Murder most foul

Murder most foul

Everyone seems to be talking about Russian negotiations with Trump -- at least in the West-- as though they would be in some sense meaningful, other than as diplomatic etiquette, of the next episode of the Trump show.

First it was the Duran, the Alexes-- or, as one of my commenters said “ the Alexoi “ since they are both Greek. (Go look at the comments for the last article!)

Now, it’s B. at Moon of Alabama, probably the most astute analyst on the Internet, with a rather convoluted article which connects the murder of Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, the commander of the Russian Radiological, Chemical, and Biological Defense Forces, in Moscow—to the pending Trump talks, the idea being this attack was obviously designed to provoke a response from the Russians and somehow prevent those “negotiations” from taking place.

Bernhard’s take

B. —Bernhard— writes:

The question for Russia is now how to react to it.

Should it hit back with its whole might and destroy the 'decision making centers' in Kiev who are responsible for this incident? (Note: An accurate definition of 'decision centers' would include the embassies of the U.S. and Great Britain in Kiev.)

Or should it hold back and hope that negotiations about Ukraine with Donald Trump will actually achieve some positive, if temporary, results?

Neither?

I don’t do “either-or” very well. It is an autistic thing. Always “either -or-and-but-maybe-oh WTF”.

Assumptions

Now, there are various assumptions here in this simplistic set of alternatives. .

a.) the attack is proportionately more important than previous terrorist attacks that have killed literally hundreds— requiring shock & awe response.

b.) the US and the UK were in on it –and their embassies would be included.

c.) there are no other retaliatory options

d.) retaliation would scupper talks with Trump

Looking at a.) this attack, while awful, killed just one man – a military person. Sad, but it does not affect the course of the war in any way. American generals, who only seem to die from heart attacks or diabetes.

Russian generals’ lives are always on the line. In this war, the “frontline” is everywhere. So the death of Krillov is not proportionately more important than other deaths of other generals that have already occured.

b.) The US and UK governments were probably not “in” on it. It is not the kind of action they would want to involve themselves in— or at least know about. . That is not to say, that American or British agencies weren’t involved. The CIA and MI6 have a history of carrying out operations, without authorization from above— wink, wink. That is what the “deep state “ is famous for. For governments it’s “don’t ask, don’t tell”.

c.) There are many retaliatory options, including more missile strikes, particularly on sites where the Ukraine is massing troops for another “do or die” attack on Mother Russia (tomorrow’s post). And, of course, later trials and tribunals.

d.) Retaliation would not scupper talks with Trump. The Americans will expect the Russians to do something because they would. They won’t respect the Russians if the don’t.Remember how they reacted to 9/11? A million people died

In addition, strikes on “decision-making” centers would have to avoid taking out Zelensky. The Russians need him alive – he is the most useful and idiotic of useful idiots. From a strategic and tactical point of view, he is their greatest asset. So what then would be the point of such strikes? They might accidentally get someone who is not a half-wit in power

James Jetra and Lucy

Bernhard’s article is entitled Russia - Agree To Be Provoked Or Fall For Lucy's Football?

Yes, Charlie Brown’s Lucy. But Lucy’s Football? What’s that mean?

We are talking deep, deep meaning here. Like Shakespeare.

(T)alks of the moments when we choose to put our trust in people who have let us down only to be taken by surprise when they let us down, again.

B. pays a lot of attention to James Jetra, who in turn is influenced by the Atlanticist John Helmer, a long-serving American journalist in Russia and very good on some things —except Putin.

There are others like him - and I actually know one or two personally — but that is for another time.

The title of Jetra’s piece is: Would a Trump-Putin Agreement Bring Peace to Ukraine or Just Set the Stage for More War? “ It’s there in his article that we find the meme of “Lucy’s Football”. Guess Jimmy Jetra took a course in 20th Century literature.

Contradictions

However, I am not sure how well “Lucy’s Football” applies here— if at all.

Why?

Putin is not Charlie Brown. He doesn’t play football. And he almost always responds to provocations but asymmetrically – as in Judo. He also doesn’t drop the ball.

And Trump is not Lucy. Lucy was always a little smarter than Charlie Brown —even if she was lousy at football. Trump is not that smart, certainly not smarter than Charlie. His Lucy is Stormy Daniels.

Just read Putin’s recent speeches—he stopped trusting the Americans long ago. Who does that anymore, anyway? And Trump is in no way his intellectual equal. Forest Trump!

No, this Charlie Brown metaphor doesn’t really work. ”Lucy’s football” just doesn’t apply.

More than Football

In addition, the “football” suggests just one game – Ukraine.

But Russia is playing multiple games – with NATO, BRICS, the Middle East, China, the Global South, South America. Each of these are different – with different goals and rules and strategies. Russia also clearly understands the war is not with Ukraine - but with the West.

James Jetra’s argument gets more and more complicated. ….

He says:

(I)t is highly unlikely any agreement which could be seen as positive for Russia will be worth the paper it is written on”

And:

[T]he Russians have made it clear that they will accept no temporary truces, no ceasefires, no more promises made to be broken like piecrusts, no pauses as cynical tricks to get the Russians to forgo their current and growing military advantage. (...) No, they insist, there must be either a genuine, definitive, binding settlement that ensures a lasting peace based on mutual security, or Russian forces will press on until their objectives – notably “demilitarization and denazification” of Ukraine – are achieved militarily. Such an outcome would mean at least replacement of the current regime in Kiev and, more likely, the end of Ukraine’s statehood.

