Here’s a joke I recently heard a Russian tell:

A Russian is on an airliner heading to the US, and the American in the seat next to him asks, “So what brings you to the US?” The Russian replies, “I’m studying the American approach to propaganda.” The American says, “What propaganda?” The Russian says, “That’s what I mean.”

If you don’t get the point, I can help. A few weeks before I heard this joke, I heard a Russian make the point explicitly: Yes, Russia’s state-controlled media is full of propaganda, but at least most Russians are aware of that and take the prevailing narrative with a grain of salt; Americans, in contrast, seem unaware that their own prevailing narratives are slanted.

I think there’s some truth to this, and I think the Ukraine war is a case in point. I don’t just mean that mainstream media’s coverage of the war is biased (though I think it is, as tends to be the case during wars). I mean this coverage exemplifies the difference between American and Russia propaganda—and so helps explain the difference, asserted by that joke, between American and Russian attitudes toward propaganda. 

The main reason for this attitudinal difference, I think, isn’t that Americans are more gullible than Russians. It’s that America is a liberal democracy with a fairly complicated media ecosystem. It’s harder in this pluralistic system than in Russia for a single powerful person or institution to create a single dominant narrative. So if propaganda is going to happen here, it will have to happen less straightforwardly than in Russia, with less in the way of centralized control. And that makes it harder to pin down.

In other words: A pluralistic system, while in some ways making it more difficult for propaganda to prevail, also offers the propaganda that does prevail good camouflage.

At least, that’s my working hypothesis. One way to flesh out this hypothesis is to take a look at a DC think thank called the Institute for the Study of War.

The name may sound familiar. If you’ve been reading much about the Ukraine war, you’ve probably come across it. Reporters who draw on research from ISW often credit it.

But there are two things about the Institute for the Study of War that you may not know. 

First is the extent of its influence. Since war broke out in February, ISW has been the elite media’s go-to think tank for information and analysis. Barely a day goes by that it isn’t cited by a reporter in either the New York Times, the Washington Post, or the Wall Street Journal. In the past six days—the first six days of this month—it has been cited in at least ten articles that appeared in one of those outlets.

The second thing you may not be aware of is how ideological the academic-sounding Institute for the Study of War is. It has neoconservative roots and is run and staffed by pretty extreme hawks. Over the years it has gotten funding from various corners of the arms industry—General Dynamics, Raytheon, lesser known defense contractors, and big companies, like General Motors, that aren’t known as defense contractors but do get Pentagon contracts.

Before saying more about ISW, I want to emphasize that I’m not claiming to have caught it in some capital crime. The Institute doesn’t spread untruths, even if it’s selective about the truths it promotes and tactical in how it arranges them. That’s part of my point: One reason propaganda often flies under the radar in America is that it can be subtle.

Another claim I’m not making is that ISW has exerted pivotal influence in the case of Ukraine. I’m not even saying the larger network of hawkish think tanks it’s part of has been pivotal. When a big country run by a famously ruthless autocrat invades a smaller neighbor that’s a democracy, Americans will naturally (and rightly) side with the country that got invaded and will favor giving it support. In that sense, the Institute for the Study of War, along with other voices that advocate robust military spending, has been pushing on an open door.

Still, $54 billion is a lot of money, and that’s how much aid, most of it military, the US has committed to Ukraine over the past three months. And the $40 billion of that passed by Congress in May got overwhelming support (368-57 in the House, 86-11 in the Senate)—pretty remarkable at a time when inflation is widely feared and deficit spending is widely said to be one of its causes.

Whatever you think of this aid—and, again, I consider helping a nation resist invasion a generically good cause—you can’t deny that the climate of American opinion on Ukraine is very favorable for defense contractors. I think the Institute for the Study of War is one reason for that—even if a small reason among bigger ones. And, more to the point, ISW is a case study in how influence on a wartime narrative can be exerted in barely perceptible ways.

The president and founder of the Institute for the Study of War is Kimberly Kagan, a military historian who is married to Frederick Kagan, who is also a military historian and does work for ISW. Frederick is a well-known neoconservative, though not as well-known as his brother Robert. In the 1990s, Robert Kagan, along with Bill Kristol (who is on ISW’s board), founded the Project for a New American Century, which in the view of some observers played an important role in convincing George W. Bush to invade Iraq.

Kimberly and Frederick Kagan have cultivated close ties to the Defense Department—sometimes raising questions about whether the ties were too close. A 2012 Washington Post piece said General David Petraeus had turned the couple into “de facto senior advisers.”  The Post continued:

The pro-bono relationship, which is now being scrutinized by military lawyers, yielded valuable benefits for the general and the couple. The Kagans’ proximity to Petraeus, the country’s most-famous living general, provided an incentive for defense contractors to contribute to Kim Kagan’s think tank [ISW]. For Petraeus, embracing two respected national security analysts in GOP circles helped to shore up support for the [Afghanistan] war among Republican leaders on Capitol Hill.

