the 1930's:

The German occupation of Czechoslovakia (1938–1945) began with the Nazi annexation of Czechoslovakia's northern and western border regions, known collectively as the Sudetenland, under terms outlined by the Munich Agreement. German leader Adolf Hitler's pretext for this effort was the alleged privations suffered by the ethnic German population living in those regions.

"I am asking neither that Germany be allowed to oppress three and a half million Frenchmen, nor am I asking that three and a half million Englishmen be placed at our mercy. Rather I am simply demanding that the oppression of three and a half million Germans in Czechoslovakia cease and that the inalienable right to self-determination take its place."—Adolf Hitler's speech at the NSDAP Congress 1938

The Czechs, Hitler claimed, were slaughtering the Sudeten Germans. 

Hitler used a Nazi supported "political party" inside Czechoslovakia to generate claims of mistreatment and calls for German intervention.  Sound familiar?  Fast forward three quarters of a century and we see Vladimir Putin mimicking Adolph Hitler  to a frightening degree.  Does no one recall where appeasement by the West can lead?  A piece in The Daily Beast looks at Russia's ongoing mischief making in Ukraine.  Here are highlights:

The new pro-Moscow leader in the breakaway republic of Donetsk bragged openly today that Russia has strengthened his besieged rebel forces with men, armored vehicles and tanks. His boast would appear to confirm Ukrainian claims that the Kremlin is stepping up backing for the insurgents, defying the West with a dangerous escalation of the conflict Russian President Vladimir Putin said midweek he hoped would end soon.

Alexander Zaharchenko, who was appointed “prime minister” of the self-styled Donetsk People’s Republic earlier this week, told The Daily Beast that the rebels have received reinforcements from across the border, and specified in an interview with Russian radio station that “1,200 men trained in Russia have joined his force and that separatists have received also 120 armored personnel carriers and 30 tanks.”

It remains unclear whether this was the military column British reporters saw  crossing the border at the dead of night Thursday near Izvarino, or whether this was a separate column.

Kremlin officials deny they dispatched any column across the border on Thursday, slamming the allegation as fantasy.

[I]n recent days there has been a growing swagger to rebel fighters in Donetsk, even if they remain twitchy under the barrage of Ukrainian government artillery shelling. Zaharchenko on Friday night projected defiance rather than bravado, no doubt buoyed by the Moscow-sent materiel and fighters.

Anyone gullible - should I say stupid? - enough to believe a word coming out of Putin's mouth seriously needs to do a quick brush up on their history of the late 1930's.  Hitler got away with his lies and aggression for a time and was initially supported by many Germans.  Russians would likewise be wise to relearn history about Hitler and then take a good look at what Putin is doing.  Things ultimately ended badly for Germany and the same could well be the case with Russia.

A Russian convoy inside Ukraine

Vladimir Putin - Delusional Liar or Victim of His Own Propaganda?

Throughout the days of the Third Reich,  Adolph Hitler and his henchmen disseminated propaganda that was totally unrelated to reality.  In the early days, the propaganda involved claims of protecting ethnic Germans outside of Germany - even though the real intention was one of conquest - and in the waning days the propaganda claimed that there were German victories even as the allied forces closed in on Berlin from all sides.  Amazingly, Hitler after a while seemed to believe his own propaganda even though it consisted of obvious lies to sane individuals both inside and outside of Germany.  Today, we see amazing parallels as Vladimir Putin claims that Russia is sending "humanitarian aid" to eastern Ukraine even though this alleged humanitarian aid includes helicopters, surface-to-air missile systems, and possible anti-aircraft weapons systems.    So the question is: is Putin a bald face liar or is he so insane that he believes his own lies and thinks everyone else is equally insane.   Here are highlights from Business Insider:

According to The Interpreter, this weapon [see image above] is possibly a 9K22 Tunguska battery, which had been mounted onto a Kamaz truck. Tunguskas are anti-aircraft weapons that can fire both missiles and 30mm guns. They are capable of shooting down low-altitude aircraft, although the gun can also be used against ground troops. 

The Tunguska probably isn't the only anti-aircraft weapon traveling with the convoy . . . . Russian military helicopters have been flying alongside the convoy as well.

The Russian convoy has raised a number of red flags, even aside from this heavy contingent of guns and armor. The convoy has failed to abide by conditions put in place by both Ukraine and the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) — the convoy is traveling under the ICRC flag, yet the organization has not been able to verify the contents of the trucks.

"At the moment it is not an International Red Cross convoy, inasmuch as we haven't had sight of the material, we haven't had certain information regarding the content, and the volume of aid that it contains," ICRC spokesman Ewan Watson told Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty.