For the West, this would constitute a total debacle of Afghanistan-like proportions effectively signaling the end of US hegemony in Europe, the [Great American Empire’s] crown jewel. What can Trump offer the Russians to avoid that?
...
[T]he real question for the Trump Administration becomes a political one of how much wiggle room there is in the Russians’ stated determination not to rely on more promises of the sort that have been repeatedly broken in the past. Put another way: if Trump-Lucy wants to avoid utter defeat in the European theater of the worldwide confrontation between the GAE and BRICS-Eurasia, so he can get on to mixing it up with Iran and China, can he dupe Putin-Charlie Brown into taking another run at the football?

I think he at least has a good shot at it.

B writes;

Jetras lists nine points that the U.S. could temporarily concede to Russia only to later pull the proverbial football on each of those items.

At the same time, he describes the consequences…..

The bottom line is that Moscow would pretend to have substantially if not entirely achieved its SMO goals, giving up its immediate military lead in exchange for false promises: déjà vu all over again. Pretenses aside, it would accept a “quarter of a loaf” truce that preserves NATO to fight another day and sustains an anti-Russia Ukrainian rump state as a de facto NATO platform, as opposed to a clear military victory – which at the very least would have to include annexation of Odessa and Kharkov, and probably Kiev, plus either liquidation of the Ukrainian state entirely or, at worst, creation of a minimal rump Ukraine that’s effectively a Russian satellite and a member of the Union State with Russia and Belarus

As I pointed out yesterday, the Russians are no doubt happy to “talk” but they will not negotiate —not when a clear victory gives them so much, and the US plan gives them so little. Ukraine is Vietnam 2.0. Just without US boots on the ground, officially anyway.

Yet, somehow, Jetra seems to think that Putin might very well negotiate a version of the Trump plan. This is where John Helmer’s Atlanticist bias against Putin might be come in .

Keep in mind that, despite the ubiquitous narrative, Putin is neither a dictator nor a hardliner toward the West. Regarding the former, he’s a balancer in a system that still retains many (too damn many, in my opinion) western liberals dying to see the day they can again send their snotty kids back to elite western universities and their fat wives and svelte mistresses shopping at Harrods, while saluting a rainbow flag raised over Lenin’s Mausoleum.

The West likes to believe —and Helmer is prone to insinuate that Russia is awash in Atlanticist sentiment just as it was in the 1990s.

Many of the Atlanticists have left Russia for Europe – or are being very discreet about their views— which are regarded as unpatriotic, if not treasonous in a country at war, trying to survive with Russian civilians killed by Western missiles and drones and terrorist activity.

Public sentiment wants a harder line from Putin. Not a softer one

He is indeed a “balancer” but not as Jetra suggests. Rather he balances the needs of his nation with geopolitical goals, including BRICS and Russia’s new relationships with other countries.

As to the latter, as lately demonstrated by his restrained response to ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles launched into pre-1991 Russia by NATO personnel from Ukrainian territory, Putin has shown a dogged determination to come to an understanding with his Western “partners” long after it became clear to everyone (except him, evidently) that they have no intention of ever getting along with him or Russia but are hell-bent on destroying both. (“Hello, Volodya? It’s me, Bashar. I’m out front of Resurrection Gate, near Zhukov’s statue …)

I read Putin’s speeches and listen to his comments to the Press.. this is a complete mischaracterization of Putin’s resolve. His response to the ATACMS and Storm Shadow missiles was hardly restrained, with the largest Russian airstrikes to date, mostly hypersonic missiles, all over the Ukraine, a show of military power which no doubt caused the murder of General Krillov.

There are many benefits to Russia in continuing the war — not just militarily or geopolitically — but economically and socially. Putin has increased the defense budget and by mid next year will be able to easily take on NATO AND the US if it has to! It will also be able to aid Iran and China in the Pacific region.

Generals die

Let us keep in mind that Krillov is not the first Russian general to die in this conflict. Nor will he likely be the last. The comment about Bashar Assad implies that Putin betrays his friends. He doesn’t. It was Assad who rejected Putin’s help. But Putin still saved his life.

Far from the “shock and awe” demonstrated by the United States in Serbia, Iraq, Libya, etc., or Netanyahu’s in Gaza, Lebanon, and Syria, Putin’s light military footprint in Ukraine – the limited size of the incursion force, declining to destroy the Dnepr bridges, limited (but now increasing) attacks on infrastructure, the pullback of Russian forces from Kiev as a good will gesture before the 2022 Istanbul talks, not eliminating Kiev regime leaders who’d kill him if they could – all point to a strategy based on accepting a reasonable deal if one might be presented, not on settling things by force of arms, 1945-style.

Jetra is correct. Russia does not do things as the Americans would. It does not use force than is necessary-- especially in Ukraine – which it does not regard as a “war” but a “fraternal conflict”.

Iraq

Yes, he is “balanced” — lucky for Russia, lucky for us.

And the US is unbalanced. It needs some time in solitary.

Krillov’s murder will be avenged. If not more missile strikes With the total surrender of Ukraine there were will also be trials and tribunals . Justice, like revenge, is a dish best served cold.

Read Jetra’s article. It’s interesting. To be frank, I found if, if not confused, confusing. I might be wrong about somethings. Read it and let me know.

Special Article

What makes a great leader? Putin and Xi Jinping, for example.

What makes anybody anything?

It’s not that simple.

Help me get that Special Article finished.

Buy Ichi, Chappy and I a coffee. Click HERE