All of this helps explain why noted phrasemaker Mickey Kaus has called the Kagan family “the Kagan industrial complex.” Speaking of which:

Robert Kagan’s wife, Victoria Nuland, is the state department official who very publicly supported Ukraine’s 2014 Maidan Revolution—the overthrow of pro-Russia President Viktor Yanukovych, which led Russia to seize Crimea and give military support to secessionist rebels in the Donbass. Nuland also played a behind-the-scenes role in this transition of power that, according to some of her detractors, amounted to orchestrating a coup.

And as long as we’re going down rabbit holes: The Kagan-Kristol Project for a New American Century was funded by arms makers, thanks largely to the work of Lockheed Martin executive Bruce P. Jackson, who became a director of PNAC. Jackson had earlier organized the US Committee to Expand NATO, which successfully lobbied for what its name suggests it lobbied for. Some people think NATO expansion—in particular George W. Bush’s 2008 addition of Ukraine to the list of future members—helped cause the Ukraine war, but in any event NATO expansion has over the past quarter century made lots and lots of money for Lockheed Martin and other arms makers. 

But I digress. Back to the Institute for the Study of War.

ISW, like some other highly ideological think tanks, exerts its influence along two main paths: (1) explicitly opining about policies;  (2) doing reporting and analysis that is ostensibly objective but may implicitly favor certain policies. For example:

As Sarah Lazare of In These Times has pointed out, in August of last year, as the US was withdrawing from Afghanistan (1) retired Gen. Jack Keane, chairman of ISW’s board, was on TV arguing against the pullout, while (2) ISW was putting out papers that didn’t explicitly oppose withdrawal but warned of various kinds of bad consequences.  (Lazare notes that, at the same time, the CEO of CACI International, one of ISW’s funders, was warning on a conference call that the Afghanistan withdrawal would hurt its profits in the next fiscal year.)

In the case of the Ukraine War, ISW’s reporting and analysis activities have been extraordinary. The Institute issues daily battlefield updates, complete with maps of three regions of Ukraine that show shifts in territorial control. These summaries are intelligently and crisply written and cover a lot of ground efficiently. If I were a newspaper reporter writing about the war, I would find them appealing. 

So are you ready for my big reveals about glaring bias in ISW analysis? There aren’t any! That’s part of my point: The bias imparted by ISW is subtle. Its incremental effects are barely perceptible, but they add up over time. And what they add up to, basically, is The War According to Our Side. Little shadings here and there create more or less the picture of the war that the Ukrainian government is trying to present.

Here, for example, is a paragraph from a Wall Street Journal piece last week: “Ukrainian forces in the south, near Kherson, conducted a successful counteroffensive over the weekend, according to the Institute for the Study of War. Though they were unlikely to retake more territory, they might force Russia to deploy more resources to the region.”

Wait a second! You’re calling a counteroffensive that takes no territory “successful”? Just because it “might” force Russia to redeploy forces?

Well, OK, but if that’s your criterion, shouldn’t you have called some past Russian assaults around Kharkiv that took no territory “successful”? After all, it was speculated that their purpose was to keep Ukraine from concentrating more resources in the Donbass.

No, calling a superficially unsuccessful Russian attack successful isn’t the kind of thing ISW does. The kind of thing it does is depict superficially successful Russian attacks as only mixed successes. Thus, on the day that the big story was Russia’s penetrating the perimeter of the important city of Severodonetsk, the Wall Street Journal could at least leaven that bad news with this: “Russia’s forces were so concentrated on Severodonetsk that they likely wouldn’t be able to conduct major operations elsewhere in the country, according to the Institute for the Study of War.”

Maybe so. But given that Severodonetsk is the last big obstacle to Russia’s securing control of Luhansk province—one of the two provinces Putin originally vowed to secure in the course of this war—that would seem to be meager consolation.

I’m not saying it doesn’t qualify as a silver lining of sorts. But I am saying that ISW consistently finds more Ukrainian silver linings than Russian silver linings. Way, way, way more.

It may not take much conscious effort for the crew of five ISW analysts (including Frederick Kagan) who prepare these reports to put a pro-Ukraine spin on them. To some extent the spin is structural; ISW seems to have a policy of taking battlefield reports from the Ukrainian government seriously but not taking reports from the Russian government seriously.

Among the consequences of this policy is a subtle and important one: 

Since the Ukrainian government, naturally enough, isn’t eager to concede combat losses, some Russian battlefield successes aren’t very recent by the time Ukraine, and hence ISW, acknowledges them. And you don’t lead with old news! So here, for example, is the first sentence of ISW’s summary of events for May 22 (boldfaced, in keeping with ISW practice for the lead sentence of each day’s summary): “Russian forces made only minimal gains in eastern Ukraine on May 22.” And here is the sentence that is relegated to second place and isn’t boldfaced: “New reportingconfirmed thatRussian troops previously recaptured Rubizhne in northern Kharkiv Oblast, on May 19.”

Capturing a village near the city of Kharkiv seems like bigger news than not capturing any villages in the East. So why doesn’t ISW lead with that? Because it’s old news—it happened several days earlier. But back when it happened, ISW couldn’t confidently report it, because only Russia, not Ukraine, had said it happened. So newspaper reporters relying on ISW wouldn’t have become aware of this setback for Ukraine until it was too stale to bother with. This slow-motion burial of bad news happens again and again; it’s built into ISW’s methodology.

