Daily Archives: March 6, 2022

Former national security adviser John Bolton said on Friday that he believes Russian President Vladimir Putin was "waiting" for a possible United States withdrawal from NATO, claiming former President Trump would have likely made such a move had he been reelected.

Bolton, during a Washington Post Live event, was asked about his memoir, in which he claimed that Trump wanted to leave the military alliance in 2018. The newspaper's Opinions Editor-at-Large Michael Duffy asked him how close Trump was to withdrawing the United States from NATO.

"Yeah, I had my heart in my throat at that NATO meeting. I didn't know what the president would do. He called me up to his seat seconds before he gave his speech. And I said, 'Look, go right up to the line, but don't go over it,' " Bolton replied.

"I sat back down, I had no idea what he'd do. I thought he'd put his foot over it, but at least he didn't withdraw then," he continued. "In a second Trump term, I think he may well have withdrawn from NATO, and I think Putin was waiting for that."

Taylor Budowich, a spokesperson for Trump, knocked Bolton's comments.

"John Bolton is only happy when America is at war. President Trump led America into one of the most peaceful times in U.S. history, which included growing investment into NATO by $50 billion," he said in a statement. "John Bolton is just mad he was fired before it could be spent."

White House press secretary Jen Psaki, who was asked about Bolton's remarks during a press briefing on Friday, claimed most Americans were "grateful" that President Biden's approach to global engagement is different than Trump's.

"I saw those comments - you know, another reason why the American people are grateful - the majority of the American people - that President Biden has not taken a page out of his predecessors' playbook as it relates to global engagement and global leadership, because, certainly, we could be in a different place," she said.

Updated at 9:15 a.m.

See the original post here:

John Bolton: Putin was 'waiting' for possible US ...

Israeli Prime Minister Naftali Bennett met with Russian President Vladimir PutinVladimir Vladimirovich Putin 5 things to know today about the Russia-Ukraine conflict Israeli prime minister meets with Putin to discuss Ukraine Lawmakers in both parties see limits on US help for Ukraine MORE in Moscow Saturday to discussRussia's war withUkraine.

A spokesperson for Bennett's said that he met with Putin at the Kremlin, and afterwards the Israeli leader spoke on the phone with Ukrainian Volodymyr Zelensky, Reuters reported.

An Israeli official said that the prime minister is coordinating efforts with the U.S., Germany and France on the issue, according to the wire service.

The meeting between Bennett and Putin lasted for three hours, but nomajor breakthroughs have yet been reported. The Israeli official said Bennett discussed how the fighting in Ukraine has affected the Jewish community at large.

Zelensky and Bennett are the only two Jewish heads of government in the world, according to The New York Times.

To meet with Putin, Bennett broke with the Sabbath to travel to Moscow, but his office said it was allowed under religious law because the aim of the meeting was to preserve human life, according to Reuters.

Before attending the meeting, Bennett spoke French President Emmanuel MacronEmmanuel Jean-Michel MacronIsraeli prime minister meets with Putin to discuss Ukraine Russia weighs risks of launching cyberattacks against the West The Hill's Morning Report - Russia's war against Ukraine grinds on MORE to learn what he and Putin previously discussed, the Elyse Palace said.

Israel has voiced its support for Ukraine amid the invasion and is sending medical supplies, but said it would not cut off ties with Russia as the country hopes to find a resolution to the conflict, Reuters noted.

Along with the Ukraine conflict, Bennett and Putin discussed the 2015 Iran Nuclear deal.

Following his meeting in Russia, Bennett was headed to Germany to meet with ChancellorOlaf Scholz.

Link:

Israeli prime minister meets with Putin to discuss Ukraine ...

IE 11 is not supported. For an optimal experience visit our site on another browser.

UP NEXT

Praising Ukrainian citizens for bravery simplifies mental toll of war, trauma07:39

Biden Administration grants temporary protected state to Ukrainians in the U.S.02:06

Visa, Mastercard among global businesses pressuring Russia09:08

Reports of discrimination, racism at the Ukrainian border06:21

Flood of Ukrainian refugees adds to global refugee crisis04:18

Can Punishing Putin's Oligarchs End Russia's War?05:23

Putin takes unprecedented action, orders Russian nuclear deterrent forces to be put on high alert09:09

Rep. Joaquin Castro on the power of social, cultural sanctions against Russia06:16

The Russian people risk everything to stand in solidarity with Ukraine01:48

House Committee Expands Inquiry Into Trumps handling of White House records05:20

Ukrainians begin fleeing to Poland as Russian attacks intensify03:34

Whatever happened to the Republicans being the big tent party?12:44

Texas Democrat on the hypocrisy of state GOP election officials07:08

As Russia-Ukraine crisis remains on a knife edge, leaders weigh last ditch efforts at diplomacy08:33

