Trump’s Talks With Kim Jong-un Collapse

Two obese autocrats.

I suspect Der Trumpenführer, is in a particularly foul mood today after (i) coverage of Michael Cohen's testimony before Congress yesterday greatly eclipsed coverage of the Trump/Kim Jong-un talks, and (ii) those talks collapsed, but not until after Trump insanely said he believed that Kim had nothing to do with the the brutal mistreatment suffered by the late American student, Otto Warmbier. For those who have already forgot this young man's death, here is some background:

The 22-year-old University of Virginia student was visiting North Korea with a tour group when he was arrested and sentenced to 15 years of hard labor in March 2016 on suspicion of stealing a propaganda poster. He died the next June after he was returned to the United States in a coma.

Given the reality that  NOTHING happens in North Korea without Kim's knowledge and approval, Trump's statement defies belief. 

But back to the collapsed summit. Personally, I believe that Kim played Trump from the start and used both summits to boost his own image abroad and within the police state which is North Korea. Kim never planned to de-nuclearize, or at least not on terms that would ever be acceptable to the USA.  The New York Times looks at the failed talks.  Here are excerpts:

President Trump and Kim Jong-un, North Korea’s leader, abruptly ended their second summit meeting on Thursday when negotiations collapsed after the two sides failed to agree on even the first steps on nuclear disarmament, a peace declaration or reducing sanctions on the North.

“It was about the sanctions,” Mr. Trump said at an afternoon news conference in Hanoi, Vietnam, referring to Mr. Kim’s demand that the United States lift harsh economic sanctions imposed on North Korea with the approval of the United Nations. “Basically they wanted the sanctions lifted in their entirety, but we couldn’t do that.”

The premature end to the negotiations means the diplomacy between the United States and North Korea that has gone on for most of a year remains stalled, even as experts say North Korea continues to produce fissile material to make nuclear warheads.

It also undermines the image Mr. Trump has long cultivated of himself as a tough negotiator who can bring adversaries into a deal.

Mr. Trump said that Mr. Kim had agreed to take an important step toward dismantling a central part of his nuclear program — the Yongbyon enrichment facility — but that Mr. Kim said he would do so only if all sanctions were lifted.

The president and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo said the North would have to dismantle other parts of the program before all sanctions were lifted.

The collapse of the talks came in the shadow of withering congressional testimony in Washington by Michael D. Cohen, Mr. Trump’s former lawyer, who spent hours on Wednesday describing Mr. Trump’s lies and deep character flaws.

The collapse of the talks was a stark departure from the earlier mood of the two-day gathering. On Thursday morning, Mr. Trump and Mr. Kim kicked off the day by meeting one-on-one at the historic Metropole hotel, where they had had an intimate dinner the previous night.

Throughout the summit, Mr. Trump praised Mr. Kim, a ruthless dictator who oversees widespread human rights abuses. He called Mr. Kim a “great leader.”

When asked by a reporter about Otto Warmbier, the American student imprisoned in North Korea who died of brain damage after being returned home in a coma in 2017, Mr. Trump answered with a comment that echoes what he has said in relation to other autocrats: “He tells me that he didn’t know about it, and I will take him at his word.” 

Expect Twitter outbursts and lots of profanity outside of public view from Trump. Kim played him expertly. 

Trump Signals Further Subservience to Russia

When working class whites fell for Donald Trump's "Make America Great Again" sales pitch I suspect that few thought the route to "greatness" would be via further subservience to Vladimir Putin's dictatorial regime Russia bashing civil rights icons and television shows.  However, over the weekend that was what Der Fuhrer was obsessed with as he tweeted away like a demented teenage girl.  As a piece in New York Magazine notes, if you are denying that Russia has blackmail goods on you, why further cozy up to Putin and suggest that you will lift sanctions against Russia?  Then of course their is the bashing of John Lewis - a man Trump claims never did anything - over Martin Luther King weekend.  Given Trump's past documented anti-black bigotry, it is certainly not the type of action that unites people even if it plays well with white supremacists in the South and Mid-West. Here are article highlights:

If you’ve just acknowledged that Russia hacked your political opponent and you’re embroiled in a scandal over unverified claimed that you’ve been compromised by Moscow, publicly signaling your openness to Russia and its policy goals is not the logical next move. But for whatever reason, that’s how Donald Trump chose to spend his weekend – when he wasn’t lashing out at a civil rights icon and a sketch comedy TV show.

On Friday Trump told the Wall Street Journal that he’ll keep the sanctions the U.S. imposed against Russia over its alleged election cyberattacks and annexation of Crimea “at least for a period of time.” However, he said he’s open to lifting them if Russia helps achieve U.S. goals, like fighting terrorism.

“If you get along and if Russia is really helping us, why would anybody have sanctions if somebody’s doing some really great things?” he said.