When you add up all of ISW’s little instances of spin, how much do they matter? I don’t know. (Who’s got time to even find them all, much less add them up?) Certainly if you drew a schematic diagram of American propaganda as it pertains to national security—including all the interest groups that try to impart their spin, and where their money comes from, and which media they succeed in influencing, and so on—ISW wouldn’t come close to dominating the diagram.

But that’s one of my main points. This diagram isn’t as streamlined as the Russian version would be. There are so many moving parts in American opinionmaking machinery that it’s hard to figure out what’s going on—hard to follow all the institutionally imparted biases to their roots.

Indeed—and I guess this is my other main point—it’s apparently hard to follow even a single institution’s bias to its roots. I feel pretty sure that very few readers of the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, or the Washington Post read passages attributed to the Institute for the Study of War with the grain of salt that is appropriate, given its ideology and its funding—because, for one thing, they don’t know about the ideology and the funding.

More surprisingly—and more depressingly—a lot of presumably sophisticated American journalists seem equally uninformed. At least, that’s the only explanation I have for why America’s elite media outlets routinely and uncritically relay ISW takes.

Thus, the New York Times yesterday reported: “Ukraine has retaken large parts of Severodonetsk, the Luhansk city Russia has concentrated on capturing, the Institute for the Study of War reported on Sunday. The Washington-based research group said Ukraine’s ability to push Russian troops back to the city’s eastern outskirts was more evidence of Moscow’s declining combat power.”

Now, it may well be that Moscow’s declining combat power is the explanation for any recent Ukrainian advances, and that the wind is therefore at Ukraine’s back (though this morning’s Washington Post headline—“Severodonetsk situation ‘has worsened’ for Ukraine, official says”—suggests maybe not). But if I were a reporter and I knew about ISW’s background, I don’t think I’d be relaying its conjectures unless I was balancing them with conjectures from think tanks that are considerably less hawkish.

Which, by the way, would be hard to do, because there aren’t any considerably less hawkish think tanks that provide elaborate daily analysis of the Ukraine war, in part because the less hawkish you are, the harder it is to get funding. There are no huge companies whose profits are tied directly to military restraint the way General Dynamics’s profits are tied to militarism.  

That’s why if you see an op-ed on Ukraine—or Afghanistan or Iran or whatever—written by somebody at a think tank, the chances are good that the think tank has gotten money from defense contractors. And if you see a think tanker on cable news talking about those subjects, ditto. Not to mention the fact that, as Aditi Ramaswami and Andrew Perez documented in Jacobin, many talking heads who opine on the Ukraine war are getting money from the arms makers themselves (just as many Afghanistan war talking heads did).

I’m not saying the talking heads you see are shills. Think tanks don’t pay people to say things they don’t believe. Think tanks hire people who already believe things the funders of the think tanks want everyone—including you—to believe.

The sincerity with which these experts can thus profess their beliefs is one reason American propaganda is inconspicuous. Another reason is institutional diversity: different newspapers, different cable channels, different think tanks!

This much diversity is better than less diversity—one of many reasons I’d rather live in America than in Russia. Still, sometimes the diversity belies a deeper narrative unity, a unity grounded in the power of highly motivated special interests. And that’s especially true when the subject is national security.

Supporting Ukraine is a good cause. But undiscerning support is never a good policy. And it’s especially not good in the current situation—a war involving a nuclear superpower and various regional tinderboxes. So any impediments to a clear view of what’s going on in Ukraine, however subtle they may be, are things we should try to identify and overcome. And if you ask, “What impediments?” the answer is: “That’s what I mean.”

On a flight, reading about the FBI’s arrest of Jack Texiera, already dubbed the “Pentagon Leaker.” A quick review reveals multiple media portraits already out depicting him as a dangerous incel who shared his wares on Discord, a social media app where “racist memes” and “offensive jokes” flourish. Writes the New York Times:

Dark humor about race or ideology can eventually shape the beliefs of impressionable young people, and innocuous memes can be co-opted into symbols of hatred, researchers say.

Well, clearly we can’t have dark humor or innocuous memes! Gitmo cages for all!

The Washington Post went with “charismatic gun enthusiast”:

The New York Times summarized key points in the secret defense documents, which among other things suggested “Ukrainian forces are in more dire straits than their government has acknowledged publicly.” Reading what’s out there, it’s not easy to parse what’s a legitimate intelligence concern in reaction to these leaks and what’s mere embarrassment at having been caught lying, to the public, to would-be U.S. allies the documents show we’ve been spying on, etc.

You’ll read a lot in the coming days about the dangers of apps like Discord, or of online gaming groups, which counterintelligence officials told the Washington Post today are a “magnet for spies.” The Leaker tale will also surely be framed as reason to pass the RESTRICT Act, the wet dream of creepazoid Virginia Senator Mark Warner, which would give government wide latitude to crack down on “communication technology” creating “undue or unacceptable risk” to national security.

