http://russia-insider.com/en/fools-10-wise-men-0/ri8658

Author’s note, July 2015: I wrote this in Spring 2008 for a website that has since disappeared. Someone asked me for a copy the other day and I decided to re-print it on RI. The main interest today, I think, is as an example of how the anti-Russia diatribe has hardly changed over the years: Putin remains defined by his time in the KGB, he’s still vaguely responsible for mysterious deaths, actions that are benign when the West does them are hostile when Russia does and so on. And, of course, as a finally cherry on the sundae, the misquotation.

As I say, these things take very little effort to write – just string together the usual accusations, add the twist of the day – but they can be quite time-consuming to contradict.

I have changed nothing but repaired all the hyperlinks.

MORE QUESTIONS THAN CAN BE ANSWERED

There is a popular saying: “A fool can ask more questions than ten wise men can answer”. What the expression means is that it is much easier to assert something than it is to refute it. A great deal of the commentary on Russia these days is little more than a brief for the prosecution: a list of easily made assertions that can only be refuted with difficulty. A recent piece provides a good example. I will not identify the author of this jeremiad except to say that he is an academic (X, we’ll call him or her) and the piece was published by a respected institution and an earlier version was published in a major newspaper. In any case, anyone who knows his way around Google can find the original quite easily. The piece is a cascade of easily-made accusations, many of which do not stand up to scrutiny. But, refutations of X’s throw-away lines are difficult and time-consuming.

Russia is important. It’s not the most important thing there is, but it’s important enough. It has been a major player in the world for a couple of centuries and there is every indication that it will continue to be. It is therefore of considerable importance to discuss it without clichés and without writing either briefs for the prosecution or briefs for the defence. It would be a grave disservice to ourselves and our descendents to make policy towards Russia based on “bumper sticker” analysis: loaded and imprecise words (all taken from X’s piece) like “belligerence”, “self-righteousness”, “authoritarian”, “cunning”, “menace”, “brutally” are poor preparations for actually dealing with the real Russia.

Perhaps X’s key assumption is shown in the concluding sentence: “Once a Chekist, always a Chekist.” We do hear this one a lot. All you need to know is that Putin was in the KGB and, therefore, thanks to this apparent iron law of Russian analysis, he still is. But, amusingly – and we saw this in the Litvinenko case – people who are prone to say this nevertheless take it for granted that some ex-Chekists, like Litvinenko himself, or Oleg Gordievskiy, or Vassiliy Mitrokhin, or Oleg Kalugin, actually are ex-Chekists and what they say can be relied upon. Despite the silliness of this assertion as a basis for serious argument, X is so pleased with it that he quotes it twice.

X mentions the “sequence of murders of reporters” under Putin. The clear assumption is that a lot of reporters have died in Russia and Putin is responsible. But how accurate is the charge? Fedia Kriukov has analysed the list as given by the Committee to Protect Journalists. His piece is here. It should be read in full but the conclusion is this: “Examination of each case found that out of 17 claims, only 5 were correct, 8 were complete falsification, and 4 were partial falsifications.” In no case does Kriukov find anything to suggest that the government was involved. How long did it take X to write that one sentence and how long did it take Kriukov to research and write his piece? A few seconds on the one hand and several hours on the other.

Here’s another of X’s charges: “His submariners have planted Russia’s flag on the Arctic ocean bed, signalling a determination to secure national rights to oil and gas exploitation there.” Perfectly true, of course but why make it sound so sinister? Here’s the calm and contextual take on the subject by the former Canadian Ambassador to Russia: “In the Arctic, for a start, Mr. Putin is playing by the same Law of the Sea rules we endorse. The truth is that if we could have, we would have, long ago done much the same thing the Russians have just done. We were not amused, but Russia’s gambit was an entirely legitimate use of an impressive technology that we wish we had to highlight a claim.”

Mr X says “Russian warplanes recently infringed upon British airspace and had to be escorted out of it by Royal Air Force fighters.” Did they? I doubt it and I never saw that reported. They probably flew into the UK’s air defence warning zone. But that’s not the same thing at all. Again, it would take much more time to refute this than it took X to write.