The president-elect expanded on that point in a joint interview with The Times of London and the German newspaper Bild, which was published Sunday.

He did not draw much of a distinction between Putin and German Chancellor Angela Merkel, leader one of the United States’ closest allies. “Well, I start off trusting both — but let’s see how long that lasts,” he said. “It may not last long at all.”

Merkel is up for reelection in the fall, and she’s facing a challenge from the anti-immigrant Alternative für Deutschland. According to Bloomberg, Trump told Bild he respects Merkel, but couldn’t say whether he wants to see her reelected because he doesn’t know her. He also claimed she’s hurt German by accepting more than 1 million refugees – or “all these illegals” – into the country.

While Trump claimed that NATO is “very important” to him, he reiterated his complaints about other countries not “paying their fair share.” “I said a long time ago that NATO had problems. Number one it was obsolete, because it was designed many, many years ago,” Trump said. “Number two the countries aren’t paying what they’re supposed to pay. 

Trump expressed similar foreign policy statements many times on the campaign trail, but the Times reported that there’s increased alarm in Europe as leaders have come to realize that his “acerbic criticism of NATO and the European Union was not just an attempt to win votes.”

Earlier in the day, outgoing CIA Director John Brennan criticized Trump’s command of foreign policy. “I don’t think he has a full understanding of Russian capabilities and the actions they are taking on the world,” Brennan told Fox News Sunday.

Brennan added, noting that the president-elect’s impulsive tweets could be dangerous. “Spontaneity is not something that protects national security interests.”

Trump tweeted his rebuttal on Sunday night, suggesting that Brennan might have leaked the dossier containing allegations about his ties to Russia to the press (though we know the document’s origin and it’s been circulating among journalists and politicians for months).

America is in more danger than at almost any time in its past and the danger is self inflicted.  Be very, very afraid for the future.

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)? 

The High Economic Price of Rejecting the Iran Deal

In its quest to pander to the ignorance embracing party base, Republicans continually reject objective reality and ignore the fact that the United States cannot unilaterally force other nations to dance to its tune.   Should such an attempt be made if the U.S. Senate rejects the agreement negotiated with Iran to control that nation's nuclear program, the economic consequences for America could be severe, not to mention the cost involved of alienating needed allies.  A piece in the New York Times looks at this reality that ought to outweigh GOP desires to pander to it base that revels in killing Muslims as it clings to a delusional myth of American exceptionalism.  Here are column highlights:

Those calling on Congress to scrap the [Iran] deal argue that the United States could have gotten a better deal, and still could, if we unilaterally ramped up existing sanctions, enough to force Iran to dismantle its entire nuclear program or even alter the character of its regime wholesale. This assumption is a dangerous fantasy, flying in the face of economic and diplomatic reality.

To be sure, the United States does have tremendous economic influence. But it was not this influence alone that persuaded countries across Europe and Asia to join the current sanction policy, one that required them to make costly sacrifices, curtail their purchases of Iran’s oil, and put Iran’s foreign reserves in escrow. They joined us because we made the case that Iran’s nuclear program was an uncontained threat to global stability and, most important, because we offered a concrete path to address it diplomatically — which we did.

If Congress now rejects this deal, the elements that were fundamental in establishing that international consensus will be gone.

The simple fact is that, after two years of testing Iran in negotiations, the international community does not believe that ramping up sanctions will persuade Iran to eradicate all traces of its hard-won civil nuclear program or sever its ties to its armed proxies in the region. Foreign governments will not continue to make costly sacrifices at our demand.

Indeed, they would more likely blame us for walking away from a credible solution to one of the world’s greatest security threats, and would continue to re-engage with Iran. Instead of toughening the sanctions, a decision by Congress to unilaterally reject the deal would end a decade of isolation of Iran and put the United States at odds with the rest of the world.

Some critics nevertheless argue that we can force the hands of these countries by imposing powerful secondary sanctions against those that refuse to follow our lead.

But that would be a disaster. The countries whose cooperation we need — including those in the European Union, China, Japan, India and South Korea, as well as the companies and banks that handle their oil purchases and hold foreign reserves — are among the largest economies in the world. If we were to cut them off from the American dollar and our financial system, we would set off extensive financial hemorrhaging, not just in our partner countries but in the United States as well.

The major importers of Iranian oil — China, India, Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Turkey — together account for nearly a fifth of our goods exports and own 47 percent of foreign-held American treasuries. They will not agree to indefinite economic sacrifices in the name of an illusory better deal. We should think very seriously before threatening to cripple the largest banks and companies in these countries. . . . . not to mention the economic aftershocks and the inevitable retaliation.

The deal we reached last month is strong, unprecedented and good for America, with all the key elements the international community demanded to stop Iran from getting a nuclear weapon. Congress should approve this deal and ignore critics who offer no alternative.