Text messages provide detailed record of Jan. 6 events06:38

Secretary Katie Hobbs: We are in peril if we have people in these offices who arent focused on the process but rather the outcome.06:13

Con artists take over our TV screens09:42

The ice fishing to prostitution pipeline01:23

Sandy Hook mother discusses landmark $73 million dollar settlement06:24

Rep. Ted Lieu: Trump is a walking national security liability.04:16

As the Russian invasion of Ukraine intensifies, are there any off ramps left for Putin to take? Senior fellow at the Cato Institute Justin Logan and author Kristine Berzina join Ayman to discuss.March 5, 2022

UP NEXT

Praising Ukrainian citizens for bravery simplifies mental toll of war, trauma07:39

Biden Administration grants temporary protected state to Ukrainians in the U.S.02:06

Visa, Mastercard among global businesses pressuring Russia09:08

Reports of discrimination, racism at the Ukrainian border06:21

Flood of Ukrainian refugees adds to global refugee crisis04:18

Can Punishing Putin's Oligarchs End Russia's War?05:23

Read more:

Are there off ramps for Putin?

Why has Vladimir Putin caused the Russian invasion of Ukraine? He speaks of security needs and NATO infringement. President Biden says that he acts out of ambition and a desire to reestablish the Soviet empire. Both could be factors, but I think his underlying reason is fear. Not fear of NATO, the U.S. or the EU or any other nation. What he fears most is the Russian people.

Putin is an old school despot. A graduate of the East German debacle, he tried once to set up a puppet in Ukraine, in order to insulate Russia, but his effort failed. Now he is willing to run any risk necessary to keep from having a free, independent and prosperous Ukraineon the Russian border where the Russian people can see, hear, touch and taste what freedom is like, often in their own language and from their own relatives.

Putin saw firsthand the result of having West Berlin in view of subjugated people.He doesnt dare trust that type long-term infection on his own border.

If he succeeds in Ukraine, can Finland be far behind? What then of the Baltic States?

Perhaps he is haunted by the specter of photos created, ironically, by fellow communists, of an earlier despot in 1945 in the streets of Milan.

Thomas W. Brown

Murray

See the original post:

Putin is afraid Russians will see freedom on their own ...

Is it fair to call the Republican Party under Donald Trump the Party of Putin? I think not.

True, Vladimir Putins Russia helped Trump narrowly win an Electoral College victory in 2016. In office, Trump played up to Putin by disparaging NATO and the European Union. At the Helsinki summit in 2018, Trump described Putins denials of U.S. election interference as extremely strong and powerful despite the contrary consensus of US intelligence agencies. More recently, Trump has praised Putins peacekeeping invasion of eastern Ukraine as pretty savvy and genius.

Republicans have mostly refrained from criticizing Trump for condoning Putin when condemnation was called for. They blame President Bidens perceived weakness as much as Putins unjustified aggression for the invasion of Ukraine.

No, the GOP remains the Party of Trump, with a Putin wing on one side and a few moderates on the other. Most members, including candidates for governor in Minnesota, remain captive to the Big Lie that Trump won the election in 2020. Thats the focus.

One hopes that their tolerance and occasional admiration of Putin, so contrary to the old Party of Reagan, is more a sign of subservience to Trump than admiration for a brutal autocrat at war with democracy.

As for Trumps servility to Putin, none dare call it treason.

Norman Senjem, Rochester

Read the rest here:

Letter: Party of Putin? - Post Bulletin | Rochester ...

Vladimir Putin served as president of Russia from 2000 to 2008 and was re-elected to the presidency in 2012. He previously served as Russia's prime minister.

In 1999, Russian president Boris Yeltsin dismissed his prime minister and promoted former KGB officer Vladimir Putin in his place. In December 1999, Yeltsin resigned, appointing Putin president, and he was re-elected in 2004. In April 2005, he made a historic visit to Israel the first visit there by any Kremlin leader. Putin could not run for the presidency again in 2008, but was appointed prime minister by his successor, Dmitry Medvedev. Putin was re-elected to the presidency in March 2012 and later won a fourth term. In 2014, he was reportedly nominated for a Nobel Peace Prize.

Vladimir Vladimirovich Putin was born in Leningrad (now St. Petersburg), Russia, on October 7, 1952. He grew up with his family in a communal apartment, attending the local grammar and high schools, where he developed an interest in sports. After graduating from Leningrad State University with a law degree in 1975, Putin began his career in the KGB as an intelligence officer. Stationed mainly in East Germany, he held that position until 1990, retiring with the rank of lieutenant colonel.

Upon returning to Russia, Putin held an administrative position at the University of Leningrad, and after the fall of communism in 1991 became an adviser to liberal politician Anatoly Sobchak. When Sobchak was elected mayor of Leningrad later that year, Putin became his head of external relations, and by 1994, Putin had become Sobchak's first deputy mayor.