The intelligence community has itself been massively interfering in domestic news using illegal leaks for years. Remember the “Why Did Obama Dawdle on Russia’s Hacking?” story by David Ignatius of the Washington Post in January of 2017, outing would-be Trump National Security Advisor Michael Flynn as having been captured in intercepts speaking with a Russian ambassador? That was just the first in a string of leak- or intercept-based news stories that dominated news cycles in the Trump years, involving everything from conclusions of the FISA court to supposedly secret meetings in the Seychelles.

When civilians or whistleblowers like Edward Snowden, Julian Assange (in jail for an incredible four years now), Reality Winner and now the “Discord Leaker” bring leaked information to the public, the immediate threat is Espionage Act charges and decades of jail time. When a CIA head or a top FBI official does it, it’s just news. In fact, officials talk openly about using “strategic leaks” as a P.R. staple. In a world where media currency is becoming the ultimate power, these people want a monopoly. It’s infuriating.

Watch how this thing will be spun. It’s going to get ugly fast.

I decided to go ahead and write another status update on how things are seen from my “window to the world” in Luga, Russia. I will cover both the war in Ukraine and then update those interested in our family situation.

THE UKRAINIAN OFFENSIVE. The long awaited Ukrainian counteroffensive has begun. Earlier we were told it would be a major spring offensive whereby the Ukrainians would take back lost ground–even including Crimea according to some like Victoria Nuland and Gen. David Petraeus. The offensive did not actually begin until June. It’s hard to pinpoint the exact date because Ukraine did not call it an offensive. The best estimate seems to be that it began June 4. 

The first thing I noticed early on was that even the mainstream media in America were reporting problems. The “glow” over Ukrainian strength seemed to have lost something. The first report I saw on CNN pointed out the Ukrainians had already lost 15% of its Bradley infantry vehicles and 15% of the German Leopard tanks. The report also indicated Ukraine had lost 50% of its “unique” breaching vehicles. The articles which were published later put a more positive spin on things, however, claiming the Ukrainians had retaken some villages from the Russians. CNBC said the offensive was “underwhelming,” but assured viewers the Ukrainians would later gain momentum. 

The earliest comment I saw from President Putin said the Ukrainians had lost 25-30% of the foreign equipment the West had sent. He said even the first line of Russia’s defense had not been breached. Putin said Russia could verify that Ukraine had lost 100 tanks, 460 armored vehicles, and the kill ratio was ten Ukrainian soldiers had died for every one Russian. 

The military experts I trust all agreed that Ukraine’s offensive has been a total failure up to this point. Both Col. Douglas MacGregor and Scott Ritter indicated that they thought Putin’s figures were low–the Ukrainians had lost more equipment than he suggested. I saw reports from Lt. Col. Daniel Davis and former CIA agents Larry Johnson and Ray McGovern who agreed with MacGregor and Ritter. 

Ritter went into the details of Russia’s rather complicated defense system. He said the defense lines the Russians have built are the most complex systems in modern military history–maybe in all of military history. He knew the name of the Russian designer, but I cannot find where I wrote it down. At each location they built three “belts” of defense, which are able to collapse around the enemy when attacked. I have never seen such a design, so I was not clear on all the details. The main point Ritter made was there is a light line of defense outside each main line. The Ukrainians had not actually gotten even to the first line of defense after two weeks. MacGregor added that the villages and locations which the NY Times had reported the Ukrainians had retaken were not actually on the defense lines. They made videos of the Ukrainians taking over villages that were not being defended and had no strategic value. 

MacGregor and Ritter stated separately that Gen. Mark Milley, Chairman of the Joint Chiefs, was literally criminal in what he said. Judge Napolitano played videos of Milley boasting of the vehicles and weapons that are being sent to Ukraine along with assurances of all the places that are being used to train the Ukrainians. MacGregor and Ritter were appalled that he led the American people to believe this training would be sufficient for them to perform well in battle. The U.S. is, in fact, aiding in the sending of thousands of troops to assured death according to both men. They pointed out that if American soldiers had been sent into battle with no more training than what is being given to the Ukrainians, Gen. Milley would surely be brought up on war crimes. 

Lt. Col. Daniel Davis, along with the others, pointed out the stark deficiency in numbers for the Ukrainians. By their own admission the Ukrainians sent in no more than 35,000 troops for the offensive, whereas Russia has 150,000 troops in defensive positions with another 200,000 troops in reserve. The Ukrainians are simply running out of men. 

In an interview with Scott Horton, Lt. Col. Davis pointed out that the Ukrainians have essentially no air defense. It is simply not possible to be successful against Russian troops with superior numbers in terms of men and weapons, along with their own air support. Even CNN military analyst James “Spider” Marks, a retired general, noted that Ukraine needs air support, long range artillery and  incisive intelligence if it is going to be successful. I suppose promises of F-16s and other long range missiles are supposed to give hope to the Ukrainians. 