“[Putin] has threatened to permanently suspend his country’s observance of the Conventional Forces in Europe treaty if the United States refuses to back down.” That’s one way to put it, another is to at least give some slight consideration to the reasons that Moscow has given. “All 30 of the original treaty’s states-parties must ratify the adapted treaty for it to take effect, but only four have done so.” But it’s much easier to write what X wrote than to take the time to discover just what Moscow has said. And it makes a better case for the prosecution.

“When Alexander Litvinenko was murdered in London in November 2006, Putin took umbrage at foreign suspicions that his security agencies were behind the crime”. Perhaps his umbrage was because he had nothing to do with it; false accusations are irritating. While the case is certainly not solved, to believe that Putin ordered it is to believe that the Cheka decided to kill someone using a rare (but not as rare as all that) and highly lethal poison. Then, despite the fact that polonium-210 is easily shielded, the crack KGB assassins were clumsy enough to contaminate half of central London. There must be easier ways to do it. Edward Jay Epstein went to Russia and was shown the evidence the British prosecutor passed to Moscow and was not convinced. Epstein spent more time waiting for his flight to Moscow than X spent writing his whole attack.

I could go on but won’t except for this last one: “Putin has referred to the dismantling of the Soviet Union at the end of 1991 as ‘the greatest political catastrophe’ of the twentieth century.” X presumably reads Russian. The actual statement made by Putin was this “что крушение Советского Союза было крупнейшей геополитической катастрофой века” “a major geopolitical disaster of the century”. Well, that’s an opinion and X may disagree with it, but Putin did not say “the greatest”. And, of course, finding the speech on the website and reading it took me a much longer than it took X to write the misquotation in the first place.

Altogether a sloppy, context-free brief for the prosecution masquerading as serious analysis. And typical of so much that is written about Russia today.

But I have already taken longer to write this than X took to write his piece so I will stop.

http://russia-insider.com/en/media-criticism/flash-daily-mail-makes-stunning-geographical-discovery/ri8356

http://www.davidicke.com/headlines/flash-daily-mail-makes-stunning-geographical-discovery/

http://whatreallyhappened.com/content/flash-daily-mail-makes-stunning-geographical-discovery#axzz3xK2OfQke

Fresh on Senator Imhofe’s revelation of the previously unknown Russo-Ukrainian mountain range, the Daily Mail has discovered, and photographed, the recently discovered Mordovian Sea.

In a breathless piece “Russia has rehearsed an invasion of SCANDINAVIA which, if carried out, would prevent NATO from reinforcing the Baltic states, claims US security report” quoting the recently-upgraded-to-“security expert” Edward Lucas, the paper captions the above photo “Invasion: Zubr-class hovercraft, deploying marines during Zapad-09 in Mordovia during Russia’s rehearsals for occupying part of the Baltic states”.

In the previous world, Mordovia was a land-locked republic in Russia which didn’t even have a big river.

The piece, by the way, is worth reading as a good example of anti-Russia propaganda constructed out of nothing at all. First of all, as we read down past all the stock photos of Russian soldiers doing this or that (mostly marching), we find that what “security expert” Lucas actually said was maybe, possibly, perhaps, but probably not. Other sources didn’t comment. As a good example of another non-fact we are excitedly told that one in three of Swedes want to join NATO which, unless my arithmetic teachers were lying to me, means that two in three don’t.

Anyway, give it read before it disappears down the memory hole: a fine example of super inflated fluff brought to you by the International House of Presstitution.

http://russia-insider.com/en/washington-masters-universe-or-masters-bs/5806

This is a response to Vladimir Golstein’s essay on “Politics, BS, and Ukraine”, originally at antiwar.com and now on our very own RI. A serious piece of thinking which I urge you to read right now (but do come back when you are finished).

The essay set me to thinking and I am hoping that my little effort will set up a discussion on these pages.