Dozens of Retired Generals and Admirals Back Iran Nuclear Deal

While the Republican presidential candidates - few if any of whom served in the military - are condemning the Iran nuclear deal, dozens of retired generals and admirals are supporting the agreement negotiated by the Obama administration.  They, unlike the GOP base and the architects of the failed Iraq War, don't revel in murdering Muslims and throwing away the lives of American military members.  The Washington Post looks at the letter submitted by the retired generals and admirals (read the letter here).  Here are article highlights:

Three dozen retired generals and admirals released an open letter Tuesday supporting the Iran nuclear deal and urging Congress to do the same.

Calling the agreement “the most effective means currently available to prevent Iran from obtaining nuclear weapons,” the letter said that gaining international support for military action against Iran, should that ever become necessary, “would only be possible if we have first given the diplomatic path a chance.”

The release came as Secretary of State John F. Kerry said U.S. allies were “going to look at us and laugh” if the United States were to abandon the deal and then ask them to back a more aggressive posture against Iran.

Not only would U.S. global credibility be undermined, Kerry said, but the dollar’s position as the world’s reserve currency would be threatened.

[T]here’s a huge antipathy out there” to U.S. leadership. Pointing to efforts by Russia and China to join forces with rising, non-aligned powers, he said that “there’s a big bloc out there, folks, that isn’t just sitting around waiting for the United States to tell them what to do.”

[H]e [John Kerry] painted a harsh picture of the results of U.S. rejection. Allies would refuse to retain sanctions or impose new ones, or join in possible military action, he said.

The letter from the retired military officers followed the release this past weekend of a letter to Obama by 29 of the nation’s leading scientists, who called the Iran deal “technically sound, stringent and innovative,” and said it would “provide the necessary assurance in the coming decade and more that Iran is not developing nuclear weapons.”

Signers of the military letter include retired general and flag officers from every branch of service. They include four-star Marine Gens. James Cartwright, former vice chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and Joseph P. Hoar, former head of the U.S. Central Command; and Gens. Merrill McPeak and Lloyd W. Newton of the Air Force.

“There is no better option to prevent an Iranian nuclear weapon,” the letter said. “Military action would be less effective than the deal, assuming it is fully implemented. If the Iranians cheat, our advanced technology, intelligence and the inspections will reveal it, and U.S. military options remain on the table.”

“And if the deal is rejected by America,” it said, “the Iranians could have a nuclear weapon within a year. The choice is that stark.”

Retired Navy Rear Adm. Harold L. Robinson, a rabbi and former naval chaplain who chairs the National Conference on Ministry to the Armed Forces, also signed.

Scenes From Putin's Economic Meltdown

Throughout the centuries Russia has been plagued by horrific rulers.  Yes, there were moments of brilliance under tsars and tsarinas such as Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Alexander I or even Alexander II, but all too often the Russian people have paid the price of failed leadership.  Vladimir Putin is following in the footsteps of royal predecessors whose dynasty his communist party over through.  Politico looks at the current economic melt down facing Russia's economy due to the failed leadership of Putin who seems to view himself as some modern day mixture of Ivan the Terrible and Adolph Hitler.  One might even argue that Putin makes the ill-fated Nicholas II look better in hindsight (Note to Putin: starting a European war does NOT help once chances of staying in power long term).  Here are article highlights:

Whatever’s on your holiday shopping list—buy now, it may never be this cheap again! In a single day this past week, the ruble exchange rate dropped from 59 to 80 to the dollar, further eroding confidence in the Russian economy and ensuring a deep recession next year—but also briefly turning Moscow into the shopping capital of the world.

Although this past week’s currency crisis marked the worst fall for the ruble since Russia defaulted on its debt in 1998, no one was waiting in bread lines or starting a run on the bank. Instead, anyone with any cash at all went on a buying spree.

People were purchasing refrigerators, washing machines, cameras—anything that was less likely to lose its value as fast as the plummeting ruble. Cars in some dealerships were being sold at 30 percent to 50 percent above the recommended retail price, yet “people run and bring their last money,” one social network user wrote.

The ruble has lost over half its value this year as falling oil prices and Western sanctions over the Ukraine crisis hit Russia’s energy-dependent economy. But a drop of 10 percent on Monday and another 10 percent on what has come to be known as “Black Tuesday” further shook consumers, undermined investor confidence and revealed divisions among the country’s elite on how to react. Nonetheless, Russians’ approval for President Vladimir Putin has remained sky-high.

The falling ruble has launched a spate of jokes in the style of Russians’ notoriously dark humor. One from a few weeks ago—“What do Putin’s age, the ruble and the oil price have in common? They all hit 63 next year”—has already become a grim reality.

