I'm not usually given to conspiracy theories but all of a sudden in the last two weeks every major news outlet has suddenly started spouting that Ukraine is basically defeated. It was only a couple of months age that Biden said, with cheering approval from the media, that Russia had been defeated. It was even more recently that Gen. Milley repeated that in his retirement speech. Any number of official spokesmen were claiming that the Ukrainians had broken through the Russian first line of defense and were well on their way to the Sea of Azov.
And now, just like that, Zelensky has gone from being Churchill reincarnated to a semi delusional loser who must be removed before anything can be done to save the situation. I must say it certainly looks coordinated.
I just don't see how America can climb down from their position. I can't see Putin agreeing to give up ownership of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, since he now has it in his possession. That is more than he was willing to concede before the war started.
Treaties and agreements about future conduct etc. mean nothing to the average person, no matter how much they feed the ego of those negotiating them. For the people of the world, seeing Putin walk away with more territory than he was asking for in the beginning while Ukraine lies destroyed, it looks like Putin smashed Ukraine and more importantly NATO, with relative ease.
If Ukraine hadn't listened to Biden, hadn't got it's country destroyed and half ot its population refugees outside the country or dead, had instead pursued its own interest, the country would be richer, the population intact, its physical territory guaranteed by treaty with Russia.
Unblleivably, people are still listening to Victoria Nuland even though her policies have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, for over a decade, all the while making America look stupid and weak.
Lesson for countries around the world....... Russia wins, America loses. Make the wrong choice and you get destroyed for nothing.
Bottom line: America, the UK (don't forget Johnson's rush to Kiev to block the Istanbul peace deal in April 2022) and other 'allies' or patrons, along with their wayward puppet locked in his war-hero role, won't be very popular in rump Ukraine after demolishing the country, and killing and maiming a lost generation (an appropriate WW1 epithet) in exchange for a far worse deal than Minsk II (Putin invaded a few days after the expiry of its 7-year implementation term).
But don't forget that Milley said exactly a year ago it might be a good time to talk to Putin.
I don't think most military patrons ever unrealistically planned to restore 2014 borders, giving only limited incremental (I called it here 'titrated') support to attain their goal of weakening Russia without unpredictable escalation, and strengthening 'braindead' NATO after the Afghan débâcle.
Zelensky was just a useful fantasist locked into a new role (after actor and president) of war hero that got most delusional Ukrainians on board (after his popularity had slumped from 80% to 20% since his election).
As I've said before, as in a Greek tragedy, his hubristic fantasy was doomed from the start, and I think many 'allies' discussed that behind the scenes almost from the start.
The evolved NATO plan last Winter was to get to the Sea of Azov and talk to Putin, but Zelensky allowed obsessional Syrskyi to divert vast resources to the Western front, in exchange for a domestic alliance against political rival Zaluzhny.
So now the actor-president and war hero's delusional fantasy is suddenly crashing down all around him, and he 'needs a ride'.
That's how classic tragedy, here in a theatre of war, usually unfolds -slowly then with a dramatic turning-point at the end of the penultimate Act. Aristotle, the first theorist of tragedy, called it περιπέτεια, 'reversal' of the action rising to a crisis precipitating an inevitable sudden fall.
Nuland seems very adaptable within her tunnel neocon vision, and may or may not have believed the rhetoric of total victory.
Biden, Johnson and some others are going to come out of this pretty poorly. But I always thought Milley knew pretty well what he was doing, despite occasional embarrasing lapses into the delusional rhetoric of the 'war presidents' in Washington and Kiev.
I dunno why you guys are so obsessed with Victoria Nuland. She's just a random diplomat. She comes up in all these conversations and when I check and see what actual involvement she had in anything - there's nothing. It's not even that there's nothing important going on, it's that there's nothing to see.
'it looks like Putin smashed Ukraine and more importantly NATO, with relative ease.'
Mate that is straight delusional. The Russian military destroyed itself against a military it should've been able to handle in a week. Nobody seriously thinks Russia has any ability to throw hands with NATO after this, that's why Sweden and Finland signed up. Russia's coming out of this looking obslete at best.