After Sobchak's defeat in 1996, Putin resigned his post and moved to Moscow. There, in 1998, Putin was appointed deputy head of management under Boris Yeltsin's presidential administration. In that position, he was in charge of the Kremlin's relations with the regional governments.

Shortly afterward, Putin was appointed head of the Federal Security Service, an arm of the former KGB, as well as head of Yeltsin's Security Council. In August 1999, Yeltsin dismissed his prime minister, Sergey Stapashin, along with his cabinet, and promoted Putin in his place.

In December 1999, Boris Yeltsin resigned as president of Russia and appointed Putin acting president until official elections were held, and in March 2000, Putin was elected to his first term with 53 percent of the vote. Promising both political and economic reforms, Putin set about restructuring the government and launching criminal investigations into the business dealings of high-profile Russian citizens. He also continued Russia's military campaign in Chechnya.

In September 2001, in response to the terrorist attacks on the United States, Putin announced Russia's support for the United States in its anti-terror campaign. However, when the United States' "war on terror" shifted focus to the ousting of Iraqi leader Saddam Hussein, Putin joined German Chancellor Gerhard Schrder and French President Jacques Chirac in opposition of the plan.

In 2004, Putin was re-elected to the presidency, and in April of the following year made a historic visit to Israel for talks with Prime Minister Ariel Sharon marking the first visit to Israel by any Kremlin leader.

Due to constitutional term limits, Putin was prevented from running for the presidency in 2008. (That same year, presidential terms in Russia were extended from four to six years.) However, when his protg Dmitry Medvedev succeeded him as president in March 2008, he immediately appointed Putin as Russia's prime minister, allowing Putin to maintain a primary position of influence for the next four years.

On March 4, 2012, Vladimir Putin was re-elected to his third term as president. After widespread protests and allegations of electoral fraud, he was inaugurated on May 7, 2012, and shortly after taking office appointed Medvedev as prime minister. Once more at the helm, Putin has continued to make controversial changes to Russia's domestic affairs and foreign policy.

In December 2012, Putin signed into a law a ban on the U.S. adoption of Russian children. According to Putin, the legislationwhich took effect on January 1, 2013 aimed to make it easier for Russians to adopt native orphans. However, the adoption ban spurred international controversy, reportedly leaving nearly 50 Russian children who were in the final phases of adoption with U.S. citizens at the time that Putin signed the law in legal limbo.

Putin further strained relations with the United States the following year when he granted asylum to Edward Snowden, whois wanted by the United States for leaking classified information from the National Security Agency. In response to Putin's actions,U.S. President Barack Obamacanceled a planned meeting with Putin that August.

Around this time, Putin also upset many people with his new anti-gay laws. He made it illegal for gay couples to adopt in Russia and placed a ban on propagandizing "nontraditional" sexual relationships to minors. The legislation led to widespread international protest.

In September 2013, tensions rose between the United States and Syria over Syria's possession of chemical weapons, with the U.S. threatening military action if the weapons were not relinquished. The immediate crisis was averted, however, when the Russian and U.S. governments brokered a deal whereby those weapons would be destroyed.

On September 11, 2013, The New York Times publishedan op-ed piece by Putin titled "A Plea for Caution From Russia." In the article, Putin spoke directly to the U.S.'s position in taking action against Syria, stating that such a unilateral move could result in the escalation of violence and unrest in the Middle East.

Putin further asserted that the U.S. claim that Bashar al-Assad used the chemical weapons on civilians might be misplaced, with the more likely explanation being the unauthorized use of the weapons by Syrian rebels. He closed the piece by welcoming the continuation of an open dialogue between the involved nations to avoid further conflict in the region.

In 2014, Russia hosted the Winter Olympics, which were held in Sochi beginning on February 6. According to NBS Sports, Russia spent roughly $50 billion in preparation for the international event.

However, in response to what many perceived as Russia's recently passed anti-gay legislation, the threat of international boycotts arose. In October 2013, Putin tried to allay some of these concerns, saying in an interview broadcast on Russian television that "We will do everything to make sure that athletes, fans and guests feel comfortable at the Olympic Games regardless of their ethnicity, race or sexual orientation."

In terms of security for the event, Putin implemented new measures aimed at cracking down on Muslim extremists, and in November 2013 reports surfaced that saliva samples had been collected from some Muslim women in the North Caucasus region. The samples were ostensibly to be used to gather DNA profiles, in an effort to combat female suicide bombers known as "black widows."

Shortly after the conclusion of the 2014 Winter Olympics, amidst widespread political unrest in Ukraine, which resulted in the ousting of President Viktor Yanukovych, Putin sent Russian troops into Crimea, a peninsula in the country's northeast coast of the Black Sea. The peninsula had been part of Russia until Nikita Khrushchev, former Premier of the Soviet Union, gave it to Ukraine in 1954.