According to Marina Krasilnikova, head of quality of life research at the independent pollster Levada Center, while affluent areas like Moscow saw a buying spree on expensive products, most Russians are in fact hunkering down to weather the crisis with what little they have.

For centuries most of the Russian people have had to hunker down thanks to the misrule of their leaders.  Putin needs to go.  The only question is that of how long before the majority of Russians recognize this reality.

Putin to Blame for Ruble’s Collapse

Like many failed Russian leaders before him, Vladimir "Adolph Want to Be" Putin is destroying Russia's economy as he pursues his own megalomaniac agenda.  Right now, Russia's currency, the ruble, is in free fall because of Putin's failed policies and a big drop in oil and gas prices, the country's main source of hard currency.  Much of the suffering will impact the Russian people as has been their plight throughout history.  Meanwhile, Putin may become even more dangerous.  An editorial in the Washington Post lays fault directly at Putin's feet.  Here are highlights:

THE DRAMA playing out in Russia on Tuesday was not pretty. The ruble’s exchange rate has collapsed by some 50 percent against the dollar since mid-June, with an accelerating fall in recent days. A panicked attempt by the central bank at 1 a.m. Tuesday to stop the slide was a failure. Russia now faces a full-blown currency crisis.

For President Vladimir Putin, the crisis is his own doing, a direct outgrowth of a meddlesome adventure into Ukraine, in which he seized Crimea and subverted the Donbas region with pro-Moscow separatists. Mr. Putin’s incursion led to Western sanctions on Russian industry that are blocking badly needed refinancing on global financial markets; huge debts are coming due. The oil giant Rosneft is particularly hard-hit and has implored Mr. Putin to deliver a bailout. Russia has billions of dollars in foreign currency reserves but can’t easily bail out everyone who needs to repay loans. These squeezed companies are in many cases led by Mr. Putin’s cronies, and they have little room to maneuver. 

The currency slide is also a consequence of the fall in global oil prices. There are a number of reasons for that decline, but the inescapable fact for Russia is that it remains heavily dependent on oil exports and Mr. Putin did little in recent years to diversify the economy. Lower oil prices will crimp Russia’s budget revenues, and the higher interest rates ordered by the central bank will cut into economic growth. Prosperity and stability in recent years have been essential elements in Mr. Putin’s formula of repressing critics while remaining popular. 

It’s important to keep Mr. Putin and his capricious behavior the target of Western policy — and remember that he is the chief cause of Russia’s troubles. The ruble’s plunge may portend a dangerous moment. Until now, Mr. Putin has steadfastly refused to back down in Ukraine and has escalated violence when his allies were cornered. He may respond to the latest uncertainty by striking out again in Ukraine or elsewhere, and he will most certainly ramp up the anti-American rhetoric.

Putin Pretends that He can Make Russia Self-Sufficient and Strong

When one controls most of the media it becomes much easier to sell lies and propaganda to the populace.  Sadly, Vladimir Putin - like Hitler, Stalin and similar monomaniacal dictators of the past - controls Russia's mainstream media and is working hard at selling the myth that he can make Russia self-sufficient and strong in isolation from the western world.  A piece in The Economist looks at this ploy.  Here are highlights:

“ISOLATION”, “consolidation” and “self-reliance” are different terms used among Moscow’s political and business elite to mean the same thing. In the face of international sanctions occasioned by its support of the rebels in eastern Ukraine and its earlier annexation of Crimea, Russia is preparing to pull inward. It is hunkering down for a long period of diplomatic antagonism and economic hardship.

That process appears to be accelerating. On August 6th the Kremlin responded to Western pressure by announcing that it will ban or reduce agricultural imports from countries imposing sanctions on Russia.

The tensions in eastern Ukraine are rising. Ukrainian forces have, in effect, closed off the rebel stronghold of Donetsk through a campaign of often-indiscriminate shelling. If it falls to Kiev, then the pro-Moscow insurgency will lose its potency.

Mr Putin may be tempted to salvage his credibility by sending in Russian troops on the pretence of a “humanitarian” operation. According to NATO, 20,000 Russian soldiers have amassed at the border. They are engaged in live-fire drills involving fighter aircraft and bombers—the sort of manoeuvres that have presaged invasion before. Even if troops do not cross the border, the confrontation between Russia and the West looks set to continue through the rule of President Vladimir Putin and, perhaps, beyond.

Mr Putin has shown that he values his own understanding of Russia’s historic destiny more than the economic well-being of his country and its global reputation. He is making a risky bet that challenging the architecture of the post-cold-war order will reap its own rewards and make up for a drop in living standards. It is a mistake to think of Mr Putin as “mercantile”, says a Duma deputy from the pro-Kremlin United Russia party. Rather, he is an “historical figure” set on establishing Russia as a self-sufficient centre of power. 