Victoria Nuland is not...not...not some random diplomat. She was under secretary of state fot the U.S. She is currently acting deputy secretary of state. Her areas of repsonsibility are to carry out the machinations and political conniving that America bases its foriegn affairs on. She represented the state dept. in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and the recent coups against her policies in Africa.
She determines who the staffers are that are assigned to deal with hot spots and potentially sensitive parts of the world. She decides who the staffers are that provide the background information that gets passed on to the political appointees in the White House administration that you hear about and think run things.
All those high profile international meetings that show top level figures meeting have outcomes that are arranged in advance. It is her that arranges everything from the language of the outcome to its conduct. Woe betide any political figure that tries to bull their own agenda. Trump found out the hard way was happens if you cross the deep state as represented by Nuland when you try to have a productive meeting with a foreign leader.
She makes routine appearances in front of Congressional committees because she is the point person for many of the debacles that have befallen America internationally.
Her last appearance there was to explain the signifcance of the African coup leaders refusal to meet with her on her last trip there. She mentioned that she did explain to the lower level people she did meet with that she would cut off a range of financing that those countries had been receiving if they didn't start conforming to the objectives that she was laying out for them. Which is exactly why the leaders didn't bother meeting with her. They are counting on Russia's Wagner group to carry them through. I imagine that's why both America and France have bailed out of the region.
The Ukraine phone call in question was to ensure the Ambassodor to Ukraine fully understood what her preferences were for the outcome of Maiden revolution that was in motion. Importantly, the Ambassador was told by *her* to ignore the feelings of the European countries who were directly affected.
Russia's army is bigger, better equipped and better trained than before the war started. Its economy is performing better than the U.K. The war has been devastating for Germany leading it into a recession and deindustrialization. Putin is even more popular now than he was before the war started. NATO is fighting Russia's kind of war and it shows in the result.
NATO has been revealed to have the wrong military doctrine and thus the wrong, vastly overpriced equipment to fight the kind of war that was supposed to be its purpose. America is pouring more money every year into Ukraine than the total annual budget for Russia's defense department and they are still losing.
NATO is out of suitable weapons and ammuniton to fight Russia. Even worse, it has already lost the will to fight and they haven't even had to come in direct contact with Russian forces yet. That's why all of a sudden, everyone is talking negotiations to solve the Ukraine struggle instead of some dreamed of victory over the Russian forces.
The compelling argument in the domestic debate about Sweden joining NATO was that Sweden would be able to cut its defense budget in half as a result.
Bruh she isn't in all those places at once. What you're describing is a spokesperson - everything else is just conspiracy theories about her. State Department doesn't even do half of what you're describing. It isn't that powerful and it's not like it gets to set policy on any of this stuff.
The problem with people talking about Nuland is this is exactly what it devolves into - really long rants and screaming about her influence with no concrete case studies, no examples, no evidence. All hearsay, implications, rumors, out of context press statements, etcetera, with no sources or anything behind it. It's just fluff.
You can beleve that the State department has no impact on American foreign policy if you wish. You can also believe the Deputy Secretary of State has no influence over what little policy impact that you might credit the State Department with having. Nor do they have any impact on staffing which means no one in the department cares what the Deputy thinks about anything.
You can believe that the political appointees purportedly in charge of foreign policy for the Executive Branch all have their own roster of contacts, their own decades long personal experience and history of engagement with opposite numbers in other countries.
You can believe that when foreign countries want to interact with people who can represent American interests in their country, they always completely ignore the designated, legally specified channel which is the ambassador, but instead go by newspaper accounts or something.
You can believe that when meetings between important heads happen, their interactions are spontaneous and random. That the meetings length, details and general outcome are not arranged in advance. That the heads of state routinely take a chance on it being a public failure because if it does fail no cares anyway.
You can believe that the American government had no influence in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine or events that transpired there. Of if it had influence, that the hundreds of people employed by the government to implement and manage that influence on the ground are always ignored by policy makers.
If you can credit the Secretary of State as having credibilty and influence then surely you must credit his deputy with some of that influence. Or you can believe as you apparently do that the Secretary of State position is regarded as a loser position that no one really wants because it is so umimportant in the scheme of things.