I re-read the original essay by Harry G Frankfurt which inspired Golstein. To my mind, this is Frankfurt’s key insight:

It is impossible for someone to lie unless he thinks he knows the truth. Producing bullshit requires no such conviction. A person who lies is thereby responding to the truth, and he is to that extent respectful of it. When an honest man speaks, he says only what he believes to be true; and for the liar, it is correspondingly indispensable that he considers his statements to be false.

For the bullshitter, however, all these bets are off: he is neither on the side of the true nor on the side of the false. His eye is not on the facts at all, as the eyes of the honest man and of the liar are, except insofar as they may be pertinent to his interest in getting away with what he says. He does not care whether the things he says describe reality correctly. He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

The official voice of the US State Department, Jen Psaki, is a outstanding practitioner of bullshit: “As a matter of long-standing policy, the United States does not support political transitions by non-constitutional means.” As a recent example, regarding what has been called “the most blatant coup in history“, Washington was happy to declare Ukrainian President Yanukovich illegitimate, gone, no longer President, despite the fact that none of the requirements of the Ukrainian constitution had been fulfilled. (Art 108: he hadn’t died, resigned, become incapacitated or been impeached). On the other hand, Washington still recognises the President of Yemen. Listen to Psaki here on video and in the text: after helpfully advising the questioner “to take a look at the Yemeni constitution if you’re interested”, she proceeds to say “I know you like to revise history here in this case, but I’ll just reiterate that president – that Yanukovych left his own country. We all remember what happened here. I’m sure we can provide you with the specific details if you’d like.” “Left his own country” – which in fact he hadn’t done at the time – where’s that in the Ukrainian constitution? What is her statement but the very perfection of bullshit? “Revise history”, “specific details”: the very perfection of perfection.

He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.

The student of bullshit must acknowledge that Psaki is neither an idiot nor a liar; rather, she is a very highly skilled practitioner of bullshit.

Here is Marie Harf, her successor, and no mean successor, answering the same question. One must once again describe the question. Washington declared Yanukovich deposed because he fled the country. However, President Hadi of Yemen is recognised as legitimate by Washington despite having fled the country. You might see that as a discrepancy, for lack of a stronger word, but it is no such thing to the skilled bullshitter:

QUESTION: Yes. If you refer to a constitutional process, then you – obviously, you understand where I am drawing a parallel with. So the Ukrainians, right? Was the constitutional process observed in the Ukrainian case?

MS. HARF: I’m not going to draw parallels here. We’ve been very clear how we feel about Ukraine. And it was also – last time I checked, major parts of Kyiv weren’t being taken over by an armed rebel group when President Yanukovych left, so I think it’s pretty different.

I’m not going to draw parallels here. Perfection!

And it’s not just Ukraine that shows her mastery of bullshit: consider the fact that Washington is not evacuating its nationals from Yemen.

Well, we’re certainly not abandoning them, Elliot, but I think the challenge for us is that we have had very strict travel warnings in place for a decade now for Yemen, including multiple travel warnings telling people not to travel there and that if they do, the U.S. can provide only limited assistance, especially now given that our embassy is closed. So we certainly understand the challenge. We are looking at what our options are. But you have to balance what options we have for a possible evacuation against the security situation, against what is feasible, against what kind of assets could do this, and what the risk is to those assets. So it’s just a balancing act situation, and that’s what we’re looking at or the way we’re looking at it.

In short, if the Russians or Chinese don’t get them out, too bad for them. But we’re “certainly not abandoning them”. “Certainly” adds that little extra curl to the pile, don’t you think?

Bullshit abounds in Washington on the Ukraine issue. Here’s a classic example from the Baker of the Maidan, Victoria Nuland herself:

“even as Ukraine began building a peaceful, democratic, independent nation across 93% of its territory, Crimea and parts of eastern Ukraine suffered a reign of terror.”

Just say it. Don’t pay any attention to poll findings that a huge majority of Crimeans are delighted to be in Russia, forget the shelling in Donbass (their children holed up in basements), ignore the neo-nazis (suddenly a former NATO cheerleader notices them), assassinations, parliamentary thuggery, the economic collapse. Just say it. Make it up. Whatever.

“He just picks them out, or makes them up, to suit his purpose.”