The convoy has also veered away from an agreed-upon border crossing under the control of the Ukrainian government, and is instead traveling toward rebel-held eastern Ukraine.

According to The Interpreter, the convoy is close to the same border crossing that the Russians are believed to have used to transport the Buk missile system that was used to shoot down MH17 in July.

NATO Secretary-General Anders Fogh Rasmussen warned on Monday that a Russian invasion of Ukraine was a "high probability" and that it would take place under the "guise of a humanitarian operation."

Russia, which sees Russian-speakers in the east under threat from a government it considers chauvinistic, said any suggestion of a link between the convoy and an invasion plan was absurd.

Beyond the military supplies tailing the convoy, Russia still has an estimated 20,000 troops along its border with eastern Ukraine. In total, Russia may have upward of 45,000 soldiers encircling Ukraine, if Russian soldiers in Crimea and Belarus are taken into account. 

Are The Trigger Points for World War III In Place?

One Hundred years ago tomorrow, Germany invaded Belgium and Great Britain declared war on Germany.  While what became known as World War I had actually begun in the east a few days earlier when Germany declared war on Russia, August 4th was when the rest of the dominoes for that disaster for millions began in full earnest.  While the lead up to World War I differed in some ways  from German aggression in the late 1930's, a common thread in the events leading up to both wars was the same: imperial ambitions on the part of some rulers and rabid nationalism.  Some argue that one hundred years after the beginning of World War I, the triggers are now in place for World War III.  It would be nice to hope that humankind might have learned from the disasters and horrors of the past, yet if one looks at events in Ukraine and Gaza and and the personalities of Putin and Netanyahu, it is easy to see aspects reminiscent of Kaiser Wilhelm, Adolph Hitler, and Mussolini.  Here are excerpts from an article in The Atlantic which looks at today's triggers for disaster:

Pessimism is a useful prism through which to view the affairs of states. Their ambition to gain, retain, and project power is never sated. Optimism, toward which Americans are generally inclined, leads to rash predictions of history’s ending in global consensus and the banishment of war. Such rosy views accompanied the end of the Cold War. They were also much in evidence a century ago, on the eve of World War I.

Then, as now, Europe had lived through a long period of relative peace, after the end of the Napoleonic Wars. Then, too, rapid progress in science, technology, and communications had given humanity a sense of shared interests that precluded war, despite the ominous naval competition between Britain and Germany. Then, too, wealthy individuals devoted their fortunes to conciliation and greater human understanding. Rival powers fumed over provocative annexations, like Austria-Hungary’s of Bosnia-Herzegovina in 1908, but world leaders scarcely believed a global conflagration was possible, let alone that one would begin just six years later. The very monarchs who would consign tens of millions to a murderous morass from 1914 to 1918 and bury four empires believed they were clever enough to finesse the worst.

The unimaginable can occur. That is a notion at once banal and perennially useful to recall. Indeed, it has just happened in Crimea, where a major power has forcefully changed a European border for the first time since 1945.

Events cascade. It is already clear that the nationalist fervor unleashed by Putin after a quarter century of Russia’s perceived post–Cold War decline is far from exhausted. Russians are sure that the dignity of their nation has been trampled by an American and European strategic advance to their border dressed up in talk of democracy, the rule of law, and human rights. Whether this is true is irrelevant; they believe it. National humiliation, real or not, is a tremendous catalyst for war. That was the case in Germany after the Treaty of Versailles . . . .  Russia, convinced of its lost greatness, is gripped by a Weimar neurosis resembling Germany’s post–World War I longing for its past stature and power. The Moscow-backed separatists taking over government buildings in eastern Ukraine and proclaiming an independent “Donetsk People’s Republic” demonstrate the virulence of Russian irredentism. Nobody can know where it will stop. Appetite, as the French say, grows with eating.

[T]he realization that the Russian bear can bite as well as growl is timely. It is a reminder that a multipolar world in a time of transition, when popular resentments are rising over joblessness and inequality, is a dangerous place indeed.

The international system does not look particularly stable. The Cold War’s bipolar confrontation, despite its crises, was predictable. Today’s world is not. It features a United States whose power is dominant but no longer determinant; a one-party China that is a rising hegemon; an authoritarian Russia giddy on nationalism and the idea of a restored imperium; and a weak, navel-gazing, blasé Europe whose pursuit of an ever closer union is on hold and perhaps on the brink of reversal.

Pacifist tendencies in western Europe coexist with views of power held in Moscow and Beijing that Bismarck or Clausewitz would recognize instantly.
A century ago, in the absence of clear lines or rules, it was just this kind of feel-good hope and baseless trust in the judgment of rival powers that precipitated catastrophe. But that, it may be said, was then. The world has supposedly been transformed.