I mean if the State Department doesn't implement American foreign policy set by the President and Secretary, then who does? If the State department isn't repsonsible for working out the details with the E.U. about America's view on Moldova joining the E.U., then who does? If the State department didn't organize the fake statement about the completely fake problem of fentanyl precusors originating in China issued by both President Xi and President Biden, then who did?
You are correct when you call Victoria Nuland a spokesman. However, you have to be clear about your terms. There are people that are spokesmen for their departments. You see them on t.v. etc. Then there are the individuals who are spokesmen *to* their department.... communicating the chosen policies of the President and their Secretary. They are also the spokesman for the department *to* the President and their Secretary. There are no more powerful positions in American foreign policy than the individuals who control the the flow of information to and from the administration in the State department.
It is worth noting that Victoria Nuland's husband has a very powerful status in American foreign affairs in his own right. He is and for decades has been the go between for the nexus of the corporate media, the defense industry and academia with respect to foreign policy. That nexus has unlimited media access, hundreds of millions of dollars of lobbying money over the decades and because of that currently shapes the direction of academic foreign policy analysis.
All of this has been documented for years in public statements by the individuals involved, sworn testimony in Congressional hearings, extensive analysis by prestigious organizations and posted regulations, requirements and mission statements by the State department itself. But...as I say....you can ignore all the foregoing contained in this comment if you wish.
Again: it's all just hearsay. 'Implications.' Rumors. No evidence. No who what where when why to anything you're saying. In other words...it's just vibes.
Vague conspiracy-talk about Nuland. Reading between the lines of whatever she says. Nothing actually concrete. You're basically correct about what the State Department does routinely (except about the information part. Think you're forgetting all the intelligence agencies that also inform the executive...?) but attributing the actions of an entire department and government to one person: Nuland. She doesn't have that power. She has little if any policy-making authority. That's the NSC and Pentagon's job.
Nuland's just some boogeyman for people scared about Russia's weakness. It's extremely easy to reduce all the actions of government to one person and make a conspiracy out of it. That's the easy way to think about things, even if it isn't right. But it's silly. The intense focus on her is silly. What you've written here is silly. The whole obsession with her on blogs like this is silly. That's all.
No vague nothing. No vibes. The struggle between Zaluzhny and Zelensky is quite out in the open. You also are dead wrong about Nuland not having any policy making capability. When did you get that idea? She is the #3 person at the State Department and is responsible for Ukraine. There is nothing silly here, and I find that remark unacceptable.
The MSM is mainly ignorant “personalities” and “influencers”. Know nothings chosen for their looks, race, sex, and other identity markers. Certainly not for any knowledge of anything being discussed herein.
MSM and any guests must tow the official narrative. The hand full of corporations that control US media have been given the word, as happens in every war.
CIA & MI6 'setting the stage' for the actor-president's exit from the theatre of war :-)
Great and timely review - many thanks.
'Fuck the EU' Vicky has been directing the Ukraine Show almost since she became Cheney's foreign policy advisor in 2003.
I saw someone refer recently to Postsoviet Ukraine as 'The Kaganate of Nulandia'.
Much of Ukraine, the Southern 'borderland' or Wild South, of Europe, was a Kaganate (feudal group of khanates) controlled by Turkic warlords, including for several centuries Khazars converted to Judaism (like Kazakhs, and later Cossacks, literally 'nomads') from the sixth century onward - later interacting with the new Varangian (Norman) trading post on the Dnieper at Kiev (controlling traffic from Baltic to Black Sea) before the first, Kievan, Rus was overrun by Mongols in the thirteenth century.
Alexander Nevsky instead did a deal with the Mongols, paying taxes in exchange for help against Catholic expansion from the West, founding a hybrid despotic Eurasian Moscow dominatiing 'all the Russias'. He is an Orthodox saint and was recently voted 'Greatest Ever Russian'.
But 'The Kaganate of Nulandia' echoes not only the deep history that informs so much of the age-old East-West and North-South conflict in the Borderland, but also Vicky's husband Bob Kagan - the still inflential founder of the Project for a New American Century of the nineties, in which he and his wife and various other influential relatives still strongly believe, after switching domestic political allegiance from Bush Jr. to old cold warrior Biden after the arrival of isolationist Trump. Vicky has adapted easily to different politicians at home, as long as she could continue her neocon project abroad, especially in the old Soviet empire, being promoted to Blinken's deputy this year.