I would add there are other nations who are now openly stating that Russia is winning the war. Victor Orban, Prime Minister of Hungary, has said for some time that he sees no way for Ukraine to emerge victorious without NATO sending in troops. Surprisingly, at least to me, the President of Poland, Andrzej Duda, recently stated, “We are currently facing a situation where the Russian steamroller is crushing Ukraine, with hundreds of people dying on the front lines every day, while Russia has over 100 million people, and Ukrainians number less than 40 million. “ Politically, Poland is decidedly anti-Russian, but at least their leader is honest about the reality of the situation. 

In my opinion the most logical conclusion is that the U.S. is not really counting on a military victory in Ukraine–no matter what Gen. David Petraeus and Victoria Nuland say. They are simply wanting to wear down the Russians and make them exhaust as many resources as possible. 

Russia was forced into this war by the coup of 2014 and the subsequent amassing of offensive weapons in close proximity to its borders with Ukraine. The U.S. insisted it had the right to put weapons that could launch missiles from locations that would hit Moscow within 5 minutes of being fired. They also insisted that Ukraine had the right to join NATO, which meant if Ukraine attacked Russia in Crimea, then any NATO country had the right to join forces against Russia. The U.S. refused to back down. After 8 years of attempting a diplomatic solution, Putin initiated the Strategic Military Offensive. 

The Americans were wrong about Russia militarily and politically. There is no qualified Russian expert among the advisors to President Biden. The sanctions and the war prove that. I know from watching the U.S. news. Their descriptions of the impact the war has had on life in Russia are so far from reality that I really cannot believe these people get paid to fabricate such news. 

My fear, as I have expressed in many contexts, is that the powers-that-be in the U.S. will not have the moral courage to admit they were wrong and they were lying. These are not people of strong convictions and integrity at the helm in America. I had two friends who posted two videos on my Facebook “wall” yesterday. One was the testimony of an FBI official, whose name I did not get, in a congressional hearing. The two representatives questioning him under oath caught him lying and evading their questions time after time. He just could not muster the courage to admit they had lied in reports which had been filed and then concealed those non-classified documents from Congress and the American public. 

The other video was Episode 5 of Tucker Carlson on Twitter. Carlson reviewed the sordid history of Hunter Biden, given what we know about him and his relationship with his father from his laptop. Carlson then compared that information to public statements made about him and what he and his father had done and the money received. 

My heart sank as I watched. After researching what the mainstream media has been saying about Russia and the war, and then watching those two videos, I was left realizing my home country is the world leader in corruption. It is not a city set on a hill to which other nations will look and see light and truth. Washington, D.C. is a political and moral garbage dump from which many nations of the world are now turning away. I assure you, I take no joy in saying that. 

MY OTHER WORLD. Things here in Russia are still quite stable. I will cover a couple of things in my next blog. I want to give just the basics of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum that recently took place. Despite what the NY Times reported it seemed to be a great success, but I’ll try to have specific information in that next blog. 

Putin also gave a three and a half hour Q & A to Russian reporters who are actually covering the war. Several of these reporters were not sympathetic to Putin’s views to begin with, so he communicated details to them so that they would at least understand the issue from his perspective. I may give more details next time, but Putin went for over three hours and used no notes. Yet he was able to give thorough answers to these men and women who had been on the ground with the troops. 

Personal Situation. First, I have decided that the kids and I will not return to the U.S. this summer for a visit. The primary reason is the uncertainty of travel right now and my fear about what travel may be like in another month. I’m just not sure what America will be like and what they may try if things really do fall apart in Ukraine. I heard some say they made the trip with no problems. Others had difficulties and questions. On one site I read a post from an American father who had just returned to Russia with his Russian wife and two children. He said he had trouble with the Russian authorities questioning them. He went on to say it was a good thing his wife was there, because he knew no Russian and those questioning him knew no English. 

There were some other complications, such as when a good time would be to see all my family, so I determined we won’t go. I plan on going next year, but after COVID, my wife’s cancer and subsequent death, and the war, I have come to grasp more fully just how uncertain the future is. I love my family and friends in America. I want to see them so badly. Nevertheless, I just do not want to get stuck in America with my children. 

The kids are doing quite well this summer. Both are healthy, and both are spending a lot of time with their friends. Unfortunately that has left me with more alone time than I like. I stay active of course. I still do my walks and I was able to walk with my Russian friend Saturday. He has been working overtime since the war started, but it is letting up some now. We walked to the lake near our home, but there was a biker’s rock festival going on there. I don’t think I have ever seen that many motorcycles and tents in one location. Of course, I also have to keep the lawn mowed and do the housework. There are always dirty dishes and dirty clothes. 

I can’t help but recall how Oksana and I viewed the kids being away from home as our time. There is a nice quiet restaurant in Luga we really enjoyed. Then since summer is the time of “white nights,” we could walk afterwards. Grief changes. As I have mentioned, I no longer have those sharp feelings of pain. There is an acceptance of reality that has settled in my brain. Nevertheless, I miss having someone to share life with. I check the news on my computer, but I still have not watched television or listened to music since she passed. Those are things I’d like to do with someone by my side. 

