Larry Johnson Sent Me This Link.

I am awfully glad and thankful he did. This is the piece from this guy: 

Jacques Baud is a former colonel of the General Staff, ex-member of the Swiss strategic intelligence, specialist on Eastern countries. He was trained in the American and British intelligence services. He has served as Policy Chief for United Nations Peace Operations. As a UN expert on rule of law and security institutions, he designed and led the first multidimensional UN intelligence unit in the Sudan. He has worked for the African Union and was for 5 years responsible for the fight, at NATO, against the proliferation of small arms. He was involved in discussions with the highest Russian military and intelligence officials just after the fall of the USSR. Within NATO, he followed the 2014 Ukrainian crisis and later participated in programs to assist the Ukraine. He is the author of several books on intelligence, war and terrorism, in particular Le Détournement published by SIGEST, Gouverner par les fake news, L’affaire Navalny. His latest book is Poutine, maître du jeu? published by Max Milo.

Here is the snippet from his excellent review:

From an operational point of view, the Russian offensive was an example of its kind: in six days, the Russians seized a territory as large as the United Kingdom, with a speed of advance greater than what the Wehrmacht had achieved in 1940. The bulk of the Ukrainian army was deployed in the south of the country in preparation for a major operation against the Donbass. This is why Russian forces were able to encircle it from the beginning of March in the “cauldron” between Slavyansk, Kramatorsk and Severodonetsk, with a thrust from the East through Kharkov and another from the South from Crimea. Troops from the Donetsk (DPR) and Lugansk (LPR) Republics are complementing the Russian forces with a push from the East. At this stage, Russian forces are slowly tightening the noose, but are no longer under time pressure. Their demilitarization goal is all but achieved and the remaining Ukrainian forces no longer have an operational and strategic command structure. The “slowdown” that our “experts” attribute to poor logistics is only the consequence of having achieved their objectives. Russia does not seem to want to engage in an occupation of the entire Ukrainian territory. In fact, it seems that Russia is trying to limit its advance to the linguistic border of the country.

But it is this metaphysical conclusion which stands out:

As Goethe said: “The greater the light, the darker the shadow.” The more the sanctions against Russia are disproportionate, the more the cases where we have done nothing highlight our racism and servility. Why have no Western politicians reacted to the strikes against the civilian population of Donbass for eight years?

Read the whole thing. It is excellent. 

P.S. I used one of the links Baud provides and, boy, there is nothing to discuss with Europe. This Luxembourgian ass-hole merely expressed in March of 2022 what many in Europe and the US desire above all.

Jean Asselborn, le chef de la diplomatie luxembourgeoise a évoqué « l’élimination physique » de Vladimir Poutine, ce mercredi, au cours d’une interview sur Radio 100,7. L’ADR a réagi via une question parlementaire. La phrase a été prononcée par le ministre des Affaires étrangères, ce mercredi, lors d’une interview sur Radio 100,7 : « Ce serait tout ce qu’on pourrait lui souhaiter, qu’il soit effectivement éliminé physiquement, pour que cela s’arrête ». « Si le peuple russe voyait ce que Poutine fait en Ukraine, à quel point les Ukrainiens ont peur et combien de vies humaines il (le président russe) pourrait avoir sur la conscience, alors il renverserait le Kremlin », a également déclaré Jean Asselborn. « Sous le coup de l’émotion » Le chef de la diplomatie luxembourgeoise a expliqué avoir « prononcé ces mots sous le coup de l’émotion », après avoir été informé par des diplomates occidentaux sur place que l’armée russe s’en prenait aux populations civiles en Ukraine contrairement à ce qu’affirme le Kremlin. Dans un communiqué publié à la suite de l’ampleur que prend cette déclaration, Jean Asselborn explique : « Les deux mots « éliminer physiquement » m’ont échappé. Je sais qu’un ministre des Affaires étrangères ne devrait jamais utiliser de tels mots. Même après 18 ans en tant que ministre des Affaires étrangères, je ne suis pas capable de réprimer mes émotions et mon sens de la justice, face à une telle souffrance humaine incommensurable endurée par des personnes innocentes. »

Translation:

Jean Asselborn, the head of Luxembourg diplomacy spoke of the "physical elimination" of Vladimir Poutine, this Wednesday, during an interview on Radio 100.7. The ADR reacted via a parliamentary question. The sentence was pronounced by the Minister of Foreign Affairs, this Wednesday, during an interview on Radio 100.7: “It would be all that we could wish for him, that he is actually eliminated physically, so that 'stopped ". “If the Russian people saw what Putin is doing in Ukraine, how scared Ukrainians are and how many human lives he (the Russian president) could have on his conscience, then he would topple the Kremlin,” Jean Asselborn also said. "In the grip of emotion" The head of Luxembourg's diplomacy explained that he "uttered these words under the influence of emotion", after being informed by Western diplomats on the spot that the Russian army was attacking the civilian populations in Ukraine contrary to what affirms the Kremlin. In a press release published following the magnitude of this declaration, Jean Asselborn explains: “The two words “physically eliminate” escaped me. I know a foreign minister should never use such words. Even after 18 years as Foreign Minister, I am unable to suppress my emotions and my sense of justice, in the face of such immeasurable human suffering endured by innocent people. »

As I am on record non-stop:  Western diplomacy doesn't exist, it is a collection of lowlifes like this "emotional" creep.  

Even If They Wanted To...

... "fight" Russia in 404, neither US nor NATO as a whole have sufficient or good enough forces to do so.  

President Joe Biden has no plans to deploy American troops to fight Russians in Ukraine, the White House said, doubling down on the previous assertions by US officials that Washington won’t go to war with Moscow. “That is not a decision the president is going to make. We are not going to be in a war with Russia or putting military troops on the ground fighting Russia,” White House press secretary Jen Psaki told reporters on Wednesday. When repeatedly grilled by a reporter if there is a chance the US military’s boots would land on the Ukrainian soil if Russia moves to claim “all” of Kiev’s territory, Psaki reiterated: “I don’t know how many more times I can say it. There is no scenario – the president is not sending US troops to fight in Ukraine against Russia.”

These comments which poor Jen has to make constantly are not accidental. They are in response to a number of hacks who deal in propaganda and lies in DC and call themselves journalists who provide a "pressure", together with a serious lobbting by both Ukrainian diaspora and influence assets, who still think that the war may turn into yet another Iraq turkey shoot with US Tomahawks and F-15s blowing Russian troops up, as long as the US Army puts some boots on the ground in 404. We need to forgive them since they are uneducated hacks who are dealing primarily in PR BS and wouldn't know shit from shinola. 

Larry Johnson penned today a good piece on Russia and referred in it to the late Dr. Stephen Cohen. While concluding his article Larry applied a deft touch which I liked immensely.

I realize by writing this article I am immediately accused of being a tool of the Russians. I have one response, пошел на хуй. (Look it up.) Address the substance of my argument. The current trajectory of U.S. policy vis-a-vis Russia is perilous and foolish. Our ability to bully and coerce Russia has passed. We should follow the example of Ronald Reagan, who treated the Russians as equals while standing firm on American principles.

This is how one is supposed to talk today to American exceptionalists (see Russian phrase, LOL), the same as making a bullet-point cases against homicidal US foreign policy and demanding specific answers from the American side free of BS and demagoguery. I know, I ask for too much. Pepe twitted today this joke:

Joke of the day in Donetsk: “Putin calls Scholz: "We have recognized the Republics, DPR, LPR and GDR.” Scholz (horrified): “ GDR? Why GDR? Can you take the GDR off the list?" Putin: "I knew that there would be no objections to the first two points." 

LOL. I remember GDR warmly and our German friends from both the academy and 4th Volksmarine Flotilla. East Germans were THE ONLY foreign group in our academy which was allowed (granted, only short excursion with some Q&A) to highly classified auditoriums which contained hardware from, at that time, modern Soviet SSBNs and SSGNs.

My Interview With Bonnie Faulkner (NYC WBAI radio-station).

Here is my hour long interview with Bonnie Faulkner of a popular Guns and Butter radio-show. 

Russian military and naval analyst, Andrei Martyanov, discusses the dangerous April standoff between Kiev and Moscow and its implications for US/Russian relations; Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky; new Russian weapons; US deployment to the Black Sea cancelled; Russia’s geopolitical, cultural and economic departure from the West; Russian Constitution; US goes to DEFCON 3; a coercion to peace; Russia discards Western payment systems; Russia’s view of the Ukraine; both Biden and Nuland involved in 2014 Ukrainian coup, both are back in power; alliance between Russia and China; scale of US deficiency v Russian firepower; US military nuclear-bias; crisis of financial predatory capitalism; global tectonic change taking place; 

It was given in April at the height of the tensions, when 404's military adventurism around LDNR threatened to unleash Russia's firepower which would drive the United States to the wall and into the military-political dead-end from which the United States would have to either go out totally militarily humiliated with the immense geopolitical ramifications for itself, or through the escalation to nuclear threshold and then all bets could be off. Chasing Russians with the de facto demand for summit has been a direct result of April events, which have been even compared to Cuban Missile Crisis by former Russia's President and Prime Minister Dmitry Medvedev. I wouldn't go as far as to compare these two events, but there is no denial that the probability of a direct military confrontation between the United States and Russia was growing. OK, summit has happened, sides expressed enough respect to each-other and, as I quoted former Soviet FM Andrei Gromyko--ten years of negotiations are better than one day of war. When related to the nuclear superpowers such as Russia and the US this is ultimately, 146%, true. 