Ukraine's ambassador to the United Nations, Yuriy Sergeyev, claimed that approximately 16,000 troops invaded the territory, and Russia's actions caught the attention of several European countries and the United States, who refused to accept the legitimacy of a referendum in which the majority of the Crimean population voted to secede from Ukraine and reunite with Russia.

Putin defended his actions, insisting that the troops sent into Ukraine were only meant to enhance Russia's military defenses within the country referring to Russia's Black Sea Fleet, which has its headquarters in Crimea. He also vehemently denied accusations by other nations, particularly the United States, that Russia intended to engage Ukraine in war.

He went on to claim that although he was granted permission from Russia's upper house of Parliament to use force in Ukraine, he found it unnecessary. Putin also wrote off any speculation that there would be a further incursion into Ukrainian territory, saying, "Such a measure would certainly be the very last resort."

The following day, it was announced that Putin had been nominated for the 2014 Nobel Peace Prize.

In September 2015, Russia surprised the world by announcing it would begin strategic airstrikes in Syria. Despite government officials' assertions that the military actions were intended to target the extremist Islamic State, which made significant advances in the region due to the power vacuum created by Syria's ongoing civil war, Russia's true motives were called into question, with many international analysts and government officials claiming that the airstrikes were in fact aimed at the rebel forces attempting to overthrow President Bashar al-Assad's historically repressive regime.

In late October 2017, Putin was personally involved in another alarming form of aerial warfare when he oversaw a late-night military drill that resulted in the launch of four ballistic missiles across the country. The drill came during a period of escalating tensions in the region, with Russian neighbor North Korea also drawing attention for its missile tests and threats to engage the U.S. in destructive conflict.

In December 2017, Putin announced he was ordering Russian forces to begin withdrawing from Syria, saying the country's two-year campaign to destroy ISIS was complete, though he left open the possibility of returning if terrorist violence resumed in the area. Despite the declaration, Pentagon spokesmanRobert Manning was hesitantto endorse that view of events, saying,"Russian comments about removal of their forces do not often correspond with actual troop reductions."

Months prior to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, multiple U.S. intelligence agencies unilaterally agreed that Russian intelligence was behind the email hacks of the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and John Podesta,who had, at the time, been chairman of Democratic presidential candidate Hillary Clinton's campaign.

In December 2016 unnamed senior CIA officials further concluded "with a high level of confidence" that Putin was personally involved in intervening in the U.S. presidential election, according to a report byUSA Today. The officials further went on to assert that the hacked DNC and Podesta emailsthat were given to WikiLeaks just before U.S. Election Day were designed to undermine Clinton's campaignin favor of her Republican opponent, Donald Trump. Soon after, the FBI and National Intelligence Agency publicly supported the CIA's assessments.

Putin denied any such attempts to disrupt the U.S. election, and despite the assessments of his intelligence agencies, President Trump generally seemed to favor the word of his Russian counterpart. Underscoring their attempts to thaw public relations, the Kremlin in late 2017 revealed that a terror attack had been thwarted in St. Petersburg, thanks tointelligence provided by the CIA.

Around that time,Putin reported at his annual end-of-year press conference that he would seek a new six-year term as president in early 2018 as an independent candidate, signaling he was ending his longtime association with the United Russia party.

Shortly before the first formal summit between Presidents Putin and Trump in July 2018, the U.S. Department of Justice announced the indictments of 12 Russian operatives on charges relating to interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. Regardless, Trump suggested he was satisfied with his counterpart's "strong and powerful" denial in a joint news conference and praised Putin's offer to submit the 12 indicted agents to questioning with American witnesses present.

In a subsequent interview with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, Putin seemingly defended the hacking of the DNC server by suggesting that no false information was planted in the process. He also rejected the idea that he had compromising information about Trump, saying that the businessman "was of no interest for us" before announcing his presidential campaign, and notably refused to touch a copy of the indictments offered to him by Wallace.

In March 2018, toward the end of his third term, Putin boasted of new weaponry that would render NATO defenses "completely worthless," including a low-flying nuclear-capable cruise missile with "unlimited" range and another one capable of traveling at hypersonic speed. His demonstration included video animation of attacks on the United States.

Not long afterward, a two-hour documentary, titled Putin, was posted to several social media pages and a pro-Kremlin YouTube account. Designed to showcase the president in a strong yet humane light, the doc featured Putin sharing the story of how he ordered a hijacked plane shot down to head off a bomb scare at the 2014 Sochi Olympics, as well as recollections of his grandfather's days as a cook for Vladimir Lenin and Joseph Stalin.

On March 18, 2018, the fourth anniversary of the country's seizure of Crimea, Russian citizens overwhelmingly elected Putin to a fourth presidential term, with 67 percent of the electorate turning out to award him more than 76 percent of the vote. The divided opposition stood little chance against the popular leader, his closest competitor notching around 13 percent of the vote.