I’ve mentioned that friends have joked a bit with me about finding another Russian wife. Recently, however, a couple of people have talked about it with me in a serious way. I guess it is an obvious issue. I’m alone in a foreign country trying to raise two kids. I realize friends are concerned about me, and I appreciate that. There are so many things about becoming single again after so many years that one never thinks about. I just always assumed Oksana would outlive me. Most men do I think–especially if your wife is much younger. And it is another aspect of life that is more complicated when one lives in a different culture or country. In America, I kind of know the things to say and do when it comes to a new relationship with a female. Here I am clueless. 

Nevertheless, even with confusion over things from how to wash and iron a nice dress for my little girl to what is appropriate conversation with someone of the opposite sex, I am still glad we are here. After Oksana died I thought in the back of my mind, if it gets too bad I can always return to the U.S. I can go back to my own homeland and get my mental “bearings.” But once you have seen the evil of America from the outside, the natural patriotism dies–or is killed. I can’t go back. 

In my last blog I talked of the animosity some “friends” in America expressed to me. I want to say in this entry, that I also have been so encouraged by many of my American family and friends. They do understand my feelings. They do understand my frustrations. And they don’t attack my decision to live in Russia. 

Is peace possible? Most of the time I feel very grieved and hopeless as to whether my “two worlds” will ever be reconciled. Russia and Putin have become almost curse words in America. But I recall that Oksana always loved the motto of my home state of South Carolina: Dum spiro spero–while I breathe I hope. June 10 was the 60th anniversary of the “peace speech” by President John F. Kennedy. I watched that speech again, and then I listened to the interview with Jeffrey Sachs about the speech (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ye3vsvf4jrk). 

Kennedy made the speech in the midst of the Cold War. It was given after the famous “Bay of Pigs” disaster in Cuba and after the Soviets caught America lying, so tensions were quite high. Despite the deep animosity between the two countries Kennedy spoke of peace. The line that I love is, “Never let us negotiate out of fear; let us never fear to negotiate.” The next day Premier Nikita Khrushchev ordered the speech be printed in Soviet newspapers and aired on the radio. Kennedy bravely stood up for the cause of peace. He paid for it with his life. 

We are not doomed to wallow in dissension and war, however. The hope I have is for another person like Kennedy to rise up and call Americans back to be the nation the founders of America wanted us to be, a nation that refused to intrude in the affairs of other nations. In the words of John Quincy Adams, 

 “[America] well knows that by once enlisting under other banners than her own, were they even the banners of foreign independence, she would involve herself, beyond the power of extrication, in all the wars of interest and intrigue, of individual avarice, envy, and ambition, which assume the colors and usurp the standard of freedom. The fundamental maxims of her policy would insensibly change from liberty to force. The frontlet upon her brows would no longer beam with the ineffable splendor of freedom and independence; but in its stead would soon be substituted an imperial diadem, flashing in false and tarnished luster the murky radiance of dominion and power. She might become the dictatress of the world: she would be no longer the ruler of her own spirit.”

It is time to throw off the murky radiance of immorality and recover the splendor of freedom and independence.

On Sunday the U.S.Secretary of State went on four morning shows to play the same distinct melody over and over again:

Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Margaret Brennan of CBS Face the Nation

SECRETARY BLINKEN: And it was a direct challenge to Putin’s authority. So this raises profound questions. It shows real cracks. We can’t speculate or know exactly where that’s going to go. We do know that Putin has a lot more to answer for in the weeks and months ahead.
…
SECRETARY BLINKEN: These create more cracks in the Russian façade, and those cracks were already profound. Economically, militarily, its standing in the world – all of those things have been dramatically diminished by Putin’s aggression against Ukraine. He’s managed to bring Europe together. He’s managed to bring NATO together. He’s managed to get Europe to move off of Russian energy. He’s managed to alienate Ukrainians and unite Ukraine at the same time. So across the board this has been a strategic failure. Now you introduce into that profound internal divisions, and there are lots of questions he’s going to have to answer in the weeks ahead.

Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Chuck Todd of NBC Meet The Press

SECRETARY BLINKEN: … So I think we’ve seen more cracks emerge in the Russian facade. It is too soon to tell exactly where they go and when they get there. But certainly we have all sorts of new questions that Putin is going to have to address in the weeks and months ahead.
…
This is just the latest chapter in a book of failure that Putin has written for himself and for Russia. Economically, militarily, its standing in the world – all of things have plummeted. We have a united NATO that’s stronger than ever before, a Europe that is weaning itself off of Russian energy, Ukraine that Putin has managed to alienate and unite at the same time. Now, with trouble brewing from within, this, as I said, just adds more questions that he has to find answers for.

Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Dana Bash of CNN State of the Union

SECRETARY BLINKEN: But we can say this. First of all, what we’ve seen is extraordinary, and I think you see cracks emerge that weren’t there before …
…
We’ve seen this aggression against Ukraine become a strategic failure across the board. Russia is weaker economically, militarily. Its standing around the world has plummeted. It’s managed to get Europeans off of Russian energy. It’s managed to unite and strengthen NATO with new members and a stronger Alliance. It’s managed to alienate from Russia and unite together Ukraine in ways that it’s never been before. This is just an added chapter to a very, very bad book that Putin has written for Russia.