I suggested here a while ago that the actor-president might use elections again directed by Kagan Vicky or Vicky Kagan to leave the scene (and country) with his model wife and college-age daughter, after being 'stabbed in the back' by fickle allies.
The suggestion was largely dismissed, but still seems to me a probable scenario.
Perhaps just as likely is avoiding actual voting by a transition in the feudal remnants of the old SSR, overseen by Vicky, to a new 'goverment of national unity' led by Zaluzhny which could negotiate the inevitable but inevitably partial and unstable settlement with Russia?
Good overview. I think March is too far ahead given the pressure from the generals and the west's need to make a deal. I tried to explain that we could be witnessing the end of NATO's deterrence, which would be a blow to the west and dangerous for world peace. For that reason I suspect the timetable is much tighter.
There's zero proof 'the West' is trying to replace Zelensky. I checked the source you linked - the 'evidence' amounts to the fact Zaluzhnyy had an op ed (?). If your buddy thinks people only get op-eds in The Economist with MI6 intervention then he's delusional. I'm not sure where all this is coming from.
The phone call transcript you posted just shows Nuland talking about who they like and don't like in Ukraine's political scene from the time. Not seeing any evidence anything was orchestrated behind the scenes. Need some 'Who, what, where, why, how' check on that.
"Prigozhin met with Ukrainian intelligence in CAR" - what? When? Where's the proof of that? Is there any evidence aside from Ukraine saying he was talking with them? Wouldn't they say that just to mess with Putin?
A little more fact-checking, a little less conspiracy theorizing, please. You should be more careful before repeating such things without any evidence... I don't know how you got tricked so easily on this one.
I'm not usually given to conspiracy theories but all of a sudden in the last two weeks every major news outlet has suddenly started spouting that Ukraine is basically defeated. It was only a couple of months age that Biden said, with cheering approval from the media, that Russia had been defeated. It was even more recently that Gen. Milley repeated that in his retirement speech. Any number of official spokesmen were claiming that the Ukrainians had broken through the Russian first line of defense and were well on their way to the Sea of Azov.
And now, just like that, Zelensky has gone from being Churchill reincarnated to a semi delusional loser who must be removed before anything can be done to save the situation. I must say it certainly looks coordinated.
I just don't see how America can climb down from their position. I can't see Putin agreeing to give up ownership of Eastern Ukraine and Crimea, since he now has it in his possession. That is more than he was willing to concede before the war started.
Treaties and agreements about future conduct etc. mean nothing to the average person, no matter how much they feed the ego of those negotiating them. For the people of the world, seeing Putin walk away with more territory than he was asking for in the beginning while Ukraine lies destroyed, it looks like Putin smashed Ukraine and more importantly NATO, with relative ease.
If Ukraine hadn't listened to Biden, hadn't got it's country destroyed and half ot its population refugees outside the country or dead, had instead pursued its own interest, the country would be richer, the population intact, its physical territory guaranteed by treaty with Russia.
Unblleivably, people are still listening to Victoria Nuland even though her policies have resulted in the deaths of hundreds of thousands of people, for over a decade, all the while making America look stupid and weak.
Lesson for countries around the world....... Russia wins, America loses. Make the wrong choice and you get destroyed for nothing.
Bottom line: America, the UK (don't forget Johnson's rush to Kiev to block the Istanbul peace deal in April 2022) and other 'allies' or patrons, along with their wayward puppet locked in his war-hero role, won't be very popular in rump Ukraine after demolishing the country, and killing and maiming a lost generation (an appropriate WW1 epithet) in exchange for a far worse deal than Minsk II (Putin invaded a few days after the expiry of its 7-year implementation term).
But don't forget that Milley said exactly a year ago it might be a good time to talk to Putin.
I don't think most military patrons ever unrealistically planned to restore 2014 borders, giving only limited incremental (I called it here 'titrated') support to attain their goal of weakening Russia without unpredictable escalation, and strengthening 'braindead' NATO after the Afghan débâcle.
Zelensky was just a useful fantasist locked into a new role (after actor and president) of war hero that got most delusional Ukrainians on board (after his popularity had slumped from 80% to 20% since his election).