Little was expected to change regarding Putin's strategies for rebuilding the country as a global power, though the start of his final term set off questions about his successor, and whether he would affect constitutional change in an attempt to remain in office indefinitely.

On July 16, 2018, Putin met with President Trump in Helsinki, Finland, for the first formal talks between the two leaders. According to Russia, topics of the meeting included the ongoing war in Syria and "the removal of the concerns" about accusations of Russian attempts to influence the 2016 U.S. presidential election.

The following April, Putin met with North Korean dictator Kim Jong-un for the first time. The two leaders discussed the issue of the North Korean laborers in Russia, while Putin also offered support of his counterpart's denuclearization negotiations with the U.S., saying Kim would need "security guarantees" in exchange for abandoning his nuclear program.

The topic of whether Putin aimed to extend his hold on power resurfaced following hisstate-of-the-nation speech in January 2020, which included proposals for constitutional amendments that included transferring the power to select the prime minister and cabinet from the president to the Parliament. The entire cabinet, including Medvedev, promptly resigned, leading to the selection of Mikhail V. Mishustin as the new prime minister.

In 1980, Putin met his future wife, Lyudmila, who was working as a flight attendant at the time. The couple married in 1983 and had two daughters: Maria, born in 1985, and Yekaterina, born in 1986. In early June 2013, after nearly 30 years of marriage, Russia's first couple announced that they were getting a divorce, providing little explanation for the decision, but assuring that they came to it mutually and amicably.

"There are people who just cannot put up with it," Putin stated. "Lyudmila Alexandrovna has stood watch for eight, almost nine years." Providing more context to the decision, Lyudmila added, "Our marriage is over because we hardly ever see each other. Vladimir Vladimirovich is immersed in his work, our children have grown and are living their own lives."

An Orthodox Christian, Putin is said to attend church services on important dates and holidays on a regular basis and has had a long history of encouraging the construction and restoration of thousands of churches in the region. He generally aims to unify all faiths underthe government's authorityand legally requires religious organizations to register with local officials for approval.

Watch "Vladimir Putin" on HISTORY Vault

Go here to see the original:

Vladimir Putin - Ex-Wife, Age & Facts - Biography

A phone conversation between President Emmanuel Macron of France and President Vladimir V. Putin of Russia on Thursday offered little hope that the fighting in Ukraine would abate any time soon, with the Kremlin saying it had no intention of backing down from a war that is going according to plan and the French presidency warning that Mr. Putin appeared determined to invade the entire country.

Our analysis of the military operations is that the Russian ambitions are to take control of all of Ukraine, said a senior official in the French presidency, who briefed reporters on the 90-minute conversation between the two leaders and said Mr. Macron expressed pessimism after the call.

Nothing is certain about the success of Russias operations, but we have to expect that the worst is to come, said the official, who spoke on the condition of anonymity in keeping with French government practice. There is nothing in what President Putin said that should reassure us, the official added.

The call, which the French presidency said came at the Kremlins request, was the third discussion between the two leaders since the start of the war. Mr. Macron, who was expected to announce his candidacy for re-election in April later on Thursday, has positioned himself at the center of the diplomacy in Europe, burnishing his stature in France and abroad by becoming an interlocutor with Mr. Putin.

But even as the French presidency stressed that France would keep diplomatic lines open with Russia as long as necessary including to organize the passage of humanitarian aid the successive phone calls have shown the limits of Mr. Macrons outreach to Mr. Putin.

The French official offered a grim assessment of Mr. Putins determination to pursue the conflict, saying that the Russian leader repeated a lengthy list of grievances and perceived slights from Western countries that he said had forced him to act. Mr. Putin also repeated demands that the Ukrainian government and other European countries have already deemed unacceptable, the official said.

Mr. Macron told Mr. Putin that he was making a serious mistake and was deluding himself and looking for pretexts with his assertions that the Kyiv government was run by Nazis, the official said. Mr. Macron warned that Russia would pay dearly, leaving the country weakened, isolated and under sanctions for a very long time.

In its own readout of the call, the Kremlin said that Mr. Putin had told his French counterpart that his main goal was the demilitarization and neutral status of Ukraine. Those goals, the Kremlin said, will be achieved no matter what.

Mr. Putin also denied that Russian forces were attacking civilians, dismissing them as elements of an anti-Russian disinformation campaign.

Read this article:

After Putin-Macron Call, France Sees Russia Wanting 'All Ukraine' - The New York Times

As Vladimir Putins war on Ukraine grows ever more horrific, hes increasingly desperate to hide the truth from his own citizens. Hes bound to fail and to grow ever weaker in the failing.