The Kremlin proudly claims it will aim to replace Western goods and services with domestic ones, for instance in high-tech parts for the arms industry. Import substitution could work if manufacturers weren’t running at near-full capacity and in dire need of new investment, which will be in shorter supply as foreign financing shrinks. The country’s $173 billion in sovereign-wealth funds, built up over years of windfall profits from oil sales, will be drawn down to stabilise the rouble and pay off the debts of state banks and firms. “It won’t kill us, but it will create problems,” says the United Russia deputy.

Mr Putin will have to push the country’s financial resources to their limit if he wants to fulfill the promises on social spending he made when he returned to the presidency in May 2012.

Mr Putin has already proposed the introduction of a 3% sales tax as a way of filling holes in regional budgets. The government has also announced it will siphon off private pension-fund contributions to the federal budget, prompting a deputy economic-development minister to declare he was “ashamed” of the move. He was fired the next day.

Such problems have not yet hurt Mr Putin.  

Yet may be the operative word.  Let's not forget that Hitler and Mussolini saw themselves as "historic figures."  Those who followed them paid a very high price.  Putin, like so many failed Russian leaders of the past, puts his own ego ahead of the welfare of Russia and the Russian people. Putin might do well to remember how things ended for Mussolini.
 

Putin Launches New Cold War

Seeking to do something to distract average Russians from the growing isolation that he has created for their nation, Vladimir Putin has announced a ban against US and EU imports of foods stuffs and meats.  While the pundits debate who will suffer more economic harm from Putin's game of tit for tat, common sense suggests that Russia will ultimately be the bigger loser.  Reportedly, Putin is also prepared to introduce measures in the aviation, shipbuilding and automobile sectors which might kill France's sale of ships to Russia and force wealthy oligarchs to have to drive Russian made cars rather than the high end Rolls Royces and Mercedes that are their preference.  A piece in The Guardian looks at Putin's escalation of a new cold war to satiate his enormous ego and delusions that he is Russia's new Tsar.  Putin might do well to remember that Nicholas II's views of Russian power and his own rightness did not translate into reality and ended disastrously.  Here are excerpts:

Russians will no longer be able to buy fruit, vegetables, meat, fish or dairy products from the EU and the US, as the full scope of Moscow's food import ban became apparent on Thursday.

President Vladimir Putin told officials on Wednesday to come up with a list of western agricultural products and raw materials to be banned, in reaction to western sanctions over Russia's policies in Ukraine.

Russia's prime minister, Dmitry Medvedev, said the ban was effective immediately and would last for a year. It covers most foodstuffs from the US, the 28 EU countries, Canada, Australia and Norway.

The key question is whether the import ban would hurt European producers more than Russian consumers. The Kremlin's English-language channel, Russia Today, said the food ban could spark a "crisis in Europe" and would cost billions of pounds in lost revenues.  There was less musing on the cost to ordinary Russians, who have become used to readily available imported foods.

"I am sure that our market will be filled with fresh quality Russian products, which anyway many Russians prefer to the imported ones," said Medvedev.

The agriculture minister, Nikolai Fyodorov, said more Brazilian meat and New Zealand cheese would be imported to offset the newly prohibited items. He also said Moscow was in talks with Belarus and Kazakhstan to prevent the banned western foodstuffs being exported to Russia from the two countries.

Medvedev said Russia was prepared to introduce further measures in aviation, shipbuilding and automobile sectors, but said it would do so carefully. Moscow has already floated the idea of banning European airlines from flying over Russian airspace, which could add several hours to some flights between Europe and Asia.

Financial markets were quick to react to Putin's tit-for-tat move. Moscow's main two share indices extended Wednesday's sharp declines, with retail and banking shares among the biggest fallers. The RTS index lost 1.9%, and the rouble-denominated Micex fell 1.5%. European indices were also weaker.

Russia is carrying out military exercises near the border with Ukraine this week, and there are fears that the option of a ground invasion is still on the table. Nato said earlier this week that Moscow had amassed around 20,000 troops near the border and could be planning an invasion under the guise of a humanitarian intervention.

By isolating Russia Putin seems to be demonstrating the mindset that prevailed at times in Russia prior to Peter the Great when isolation only served to marginalize Russia and make it more backwards compared to Western Europe.  But then again, Putin seems to see himself as the new Ivan the Terrible.  Historically, Russia has flourished the most when it has been most open to the West as under Peter the Great, Catherine the Great, Alexander I, and even Nicholas II under whose reign Russia reached a pinnacle in the arts and was rapidly industrializing.   Putin reportedly likes to read about Russian history but he seems to be ignoring periods that might teach him that he is on a course backwards in time, but not in a positive way.

The End of Vladimir Putin?