As I've said before, as in a Greek tragedy, his hubristic fantasy was doomed from the start, and I think many 'allies' discussed that behind the scenes almost from the start.
The evolved NATO plan last Winter was to get to the Sea of Azov and talk to Putin, but Zelensky allowed obsessional Syrskyi to divert vast resources to the Western front, in exchange for a domestic alliance against political rival Zaluzhny.
So now the actor-president and war hero's delusional fantasy is suddenly crashing down all around him, and he 'needs a ride'.
That's how classic tragedy, here in a theatre of war, usually unfolds -slowly then with a dramatic turning-point at the end of the penultimate Act. Aristotle, the first theorist of tragedy, called it περιπέτεια, 'reversal' of the action rising to a crisis precipitating an inevitable sudden fall.
Nuland seems very adaptable within her tunnel neocon vision, and may or may not have believed the rhetoric of total victory.
Biden, Johnson and some others are going to come out of this pretty poorly. But I always thought Milley knew pretty well what he was doing, despite occasional embarrasing lapses into the delusional rhetoric of the 'war presidents' in Washington and Kiev.
America and NATO need more realists like him.
I dunno why you guys are so obsessed with Victoria Nuland. She's just a random diplomat. She comes up in all these conversations and when I check and see what actual involvement she had in anything - there's nothing. It's not even that there's nothing important going on, it's that there's nothing to see.
'it looks like Putin smashed Ukraine and more importantly NATO, with relative ease.'
Mate that is straight delusional. The Russian military destroyed itself against a military it should've been able to handle in a week. Nobody seriously thinks Russia has any ability to throw hands with NATO after this, that's why Sweden and Finland signed up. Russia's coming out of this looking obslete at best.
You look in the wrong places
BRP_Pantero
Victoria Nuland is not...not...not some random diplomat. She was under secretary of state fot the U.S. She is currently acting deputy secretary of state. Her areas of repsonsibility are to carry out the machinations and political conniving that America bases its foriegn affairs on. She represented the state dept. in Libya, Syria, Ukraine and the recent coups against her policies in Africa.
She determines who the staffers are that are assigned to deal with hot spots and potentially sensitive parts of the world. She decides who the staffers are that provide the background information that gets passed on to the political appointees in the White House administration that you hear about and think run things.
All those high profile international meetings that show top level figures meeting have outcomes that are arranged in advance. It is her that arranges everything from the language of the outcome to its conduct. Woe betide any political figure that tries to bull their own agenda. Trump found out the hard way was happens if you cross the deep state as represented by Nuland when you try to have a productive meeting with a foreign leader.
She makes routine appearances in front of Congressional committees because she is the point person for many of the debacles that have befallen America internationally.
Her last appearance there was to explain the signifcance of the African coup leaders refusal to meet with her on her last trip there. She mentioned that she did explain to the lower level people she did meet with that she would cut off a range of financing that those countries had been receiving if they didn't start conforming to the objectives that she was laying out for them. Which is exactly why the leaders didn't bother meeting with her. They are counting on Russia's Wagner group to carry them through. I imagine that's why both America and France have bailed out of the region.
The Ukraine phone call in question was to ensure the Ambassodor to Ukraine fully understood what her preferences were for the outcome of Maiden revolution that was in motion. Importantly, the Ambassador was told by *her* to ignore the feelings of the European countries who were directly affected.
Russia's army is bigger, better equipped and better trained than before the war started. Its economy is performing better than the U.K. The war has been devastating for Germany leading it into a recession and deindustrialization. Putin is even more popular now than he was before the war started. NATO is fighting Russia's kind of war and it shows in the result.
NATO has been revealed to have the wrong military doctrine and thus the wrong, vastly overpriced equipment to fight the kind of war that was supposed to be its purpose. America is pouring more money every year into Ukraine than the total annual budget for Russia's defense department and they are still losing.
NATO is out of suitable weapons and ammuniton to fight Russia. Even worse, it has already lost the will to fight and they haven't even had to come in direct contact with Russian forces yet. That's why all of a sudden, everyone is talking negotiations to solve the Ukraine struggle instead of some dreamed of victory over the Russian forces.