Russias pet parliament on Friday passed a law threatening 15 years in prison for those who report truths Putin doesnt want anyone to hear. In response, major networks are cutting back their reporting from Russia.

But in this age, he cant shut down the flow of information to Russia, even if he has stopped access to Facebook and Twitter. The nation with some of the worlds best hackers has far too many citizens who can end-run his censorship.

So Russians will hear the verdict of the likes of Pope Francis in St. Peters Square: In Ukraine, rivers of blood and tears are flowing. This is not just a military operation but a war which sows death, destruction and misery.

And theyll see video like the women and children fleeing bombing in Irpin and all the photos of civilian corpses in the street.

Theyll know Putins claim that hes not warring on civilians is just a sick lie.

Nor can he shut off the flow of images from Ukraine: World media still operate there, and will surely heed Olena Zelenskas plea that they expose the terrible truth: Russian invaders are killing Ukrainian children.

Elon Musks Starlink terminals keep the Internet going in Ukraine, too. Musk is right to warn that Russia will seek to target users in zones it controls, but Putins forces are already badly stretched and Ukrainians will find ways to turn such targeting into a trap.

Putins first moves already (at last) woke up Western governments to his true nature, and continued coverage of his atrocities already has Americans supporting a no-fly zone and other ways of helping out, even if US elected officials are still cowed by the autocrats threats of nuclear war.

Its far too soon to say that the conquest of Ukraine will fail utterly; at a minimum, Putin will snuff out thousands more innocent lives.

Yet wading ever deeper in blood doesnt change the simple fact that hes behind the curve on every front except martyring the helpless.

No one can yet know exactly what those defeats will add up to, but one way or another they bring his own doom ever closer.

Continue reading here:

Wading in blood won't stop Putin's doom from growing ever closer - New York Post

Sometimes, in weighing what Russian officials are saying now, or what they may be saying next week, it helps to take a look at what they were saying just a few days ago:

They lied.

No one can possibly know for sure what's next. But "Sunday Morning" senior contributor Ted Koppel turned to four people whose life experience and accumulated expertise gives their opinions special weight.

Nina Khrushcheva, great-granddaughter of Nikita Khrushchev, came to study in America when Russia was known as the Soviet Union. She's now a professor of international affairs at the New School in New York, but still has close ties to the country where she was born.

"People are being fired for speaking against the war," she told Koppel. "My niece just got arrested in the center of Moscow. She was just walking. And because she's young, the police assumed that she must be protesting against the war. She would just get arrested."

Khrushcheva noted that Putin's poll numbers have gone up, from 60% to 71%.

"Now, can we trust those polls?" asked Koppel. "Or does the Kremlin "

"Oh yes. No, it's not the Kremlin. It's the Levada poll."

"But I suspect when the bodies come back, it'll be in the dark of night, and there won't be anybody there to photograph it?"

"Absolutely," Khrushcheva replied. "And they already, I mean, there are already information that they're burning those bodies. So, it's really quite Stalinesque time right now."

Keith Alexander was a four-star general when he ran the National Security Agency. Few Americans know more about cyber warfare, or Vladimir Putin, or how he may retaliate, than Alexander does: "He's not getting the movement out of the military in Ukraine. He's not making the progress he thought. I believe he's going to turn to cyber.

"I believe he's gonna hit Europe and the United States with that cyber. And I believe those attacks will go across the wide spectrum."

Koppel asked, "Can you put it in terms of what the average citizen is going to experience?"

"The average person is gonna look at what's happening to their bank, what's happening to their power company or their credit cards or the distribution of goods, whether it's oil and gas or supplies to their stores," Alexander said. "All of that could be impacted by cyber attacks."

Fiona Hill worked at the Trump White House in the National Security Council, where she served as senior director for Europe and Russia. Her memoir, "There Is Nothing For You Here," is just out.

Hill said, "In terms of thinking about modern war, it's not just about territorial conquest. It's what we call hybrid war, information war, influence operations, propaganda, cyber, ransomware attacks. It can be the use of criminal groups, for example."

"In a sense, Fiona, you're saying that we are already engaged in World War III?" Koppel asked.

"Exactly. Well, many average American families, particularly in the heartland, have had their sons and daughters in Afghanistan, in Iraq, in Syria, and deployed overseas. We're gonna have to think that we're all part of this as well. We can't just think of, it's the families of other people in America who've been deployed overseas and who have been in harm's way. It may be all of us right now."

It's hard to think of anyone with more government experience that Leon Panetta: once Chairman of the House Budget Committee, White House Chief of Staff, Secretary of Defense, CIA director, and one of the earliest voices warning of the dangers of cyberwarfare. "The reality is that cyber is today a weapon of war. Without question, it can be used to paralyze another country."

Koppel asked, "When you hear Vladimir Putin warning about consequences 'the likes of which the world has never seen before,' everybody immediately assumes that he's talking about nuclear warfare. Could he be talking about cyber warfare?"