Click image to enlarge

It's no secret that I think Vladimir Putin is a vile and corrupt man who needs to be removed from power.  He is the latest in a long line of Russian leaders who have harmed the well being of average Russian as these rulers chase after personal wealth at the expense of the populace and have more concern about satisfying their own egomania than the true welfare of the nation.  The book "Red Fortress: History and Illusion in the Kremlin" provides a great overview of Russia's history and the constant failure of many of its rulers.   Now, some are speculating that Putin may have overplayed his hand and set forces in motion that may lead to his much needed downfall.  Here are excerpts from a piece in Politico Magazine:

When rebel crosshairs fixed on Malaysian Airlines flight MH17 30,000 feet above the sunflowers of Eastern Ukraine, they had no idea what they were about to blow up. No clue they were about to incinerate hundreds of Dutch holidaymakers. None whatsoever they were about to wreck a decade of the Kremlin’s finest diplomacy—years of cleverly preventing the Americans from building a united Western front by playing divide and rule amongst the Europeans.

The rebels blew up more than a plane. They blew up Russia’s winning position in Brussels against sanctions. Europeans like to think they play games with others, but the truth is that for years Russia has been pulling strings inside the European Union. The boys in Brussels like to boast about the EU. But they are ashamed to admit how far the Kremlin had gamed them: playing them off each other with energy, armaments and oligarchs.

 . . . nothing big happened on sanctions before the downing of MH17. Kremlin sweeteners had divided the big three players: Britain was refusing to lose its business with Russian banks; France was determined not to lose billions in military contracts; and Germany, which gets 40 percent of its natural gas from Russia, refused to budge on anything to do with energy. With the big boys thus compromised, the weaker southern European countries gave pushback: With Italy in the lead, they wanted nothing more than to warm up European relations with Russia again.

MH17 changed everything. That one rebel error means Vladimir Putin has gone from unpleasant neighbor to monster in the court of European public opinion.

Suddenly for Britain, Germany and the Netherlands – the home country of most of those incinerated on the MH17 – not standing up to Putin was no longer about money. These politicians suddenly risked losing their credibility and their votes at home. Suddenly, the calculation flipped: For David Cameron and Angela Merkel in particular, sanctions were suddenly politically profitable.

Russia’s rebels have achieved what American diplomats failed to do. For months, American diplomats had been lobbying the 28 EU member states to take a stronger stance toward Russia. Not even Britain was particularly obliged—all those rubles can buy a lot of wobbly upper lips, apparently. But no longer: Russia’s European diplomacy now lies in the wreckage of the MH17. The package that was carried through this week looks set to hit the kleptocratic network that underwrites Putin hard. Russia’s economy is already teetering on the edge of recession.  The move to restrict the access of Russian state banks to Western financial markets will hurt not only the Kremlin’s coffers, but also the Russian oligarchs whose companies are tied into them.

There is a growing consensus in Moscow that the Kremlin has been so distracted with the geopolitics, and its diplomatic fallout, that it has completely taken its eye off the country’s worsening economics.

But these sanctions are first a psychological blow to Russia’s ruling class. They like to think of themselves as businessmen, tycoons, captains of industry. . . . They now see it all at risk.

These sanctions – limited though they might be – open the door to more. Russian elites now fear Western sanctions will become routine answers. This is why the Kremlin is dreaming about China. The men who run Russia are paranoid they will slowly have to swap London living for Shanghai nights. Their foremost hope is that they can make up for sanctions on Western financial markets by moving their financial activity to Singapore, Shanghai and Hong Kong.

Russia’s ruling classes are not about to throw Putin out: They are too bugged, too monitored, too frightened to attempt that. These banking sanctions are mild, but sanctions nevertheless. And yet something very important has changed in Russia. Putin is slowly morphing from being the guarantor of the oligarchs’ billions into a threat to their wealth. They have started – for the first time – to become losers in Putinism.

[W]hat the United States needs to start thinking about: how to play the politics of a Russian fiscal crisis someway down the road. What guarantees and concessions could it offer the Russian elite to tempt them away from Putin? That, of course—not the faint rumblings of a rejuvenated NATO—is exactly what Vladimir fears most.

 

Putin Imposes Secret Sanctions on Pro-Gay Obama Campaign Donors

I try to not bash Vladimir Putin too frequently, but sometimes, it is hard to do.  Today is one of those days.  Yesterday I noted that Putin is playing the Russian people much as Hitler played the 1930's Germans.  Now, in retaliation for Obama's criticism of Putin's anti-gay policies and sanctions America and some EU countries have imposed on Russia in the wake of the undeclared invasion of the non-Crimea portions of Ukraine, in a school yard bully like move, Putin has imposed secret sanctions on Obama's gay campaign contribution bundlers and other pro-gay donors.  The Daily Beast looks at Putin's childish hissy fit.  Here are excerpts:

The Kremlin has expanded its secret “black list” of Americans banned from Russia to include Obama campaign fundraisers tied to the LGBT community and senior Congressmen, diplomatic sources tell The Daily Beast. Moscow’s list, these sources say, was expanded in retaliation to the Obama administration’s attack on the assets of key business associates of Vladimir Putin in March.