The compelling argument in the domestic debate about Sweden joining NATO was that Sweden would be able to cut its defense budget in half as a result.
Bruh she isn't in all those places at once. What you're describing is a spokesperson - everything else is just conspiracy theories about her. State Department doesn't even do half of what you're describing. It isn't that powerful and it's not like it gets to set policy on any of this stuff.
The problem with people talking about Nuland is this is exactly what it devolves into - really long rants and screaming about her influence with no concrete case studies, no examples, no evidence. All hearsay, implications, rumors, out of context press statements, etcetera, with no sources or anything behind it. It's just fluff.
You can beleve that the State department has no impact on American foreign policy if you wish. You can also believe the Deputy Secretary of State has no influence over what little policy impact that you might credit the State Department with having. Nor do they have any impact on staffing which means no one in the department cares what the Deputy thinks about anything.
You can believe that the political appointees purportedly in charge of foreign policy for the Executive Branch all have their own roster of contacts, their own decades long personal experience and history of engagement with opposite numbers in other countries.
You can believe that when foreign countries want to interact with people who can represent American interests in their country, they always completely ignore the designated, legally specified channel which is the ambassador, but instead go by newspaper accounts or something.
You can believe that when meetings between important heads happen, their interactions are spontaneous and random. That the meetings length, details and general outcome are not arranged in advance. That the heads of state routinely take a chance on it being a public failure because if it does fail no cares anyway.
You can believe that the American government had no influence in Iraq, Libya, Syria, Ukraine or events that transpired there. Of if it had influence, that the hundreds of people employed by the government to implement and manage that influence on the ground are always ignored by policy makers.
If you can credit the Secretary of State as having credibilty and influence then surely you must credit his deputy with some of that influence. Or you can believe as you apparently do that the Secretary of State position is regarded as a loser position that no one really wants because it is so umimportant in the scheme of things.
I mean if the State Department doesn't implement American foreign policy set by the President and Secretary, then who does? If the State department isn't repsonsible for working out the details with the E.U. about America's view on Moldova joining the E.U., then who does? If the State department didn't organize the fake statement about the completely fake problem of fentanyl precusors originating in China issued by both President Xi and President Biden, then who did?
You are correct when you call Victoria Nuland a spokesman. However, you have to be clear about your terms. There are people that are spokesmen for their departments. You see them on t.v. etc. Then there are the individuals who are spokesmen *to* their department.... communicating the chosen policies of the President and their Secretary. They are also the spokesman for the department *to* the President and their Secretary. There are no more powerful positions in American foreign policy than the individuals who control the the flow of information to and from the administration in the State department.
It is worth noting that Victoria Nuland's husband has a very powerful status in American foreign affairs in his own right. He is and for decades has been the go between for the nexus of the corporate media, the defense industry and academia with respect to foreign policy. That nexus has unlimited media access, hundreds of millions of dollars of lobbying money over the decades and because of that currently shapes the direction of academic foreign policy analysis.
All of this has been documented for years in public statements by the individuals involved, sworn testimony in Congressional hearings, extensive analysis by prestigious organizations and posted regulations, requirements and mission statements by the State department itself. But...as I say....you can ignore all the foregoing contained in this comment if you wish.
Again: it's all just hearsay. 'Implications.' Rumors. No evidence. No who what where when why to anything you're saying. In other words...it's just vibes.
Vague conspiracy-talk about Nuland. Reading between the lines of whatever she says. Nothing actually concrete. You're basically correct about what the State Department does routinely (except about the information part. Think you're forgetting all the intelligence agencies that also inform the executive...?) but attributing the actions of an entire department and government to one person: Nuland. She doesn't have that power. She has little if any policy-making authority. That's the NSC and Pentagon's job.
Nuland's just some boogeyman for people scared about Russia's weakness. It's extremely easy to reduce all the actions of government to one person and make a conspiracy out of it. That's the easy way to think about things, even if it isn't right. But it's silly. The intense focus on her is silly. What you've written here is silly. The whole obsession with her on blogs like this is silly. That's all.
No vague nothing. No vibes. The struggle between Zaluzhny and Zelensky is quite out in the open. You also are dead wrong about Nuland not having any policy making capability. When did you get that idea? She is the #3 person at the State Department and is responsible for Ukraine. There is nothing silly here, and I find that remark unacceptable.