In related news, Lavrov (in Russian) simply ran over UK's FM Dominic Raab, or speaking in diplomatic lingo--beat the shit out of him. Alexander Mercouris thinks that Lavrov chewed him up. No matter how one calls it--Raab (and UK represented by him) have been put in their place. Here is Alexander's take on that:

But I want to remind you what I wrote more than a year ago about Noblesse Oblige in an exclusive superpowers club. Real superpowers in modern times have a very specific way of interaction because of the enormous stakes for the entire world in such an interaction. The United Kingdom is not in this club, not even close and it is time the UK finally faced the fact that it is a second tier-power way out of league of the US, China and Russia. I don't think UK can adjust its discourse but it really doesn't matter for Russia whose main economic anchor in Europe after WW II was always Germany, while UK's place is lower that that of Netherlands.  

So, let's face it, UK is not THAT important for Russia, while militarily...well, I'll abstain from commenting in order not to rub the salt into the wounds of my many British friends, majority of who are great lads and for a guy, like me, who grew up with British rock-music, comedy and wonderful literature, there is still a lot what could be admired in the UK of the past. So, there we are on this Friday. Enjoy, if you can get through my thick Rrrrusian accent.

Some Thoughts From Colonel Macgregor.

Colonel Douglas Macgregor, being a man of a considerable courage, also makes considerable assumptions when writing about Ukraine crisis in The American Conservative. 

President Biden can bring stability to U.S.-Russian relations if he doesn’t make the usual mistakes.

The key word here is "usual"--that's the problem. I don't know, maybe the United States has some local diplomatic successes somewhere in Africa or South America, but when it comes to relations with Russia, royally fvcking things up, for the last quarter of a century, is usual for the United States. Statistically, the United States should have done at least something right by now when it comes to Russia, but I, honestly, can only recall one failure after another and even recent extension of the START by Biden Administration hardly improves the overall picture of one failure after another. 

Macgregor notes, however: 

Putin’s directive to return most of his troops to garrison while leaving their weapon systems and equipment in place along the Ukrainian border should be viewed in Washington as an opportunity to create a measure of stability in U.S.-Russian relations that’s been missing for years. It’s not enough to hurl insults and simply restate what the Biden administration is against. It’s time to explore what kind of alternative to the fragile and dangerous status quo in Ukraine that Washington and Moscow can both support. Washington did a deplorable job of formulating strategic aims in the Middle East and Afghanistan that justified the sacrifice of American blood and treasure. The president cannot seize the strategic initiative now if Washington continues to react impetuously and emotionally to real or imaginary threats to U.S. and allied interests.

I agree, but immediate question is this--WHO formulates those strategic aims by means of doing a "deplorable job" whilst formulating those? Present American foreign policy establishment, apart from being ignorant, is utterly unqualified for such a job, hence it being deplorable, since it is not aware, by means of self-delusion, of already gross limitations of the American power and influence. This delusion grows together with the increasing growth of said limitations. Russia was ready to talk in 2014-15, since then a lot has happened and in 2021 Russia has a massive escalation dominance in Ukraine and Macgregor being a first-rate combat officer cannot fail to know that. 

And Macgregor, being a highly respected military professional, while allowing some of his wisdoms to be taxonomized in 5 points, nevertheless ends with what one expects from a professional of such a level and one of a few brilliant American strategic minds still out there trying to make their voices heard. 

Finally, President Biden must devise a new national strategy that ensures its political goals are congruent with U.S. military capabilities and fiscal realities. Too many hotheads in the Senate and House are ready to commit American military power without first soberly assessing the concrete interests and the costs of such action. President John F. Kennedy thrilled his supporters with his assertion that Americans should “meet any hardship, support any friend, oppose any foe to assure the survival and the success of liberty.” It was great rhetoric, but it put the nation on the road to disaster in Vietnam. The United States does not have the resources or the need to export its political ideas at gunpoint.

I think this sums up Macgregor's sober realism extremely well. But the question remains: who will devise a new national strategy built out of understanding of America's dwindling economic and military resources and thus may address the danger of the global conflict in which the United States has no ways of surviving. Sometimes, to survive one needs to admit own weakness. And even admitting is not enough, internalizing it is what may give some ideas for the survival. Removing neocons could be a good start in formulating such a strategy. 

Here is a visual representation of the US foreign policy nowadays. 

No comments are necessary in this particular case.