[U]nlike the United States, which made all three rounds of sanctions public, the Russian government only publicly revealed one list of sanctioned Americans, which included top Senators and White House officials. The contents of the subsequent additions to the Russian list, however, remain officially undisclosed.

[T]he second American list was more personal, going after big businessmen in Russia who were very close to Putin—his moneymen and his cronies. Putin said in late April that he was baffled that the Americans were targeting the Russian oligarchs.

So when the Kremlin responded, the Russians had to get a little creative. Many top American businessmen are not necessarily close to President Obama personally, so Moscow chose to sanction top Obama campaign bundlers as the closest means of direct retaliation.

Diplomatic sources confirmed to The Daily Beast that the expanded and still-secret Russian sanctions list includes five top Obama campaign bundlers as well as about a dozen top Senators and Congressmen who were not included in the first list. The names of the specific bundlers remains a secret, but a focus was put on those with ties to the gay and lesbian community; it’s a reflection of the ongoing fight between the Kremlin and the White House over Russia’s laws punishing the promotion of LGBT “propaganda.”

Putin is Living in a 19th Century Fantasy World

I recently read a a book entitled the "Red Fortress: History and Illusion in the Kremlin," which tracks over 800 years of Russian history with focus on how the Kremlin has played a role in the unfolding drama.  One take away from the book - although this is not its objective - is that Russia has too often been ruled by nutcases and megalomaniacs and that long term it is always the Russian people who have suffered as a consequence.  Fast forward to today, and Vladimir Putin fits the stereotype of the Russian ruler untethered from objective reality as defined by the rest of the world.  And when it comes to state control of the press and repression, Putin makes the regime of the incompetent Tsar Nicholas II look both enlightened and benevolent.  A column in the Washington Post looks at Putin's 19th century fantasy world.  Here are excerpts:

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine has brought to the fore an important debate about what kind of world we live in. Many critics charge that the Obama administration has been blind to its harsh realities because it believes, as the Wall Street Journal opined, in “a fantasy world of international rules.” John McCain declared that “this is the most naive president in history.” The Post’s editorial board worried that President Obama misunderstands “the nature of the century we’re living in.” 

Almost all of these critics have ridiculed Secretary of State John Kerry’s assertion that changing borders by force, as Russia did, is 19th-century behavior in the 21st century. Well, here are the facts.


Before 1950, wars between nations resulted in border changes (annexations) about 80 percent of the time. After 1950, that number dropped to 27 percent. In fact, since 1946, there have been only 12 examples of major changes in borders using force — and all of them before 1976. So Putin’s behavior, in fact, does belong to the 19th century.

The transformation of international relations goes well beyond border changes.  . . . . “after a 600-year stretch in which Western European countries started two new wars a year, they have not started one since 1945. Nor have the 40 or so richest nations anywhere in the world engaged each other in armed conflict.” Colonial wars, a routine feature of international life for thousands of years, are extinct. Wars between countries — not just major powers, not just in Europe — have also dropped dramatically, by more than 50 percent over the past three decades.

[T]he most astonishing, remarkable reality about the world is how much things have changed, especially since 1945. It is ironic that the Wall Street Journal does not recognize this new world because it was created in substantial part through capitalism and free trade.

The best way to deal with Russia’s aggression in Crimea is not to present it as routine and national interest-based foreign policy that will be countered by Washington in a contest between two great powers. It is to point out, as Obama did eloquently this week in Brussels, that Russia is grossly endangering a global order that has benefited the entire world. 

Compare what the Obama administration has managed to organize in the wake of this latest Russian aggression to the Bush administration’s response to Putin’s actions in Georgia in 2008. That was a blatant invasion. Moscow sent in tanks and heavy artillery; hundreds were killed, nearly 200,000 displaced. Yet the response was essentially nothing. This time, it has been much more serious. Some of this difference is in the nature of the stakes, but it might also have to do with the fact that the Obama administration has taken pains to present Russia’s actions in a broader context and get other countries to see them as such.

You can see a similar pattern with Iran. The Bush administration largely pressured that country bilaterally. The Obama administration was able to get much more effective pressure because it presented Iran’s nuclear program as a threat to global norms. . .

There is an evolving international order with new global norms making war and conquest increasingly rare. We should strengthen, not ridicule, it. Yes, some places stand in opposition to this trend — North Korea, Syria, Russia. The people running these countries believe that they are charting a path to greatness and glory. But they are the ones living in a fantasy world.