"I don't think there's any question he could be talking about cyber warfare," Panetta replied. "Cyber as a weapon means that you don't have to deploy your air force or boots on the ground. You can simply sit at a computer and deploy a very sophisticated virus that can take down our electric grid system, take down our financial systems, our government systems, our banking systems."

President Joe Biden has repeatedly emphasized that no U.S. troops will be sent to Ukraine; at the same time, the president has warned Putin against attacking any one of the 30 nations which are part of NATO. In his State of the Union speech, Mr. Biden said, "The United States and our Allies will defend every inch of territory that is NATO territory with the full force of our collective power every single inch."

Koppel asked, "What's being posited right now, and this is not theoretical, this could be next week or next month, that Vladimir Putin orders Russian troops into one of those Baltic States. Do we risk nuclear war to respond to that?"

"It's a dangerous moment; nobody can deny that," Panetta said. "We're dealing with somebody who might very well resort to some kind of nuclear weapon or worse. We have drawn a line, and I think if we fail to stand by that line, it would deeply undermine our credibility to ourselves and to the world."

Hill said, "[Putin] wants us to think and to believe, because he's been explicit about it, that the nuclear option is on the table. Because he has put his nuclear forces on high alert. And so, he wants us to know that he's thinking about his. Because one of the things about Vladimir Putin, if he has an instrument, no matter how cruel and unusual or terrifying that instrument may be, he wants us to think that he would use it.

"So, we have to address this issue seriously, not be intimidated ('cause that's exactly what he wants), not to be scared and to fall back."

Khrushcheva said, "My fear is that he's prepared to go as far as he needs to go. And that's why I hope it excludes NATO countries. But we really at this point cannot exclude that possibility."

"And that would mean that we are at the brink of nuclear war?" asked Koppel.

"It will mean that we are exactly at that World War III that we've been talking about for the last three months and so eagerly trying to avoid. That's also a sign that he's playing. And I hope he's only playing, but [he's] playing a very, very dangerous game."

Alexander said, "If he uses the nuclear weapons, I think that's the end of his regime. I think he understands that. I believe the alternative he will use is, he'll threaten with nuclear. He will use cyber. And I believe we're gonna push back in both those areas. And we have the ability to do the same thing against him. The difference will be that I believe ours will be more focused to go after him than the Russian people."

Koppel asked, "The Russian people are accustomed to enduring pain. The American people, quite frankly, are not. So, when it comes to those exchanges of cyber attacks, depriving us of what we need for our daily lives, that's what the Russians have been doing forever. We are accustomed to having what we want when we want it."

"Yeah. So, you bring out a great point," Alexander said. "And on the surface what you say makes sense. What happens when that's disturbed? I believe we'll grumble, but it's almost like what happened in World War II. It'll awaken the American people, is my belief, and they'll say, 'This has to stop.' I don't know where that will go. I have tremendous faith and confidence in the will of the American people to push back when the going gets tough."

For more info:

Story produced by Jon Carras. Editor: Ed Givnish.

Read more from the original source:

How far will Putin go and how far will America go to stop him? - CBS News

Vladimir Putin has long enjoyed a reputation as a master of information warfare. Over the past decade, his weaponization of social media and aggressive promotion of fake narratives have proven pivotal in a range of landmark achievements such as the 2014 seizure of Crimea and the 2016 election of Donald Trump.

This makes the current state of affairs all the more surprising. With Putins Ukraine invasion still less than two weeks old, it is already clear that the information war has been decisively lost.

Since Putins attack began on February 24, the world has rallied overwhelmingly in support of Ukraine. The vast majority of the international community have also vocally condemned Russian aggression. Indeed, the war is being widely touted as the most black-and-white issue of good versus evil in modern history.

Putins invasion has clearly made Russia toxic in ways that even his formidable disinformation machine has been unable to counter. It has led to unprecedented international sanctions and persuaded many of the worlds biggest companies to cut all ties with the country. Even formerly reliable partners like China appear increasingly unwilling to stand publicly with the Kremlin.

Meanwhile, false Russian narratives are no longer being given equal space in the international media or allowed to pass unchallenged. Putins attempts to justify his invasion have notably failed to gain significant traction. Instead, his increasingly unhinged rants about Ukrainian neo-Nazis and drug addicts have been widely ridiculed or simply dismissed.

Faced with the reality of a catastrophic defeat on the information front, Putin has retreated and is now embarking on a desperate scramble to protect his grip on domestic Russian audiences. During the first ten days of the war, Moscow has banned Facebook and Twitter, shut down most of the countrys remaining independent media outlets, and introduced draconian new laws promising long prison sentences for anyone who dares to question the Kremlins Orwellian party line regarding the war in Ukraine.

Subscribe to UkraineAlert DAILY

After years of success, why is Putin now losing the information war so comprehensively?