But has it? Consider this article in my father’s 1938 high-school yearbook:

The machine has brought men face to face as never before in history. Paris and Berlin are closer today than neighboring villages were in the Middle Ages. In one sense distance has been annihilated. We speed on the wings of the wind and carry in our hands weapons more dreadful than the lightning … The challenge of the machine is the greatest opportunity mankind has yet enjoyed. Out of the rush and swirl of the confusions of our times may yet arise a majestic order of world peace and prosperity.

The ghosts of repetition reside alongside the prophets of progress. From the “rush and swirl” of 1938 where “distance has been annihilated” would follow in short order the slaughter of Stalingrad, the mass murder of European Jewry, the indiscriminate deaths in Hiroshima and Nagasaki, and the anguish of all humanity. We should not lightly discard a well-grounded pessimism or the treaties it has produced.

 

The End of Russia’s Fairy Tale

2014 aggression

1930's aggression

Following up on the last post, the downing of Malaysian Airlines flight 17 has hopefully exposed the lie of Russia's fairy tale that it is ethnic Russians in Ukraine who are driving the separatist effort in the eastern portion of the country.  Without Russia's active support, training and supply of weaponry, the movement would not exist.  And the chess master behind it is Vladimir Putin (I loved the description of him as "rat faced" in the Times column).  A column in the Washington Post continues to focus on the lies and dangerous agenda of Putin and his efforts to sow hate and discord which cost 298 individuals their lives, including 100 some top AIDS researchers and humanitarians..  Here are highlights:

Before there is any further discussion of Malaysia Airlines Flight 17, it’s important that one point be made absolutely clear: This plane crash is a result of the Russian invasion of eastern Ukraine, an operation deliberately designed to create legal, political and military chaos. Without this chaos, a surface-to-air missile would not have been fired at a passenger plane. 

From the beginning, the Russian government did not send regular soldiers to Ukraine. Instead, it sent Russian mercenaries and security service operatives such as Igor Strelkov — the commander in chief in Donetsk and a Russian secret police colonel who fought in both Chechen wars — and Vladimir Antyufeyev, the Donetsk “deputy prime minister” who led the Latvian KGB’s attempt to overthrow the independent Latvian government in 1991.

With the help of local thugs, these Russian security men besieged police stations, government offices and other symbols of political authority to delegitimize the Ukrainian state. In this task, they were assisted by the Russian government and by Russia’s state-controlled mass media, both of which still constantly denigrate Ukraine and its “Nazi” government. Just in the past week, Russian reporting on Ukraine reached a new pitch of hysteria, with fake stories about the supposed crucifixion of a child and an extraordinary documentary comparing the Ukrainian army’s defense of its own country with the Rwandan genocide. 

In recent days, the separatist forces were openly using man-portable air-defense systems (MANPADS) and boasting of having taken down large Ukrainian transport planes, clearly with Russian specialist assistance. Indeed, Strelkov on Thursday afternoon reportedly boasted online of having taken down another military plane before realizing that the plane in question was MH17. The blog post was removed.

This is the context within which a surface-to-air missile was aimed at a passenger plane: a lawless environment; irregular soldiers who might not be so good at reading radar; a nihilistic disregard for human life; scorn for international norms, rules or standards. Just for the record: There weren’t any Ukrainian government-controlled anti-aircraft missiles in eastern Ukraine because the separatists were not flying airplanes.

Until now, these unorthodox methods have worked well for the Russians. They unnerved and distracted the Ukrainian government while allowing foreign governments, and European governments in particular, to turn a blind eye. Because the war was not a “real” war, it could be described as “local,” as “containable,” it could remain a low priority for European foreign policy or indeed for anybody’s foreign policy.

If it has done nothing else, the crash of Flight 17 has just put an end to the “it’s not a real war” fairy tale, both for the Russians and for the West. Tragically, this unconventional non-war war just killed 298 people, mostly Europeans. We can’t pretend it isn’t happening any longer or that it doesn’t affect anyone outside of Donetsk. The Russians can’t pretend either.

Without the fairy-tale pretense, some things are about to become clear. For one, we are about to learn whether the West in 2014 is as united and as determined to stop terrorism as it was 26 years ago.

It is insufficient to state, as President Obama now has , that there must be a “cease-fire” in Ukraine. What is needed is a withdrawal of Russian mercenaries, weapons and support. The West — and the world — must push for Ukrainian state sovereignty to be re-established in eastern Ukraine, not for the perpetuation of another frozen conflict.

The echoes of Hitler's tactics in the 1930's must be opposed and stopped.  Appeasement and willful denial will only lead to more tragedies and needless deaths.   Putin needs to become an international pariah and Russians need to understand that the wisest thing they can do is overthrow his corrupt and brutal regime.