The author is correct.  Look at the disasters of the Bush/Cheney regime: billions wasted, thousands of lives thrown away and nothing to show for it.  It makes sense to try a different approach after Bush/Cheney's bankrupting wars and squandering of American lives.  It's past time to reject the same old cries and whining of the neocons who helped give us the Bush/Cheney disasters. 

How to Punish Putin

Like the tsars of old, Vladimir Putin needs two things to remain in power as a virtual dictator: (i) a continued ability to dupe the larger population and play upon their prejudices and insecurities and (ii) continued support from Russia's oligarchs who have become the equivalent of the nobility under the tsarist regime.  Once Nicholas II lost the support of key members of the nobility, his abdication was inevitable (indeed, the husband of Nicholas' niece even helped assassinate Rasputin).  An op-ed column in the New York Times makes the case that the west can best punish Putin by striking at the Russian oligarchs who, if pressed to choose between Putin and their own continued wealth and lavish lifestyle would likely throw Putin under the bus.  Here are some  column highlights:

AS I write this, I am under house arrest. I was detained at a rally in support of anti-Putin protesters who were jailed last month.

In September, I ran for mayor of Moscow as a pro-reform, pro-democracy opposition candidate and received almost a third of the vote despite having no access to state media. Today, my blog, which was until recently visited by over two million readers per month, has been blocked as “extremist” after I called for friendly ties with Ukraine and compliance with international law.

[O]n Feb. 28, Russia sent troops to Ukraine in precisely such a “little war.” I admit that I underestimated Mr. Putin’s talent for finding enemies, as well as his dedication to ruling as “president for life,” with powers on par with the czars’.

As a citizen and patriot, I cannot support actions against Russia that would worsen conditions for our people. Still, I recommend two options that, if successfully implemented, I believe would be welcomed by most Russians.

First, although Mr. Putin’s invasion has already prompted the European Union to impose sanctions on 21 officials, and the United States on seven, most of these government figures cannot be considered influential. They do not have major assets outside Russia and are irrelevant to Mr. Putin; sanctioning them will not change Russia’s policy. After all the tough talk from Western politicians, this action is mocked in Russia and even seen as a tacit encouragement to Mr. Putin and his entourage, who seem to possess some magical immunity.

Instead, Western nations could deliver a serious blow to the luxurious lifestyles enjoyed by the Kremlin’s cronies who shuttle between Russia and the West. This means freezing the oligarchs’ financial assets and seizing their property.

Such sanctions should primarily target Mr. Putin’s inner circle, the Kremlin mafia who pillage the nation’s wealth, including Gennady N. Timchenko, head of the Volga Group; Arkady and Boris Rotenberg, influential businessmen and former judo sparring partners of Mr. Putin; Yuri V. Kovalchuk, a financier believed to be Mr. Putin’s banker; Vladimir I. Yakunin, president of Russian Railways; the oligarchs Roman A. Abramovich and Alisher B. Usmanov; and Igor I. Sechin and Aleksei B. Miller, the heads of Rosneft and Gazprom, respectively.

The sanctions must also hit the oligarchs whose media outlets parrot the regime lines, and target Mr. Putin’s entire “war cabinet”: the TV spin doctors, compliant Duma members and apparatchiks of Mr. Putin’s United Russia Party.

Second, Western authorities must investigate ill-gotten gains from Russia within their jurisdictions. The Anti-Corruption Foundation, which I established in 2011, has revealed dozens of major cases of graft. In 90 percent of those cases, Russian money was laundered in the West. Sadly, American, European Union and British law enforcement agencies have stymied our efforts to investigate such criminal plunder.

“Crimea has always been an integral part of Russia in the hearts and minds of people,” Mr. Putin claimed this week. But even among the most nationalist and pro-Soviet of our people, a longing to restore Crimea to Russian rule faded years ago.  Yet Mr. Putin has cynically raised nationalist fervor to a fever pitch; imperialist annexation is a strategic choice to bolster his regime’s survival. Mobilizing the masses by distracting them from real problems like corruption and economic stagnation can take place only beneath the banner of fighting external enemies.

It is true that the consensus in both Russia and Crimea is that the peninsula has historically been closer to Moscow than to Kiev. But the notion that this reunification should be achieved at the end of the barrel of a gun is supported only by Mr. Putin’s hard-core base. The opposition has spoken clearly. The antiwar protest held in Moscow over the weekend was the largest in two years, and it exceeded any counterdemonstration mustered by pro-Kremlin movements.

There is a common delusion among the international community that although Mr. Putin is corrupt, his leadership is necessary because his regime subdues the dark, nationalist forces that otherwise would seize power in Russia. The West should admit that it, too, has underestimated Mr. Putin’s malign intent. It is time to end the dangerous delusion that enables him.