Secretary Antony J. Blinken With Jonathan Karl of ABC This Week

SECRETARY BLINKEN: But I think we can say this much: First, we’ve seen some very serious cracks emerge.
…
But we’ve seen, I think, lots of different cracks that have emerged in the conduct of this aggression, because everything Putin has tried to accomplish, the opposite has happened. Russia is weaker economically. It’s weaker militarily. Its standing in the world has plummeted. It’s managed to strengthen and unite NATO. It’s managed to alienate and unite Ukrainians. It’s managed to get Europe off of dependence on Russian energy.
In piece after piece, issue after issue, what Putin has tried to prevent, he’s managed to precipitate. And Russia’s standing is vastly diminished as a result. Now, add to that internal dissention. Again, we can’t speculate on where this goes. We have to remain and we are focused on Ukraine, but it certainly raises new questions that he’s going to have to address.

The very same (false) talking points, repeated over and over again, are a sure sign of lies and an organized propaganda campaign.

For the record. Progozhin was all alone in his mutiny attempt. Not one element of the Russian government or civil society joint him in his ride. So where are the cracks? There are none. Also Russia’s military is now larger and better equipped then before the war. Russia’s economy is fine and growing. Its standing in the world has increased.

But Blinken’s propaganda works well because the U.S. media are trained to pick up any sheet of music an administration hands out and to sing its tune over and over again.

I could quote dozens of participants in that game to make that point. But the Washington Posts has made it easier for me when it asked eight of its columnists to comment on the issues. All but one, a neocon who wants to see more action, repeat Blinken’s message: “Putin has been weakened. Russia is crumbling.”

Opinion What happened in Russia — and what happens next? Our columnists weigh in.

David Von Drehle: Even failed coups have consequences
Putin evidently had no more confidence than Prigozhin as to the outcome of the clash. Rather than test the loyalty and strength of government forces to crush the uprising, the Russian leader grabbed the first exit he was offered — a sign of weakness that might invite another attempt. … The bad news: A weakened Russia has weakened leaders and is spinning out of control. Putin has taken his country into a disaster, and there is no one in sight to save it.
Max Boot: Prigozhin has made Putin’s weakness clear to everyone
Putin, has now had his own legitimacy undermined by the revolt of Prigozhin and his Wagner Group mercenaries. Whether the damage is fatal remains to be determined. … Even if Prigozhin is gone, the discontent he has revealed will remain an Achilles’ heel for Putin.
David Ignatius: After dodging the bullet, Putin will need to show he’s in control
Putin’s vulnerabilities were vividly on display last weekend, but so were his uncanny survival skills. He got inside Prigozhin’s conspiratorial plot and stopped it. … Putin will need to show that he’s in command now, after this near-death experience. That’s the bad news for Ukraine and Russia both.
Eugene Robinson: Putin is likely to survive this crisis
The revolt by the mercenary butcher Prigozhin did reveal Putin’s regime to be more brittle than it had appeared from afar.
Charles Lane: Prigozhin is the only Russian to publicly speak the truth
Vaclav Havel insisted that truth still exercised a mysterious, but latent, power.
It can unexpectedly “issue forth … in something visible: a real political act or event, a social movement, a sudden explosion of civil unrest, a sharp conflict inside an apparently monolithic power structure, or simply an irrepressible transformation in the social and intellectual climate,” Havel wrote. “And since all genuine problems and matters of critical importance are hidden beneath a thick crust of lies, it is never quite clear when the proverbial last straw will fall, or what that straw will be.”
Spy, oligarch, warlord — Prigozhin was an unlikely candidate to confirm Havel’s prophecy. But in a way, he did.
Jason Willick: Chances for escalation in Ukraine have gone up
Some observers might be overstating Putin’s weakness — he did suppress the mutiny quickly, after all — but the spectacle has clearly dented his image of control.
Josh Rogin: Prigozhin’s failed gambit is an opportunity for the West
Now that the Kremlin can no longer pretend Wagner is a separate entity, Russian government and defense officials must also be held accountable for Wagner’s worldwide crimes, which include credible allegations of mass murder, torture, rape and other atrocities.
Megan McArdle: Turmoil in Russia shows the fragility of illiberalism
Nominally, Putin controls a massive army, a substantial police force and a population that returned him to office in 2018 with a resounding 77 percent of the vote. But when push came to shove, those same folks were indifferent between him and a murderous warlord — or, at least, didn’t care enough about the distinction to risk getting shot. Putin survived, but the risk to his regime has risen now that it is clear how little actual support he has.

The overall tone: Putin did not fight the loon Prigozhin but found a peaceful solution. This shows that he is weak.

This bears a question. If eight columnists at one paper come to the very same (but false) conclusion, just issued in different words, why hire and pay all eight of them? Clearly, one would suffice.

Oh, that would show a lack diversity? The religious believe in individualism where all humans must differ - but for the opinions they are allowed to espouse?

It has been clear for some time that US corporate news media have explicitly taken a side on the Ukraine War. This role includes suppressing relevant history of the lead-up to the war (FAIR.org, ¾/22), attacking people who bring up that history as “conspiracy theorists” (FAIR.org, 5/18/22), accepting official government pronouncements at face value (FAIR.org, 12/2/22) and promoting an overly rosy picture of the conflict in order to boost morale.