That is fascinating! Isn’t it funny that no one in the MSM has the basic knowledge and temerity to tell us what’s actually going on.
Hum?
What are we humans if not liars?
The MSM is mainly ignorant “personalities” and “influencers”. Know nothings chosen for their looks, race, sex, and other identity markers. Certainly not for any knowledge of anything being discussed herein.
MSM and any guests must tow the official narrative. The hand full of corporations that control US media have been given the word, as happens in every war.
CIA & MI6 'setting the stage' for the actor-president's exit from the theatre of war :-)
Great and timely review - many thanks.
'Fuck the EU' Vicky has been directing the Ukraine Show almost since she became Cheney's foreign policy advisor in 2003.
I saw someone refer recently to Postsoviet Ukraine as 'The Kaganate of Nulandia'.
Much of Ukraine, the Southern 'borderland' or Wild South, of Europe, was a Kaganate (feudal group of khanates) controlled by Turkic warlords, including for several centuries Khazars converted to Judaism (like Kazakhs, and later Cossacks, literally 'nomads') from the sixth century onward - later interacting with the new Varangian (Norman) trading post on the Dnieper at Kiev (controlling traffic from Baltic to Black Sea) before the first, Kievan, Rus was overrun by Mongols in the thirteenth century.
Alexander Nevsky instead did a deal with the Mongols, paying taxes in exchange for help against Catholic expansion from the West, founding a hybrid despotic Eurasian Moscow dominatiing 'all the Russias'. He is an Orthodox saint and was recently voted 'Greatest Ever Russian'.
But 'The Kaganate of Nulandia' echoes not only the deep history that informs so much of the age-old East-West and North-South conflict in the Borderland, but also Vicky's husband Bob Kagan - the still inflential founder of the Project for a New American Century of the nineties, in which he and his wife and various other influential relatives still strongly believe, after switching domestic political allegiance from Bush Jr. to old cold warrior Biden after the arrival of isolationist Trump. Vicky has adapted easily to different politicians at home, as long as she could continue her neocon project abroad, especially in the old Soviet empire, being promoted to Blinken's deputy this year.
I suggested here a while ago that the actor-president might use elections again directed by Kagan Vicky or Vicky Kagan to leave the scene (and country) with his model wife and college-age daughter, after being 'stabbed in the back' by fickle allies.
The suggestion was largely dismissed, but still seems to me a probable scenario.
Perhaps just as likely is avoiding actual voting by a transition in the feudal remnants of the old SSR, overseen by Vicky, to a new 'goverment of national unity' led by Zaluzhny which could negotiate the inevitable but inevitably partial and unstable settlement with Russia?
Good overview. I think March is too far ahead given the pressure from the generals and the west's need to make a deal. I tried to explain that we could be witnessing the end of NATO's deterrence, which would be a blow to the west and dangerous for world peace. For that reason I suspect the timetable is much tighter.
Thanks . March does indeed seem a long way ahead - lame ducks generally have rather short political lives.
But I guess elections, or the transition to a new caretaker administration, aren't necessarily bound to the old timetable?
As I understand it, the purged parliament can at any point change the rules if it seems in their interest?
There's zero proof 'the West' is trying to replace Zelensky. I checked the source you linked - the 'evidence' amounts to the fact Zaluzhnyy had an op ed (?). If your buddy thinks people only get op-eds in The Economist with MI6 intervention then he's delusional. I'm not sure where all this is coming from.
The phone call transcript you posted just shows Nuland talking about who they like and don't like in Ukraine's political scene from the time. Not seeing any evidence anything was orchestrated behind the scenes. Need some 'Who, what, where, why, how' check on that.
"Prigozhin met with Ukrainian intelligence in CAR" - what? When? Where's the proof of that? Is there any evidence aside from Ukraine saying he was talking with them? Wouldn't they say that just to mess with Putin?
A little more fact-checking, a little less conspiracy theorizing, please. You should be more careful before repeating such things without any evidence... I don't know how you got tricked so easily on this one.
I disagree
You disagree about what? That you didn't fact-check this one very thoroughly?