One of the key differences between the current war and the Russian invasion of 2014 is the presence of large numbers of international correspondents in Ukraine. Thanks largely to the Biden Administrations policy of steadily releasing details of Putins invasion plans, the watching world knew well in advance that a major conflict may be about to break out. As a consequence, representatives of the international media began gathering in Ukraine in late 2021.

By early February, many of Kyivs top hotels were full of journalists and camera crews from all over the world. This influx has also seen reporters heading out to regional capitals like Kharkiv, Lviv, Mariupol and Odesa in large numbers.

The unprecedented international media presence in Ukraine has enabled hundreds of journalists to encounter the reality of the country for themselves. In contrast, previous Ukrainian news stories were typically covered by Moscow bureaus, with only a handful of stringers actually residing in Kyiv. This led to a Moscow-centric view of Ukrainian affairs, with bureau chiefs often giving far too much weight to Kremlin narratives while favoring the condescending conclusions of their Russian colleagues.

In contrast, the Western journalists who flocked to Ukraine in the months leading up to the outbreak of hostilities were largely free of Russian biases and soon began to redefine international coverage of the country. Crucially, they were not in any way beholden to the Kremlin, unlike Moscow correspondents who must secure Russian state accreditation if they wish to keep their jobs.

The Kremlin enjoys keeping its foreign correspondents on a relatively short leash. Moscow-based international journalists tend to receive very limited direct access to senior officials and are often forced to rely on spoon-fed information. Any correspondent who tells inconvenient truths runs the risk of expulsion, as has happened to Luke Harding of The Guardian and the BBCs Sarah Rainsford. Faced with the very real prospect of losing their livelihoods, many Moscow correspondents engage in self-censorship and quickly learn to avoid taboo subjects.

The media climate in Ukraine is strikingly different. While the Ukrainian media landscape remains dominated by oligarch interests and is prone to highly partisan reporting, it is light years away from the strict state censorship of the Kremlin-controlled Russian media. Instead, Ukraines many different media outlets compete with each other to create an imperfect but pluralistic media market.

Thanks to this remarkably free and robust information environment, international journalists in Ukraine have been able to engage with a wide range of local colleagues in order to form a well-rounded picture of the true situation in the country. This interaction has also helped to underline the common professional ethics and shared values that connect Ukrainians and their Western peers.

Dramatic recent improvements in international media coverage of Ukraine are only part of the reason behind Russias resounding information war defeat.

The most important single factor remains the fundamental weakness of Putins own narrative. His claim to be eradicating Nazism in a country with a Jewish president where far-right parties consistently poll in the low single digits is self-evidently absurd. To make matters worse, the war crimes committed by his troops in Ukraine have sickened the world.

While Putin has become a pariah, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy has emerged as a global hero. Zelenskyys sensible and straightforward daily briefings and his memorable selfie videos have been a revelation, while iconic quotes such as I need ammunition, not a ride have already entered history. In contrast to Putins obvious lies, Zelenskyy comes across as sincere and candid. He does not isolate himself or force colleagues and members of the media to sit at the opposite end of ten-meter-long tables.

If Zelenskyy is the undoubted star of Ukraines information war effort, other Ukrainian officials have also performed excellently. Foreign Minister Dmytro Kuleba has been a prominent and effective presence on social media, as has Minister for Digital Transformation Mykhailo Fedorov.

Ukraines military has stepped up to the challenge with regular updates and clear, coherent messaging. They have been supported by Ukraines vast and vibrant civil society, which has served as an informal infowar army posting credible updates on military engagements and Russian atrocities along with inventive memes and morale-boosting patriotic messages.

Putin may yet achieve temporary military dominance over Ukraine through the use of overwhelming force, but it is far from clear how he could hope to convert this into a sustainable political settlement. The infowar is already lost, while the savagery of the Russian assault has poisoned bilateral relations for decades to come.

As an iron curtain of repression falls on Putins Russia, international media organizations should already be looking ahead to the future post-war period. If Ukraine emerges from the current conflict unconquered, regional correspondent bureaus should abandon the suffocating atmosphere of Moscow and relocate to Kyiv, where the climate of media freedoms and an absence of political pressure will allow them to cover the wider region with far greater truth and accuracy.

Anders slund is a Senior Fellow at the Stockholm Free World Forum.

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

The Eurasia Centers mission is to enhance transatlantic cooperation in promoting stability, democratic values and prosperity in Eurasia, from Eastern Europe and Turkey in the West to the Caucasus, Russia and Central Asia in the East.

Follow us on social media and support our work

Image: Russian President Vladimir Putin is losing the information war against Ukraine. (Adrien Fillon / Hans Lucas via Reuters Connect)

Go here to see the original:

Why Vladimir Putin is losing the information war to Ukraine - Atlantic Council