For most of the war, most of the US coverage has been as pro-Ukrainian as Ukraine’s own media, now consolidated under the Zelenskyy government (FAIR.org, 5/9/23). Dire predictions sporadically appeared, but were drowned out by drumbeat coverage portraying a Ukrainian army on the cusp of victory, and the Russian army as incompetent and on the verge of collapse.

Triumphalist rhetoric soared in early 2023, as optimistic talk of a game-changing “spring offensive” dominated Ukraine coverage. Apparently delayed, the Ukrainian counteroffensive launched in June. While even US officials did not believe that it would amount to much, US media papered over these doubts in the runup to the campaign.

Over the last three months, it has become clear that the Ukrainian military operation will not be the game-changer it was sold as; namely, it will not significantly roll back the Russian occupation and obviate the need for a negotiated settlement. Only after this became undeniable did media report on the true costs of war to the Ukrainian people.

Keep reading

Ukrainian Tochka-U Missile Killed Dozens At Kramatorsk Train Station

The current top headline of the New York Times is:

Live Updates: Russia Strikes Train Station, Ukraine Says, as Thousands Flee From East

“Dozens” were feared dead and injured, a local official said, after a missile strike in Kramatorsk, which had been a main point of evacuation for people trying to leave eastern Ukraine.

CNN quotes an Ukrainian military official who described it as an Iskander missile strike:

Two missiles struck the station, according to the head of Ukraine’s national rail system, Oleksandr Kamyshin. Pavlo Kyrylenko, the head of Donetsk regional military administration, said the Russian military used Iskander short-range ballistic missiles.

A pro-Ukrainian twitter account also describes this as a result of the missile attack (the time stamp is UTC+2):

The same account describes this as the remains of the booster section of the missile that hit the train station:

The picture in full size:

Another view of the debris from a different account:

A check with Tineye proves that the pictures above have not be published earlier. They are new.

The booster section of a missile typically departs from the war head in mid-flight and lands separately. However, the booster section shown in the above pictures is from a Tochka-U missile.

Here are pictures from GlobalSecurity.org of the SS-21 SCARAB (9K79 Tochka) system. The booster section is the aft half to the right:

When unfolded the fins and the grid stabilizers are clearly identifiable.

Russia, unlike the Ukraine, is no longer using Tochka-U missiles. They have been replaced by Iskandar missile systems. As the not recently edited Wikipedia entry about Tochka operators says:

Russia - 220 launchers. Missile systems have been upgraded since 2004 (replacing the onboard automated control systems) and are scheduled to be replaced by the 9K720 Iskander missiles by 2020

In a March 16 press release Russia denied that its forces still use Tochka-U missiles:

UNITED NATIONS, March 16. /TASS/. Tochka-U tactical missiles are not in service in Russian Armed Forces, Russian mission to the UN said in its letter to the UN Security Council and General Assembly.“Given the proven record of the Kiev regime promoting false allegations and fake evidence, it should be noted that Tochka-U tactical missiles are not in service in the Russian Armed Forces,” the letter says.

Ukraine, which has retained some 90 launcher systems for Tochka-U missiles from Soviet times, has recently fired several of these against Russian and Donbas forces.

I have failed to find any recent reports of the use of Tochka missiles by Russian forces.

This clipping from the most recent Southfront map shows Kramatorsk right in the middle and not immediately near the frontline.

A current situation report says that Russia has recently systematically disabled train tracks along the Ukrainian supply lines to the Donbas front:

As the big showdown in Donbass looms, a lot of forces are pouring in on both sides. Russia has shifted strategies and is now striking railway stations and reinforcement hubs / corridors, as many have hoped it would do. Overnight there were several reports of important railway hubs being hit by missiles. One near Zhytomir, which is possibly the single most important reinforcement hub to the frontlines in all of western Ukraine. Reinforcements being sent to frontlines were reportedly destroyed in the strike, though there’s no visual confirmation. And another in Kharkov region – just south, in Lozovaya – which evoked a video message plea from the Kharkov mayor who said railways were hit, oil has run out, but pleaded for people not to flee (presumably because the militants who control him need citizens to use as hostages / human shields just like in Mariupol).
…
As can be seen on this map, the Lozovaya junction is a critical resupply / reinforcement route for the Ukrop Donbass cauldron and specifically their stronghold of Kramatorsk, which had been the central headquarters of the entire JFO for some time. And other reports said a railway bridge was hit leading to that junction as well.

Of note is that so far all Russian attacks on train junctions were reported to have happened at night time.

As Russia has already interrupted the train lines west of Kramatorsk, and thereby stopped resupplies to it, it has no need to attack Kramatorsk station at all.

It is therefore almost assured that it was a Ukrainian missile that today hit Kramatorsk station. It was either aimed badly, went off course or was intentionally aimed at it for propaganda purposes. (The ‘for the children’ marking in Russian on the booster section may point to the later cause.)

We have no further information for us to decide which is the case.