(Incidentally, I wondered about the 93%. As it happens, according to Wikipedia, Crimea, Lugansk Oblast and Donetsk Oblast are all about the same size with each constituting about 4.4% of the territory of “Last Summer’s Ukraine“. So all of Crimea and about half of the other two is close enough to 7%).

The essence of bullshit is that there is no truth value whatsoever; truth value is irrelevant. The liar knows, or believes he knows, what reality is: he just wants to persuade you of the reverse. The bullshitter doesn’t care – he has a purpose and whatever advances that purpose, or whatever he thinks will do so, he says. And that’s all there is to it. Ignore Ukraine’s constitution, follow Yemen’s: why? Because our larger agenda (which has nothing to do with Psakian bullshit about constitutionality) is that we want Yanukovich out and Hadi in.

But what we do know is that all this bullshit is emitted to distract the listener from the the one statement that the Psakis, Harfs and Nulands haven’t quite got the courage to come out with. And that is simply this:

The rules are what we want

Afterword: The above are examples of the most common form of bullshit: the flat assertion. Here is illustrated, perhaps – perhaps – another variant. Ask yourself this: is this guy just a dumb cluck: (whaddya mean NATO has moved its doorstep closer to Russia? I don’t unnerstand. Duh). Or is he a Zen Master of BS who has learned how to pretend to be a dumb cluck?

Frankfurt and Golstein have given us a powerful analytical tool and I encourage others to think about his observations. There is much more to discuss.

Especially this insight, from Golstein:

In other words, if we really want to debunk a bullshitter, we need to forget the concepts of lies or truths, and concentrate on the “nature of bullshitter enterprise.” Of course, people have been doing it ever since the proliferation of BS began. Such people are known as “conspiracy theorists.” One, therefore, can complement Frankfurt’s observation on the growth of bullshit with the parallel observation on the growth of conspiracy theories.

What is a conspiracy theory, after all, as not an attempt to decipher the nature of a bullshitter’s agenda?

Are we really daring nuclear Armageddon so that Joe Biden’s son can get a job?

 

http://russia-insider.com/en/west-throws-temper-tantrum/ri5356

Mark Ames has brilliantly tracked down the Kremlin troll story and shown that it is the same story over and over again, word for word, time after time. He has traced it as far back as 2013 and, in his search, he kept tripping over RFE/RL which proudly states that it “provide[s] what many people cannot get locally: uncensored news, responsible discussion, and open debate.” Or, alternatively, given the fact that it is fully funded by the US government, all the news that Washington wants you to hear. So, not, perhaps, a source that can be fully trusted on this particular subject.

But never mind that, let’s pretend that it is telling us the truth. An entire building in St Petersburg is filled with well-paid Putin trolls labouring away on the Internet. But let us apply a little reasoning (hah hah – what’s reason got to do with it?) to the matter. We here at RI attract a few trolls. We may divide them into two groups. One is the sort of person whose comments are all variations on “Putin sucks and you do too”. These trolls, of course, have a mirror image: “You suck and Putin’s great”. For the sake of discussion we will call this the “monotroll”: he has only one thing to say which is “You’re an idiot” and he says it over and over again.

A slightly (but only very slightly) more interesting troll is what we will call the “cliché repeater”. This one would say things like “Putin sucks because the Russian economy is in the toilet/the population is shrinking/the Ruble is collapsing/Russia is weak” or so forth. Much the same really, as the monotroll except that he understands that some pretence of an argument is necessary.

In Graham’s useful hierarchy of disagreement the monotroll is operating at the lowest levels of Name-calling and Ad Hominem; the cliché repeater has at least got to Contradiction. But the essential point is that neither of these is going to change anybody’s mind.

You can, in other words, have a million people typing into every Internet forum “You’re an idiot” over and over again and they will make no difference at all. But think further: the cliché repeater will have no effect on a forum such as RI. The reason for his failure is very simple: many/most of the people reading RI know that the clichés are false: Russia’s economy is not collapsing, its demographic picture is comparatively healthy and so on. Those who do not yet know that the clichés are false have come to RI because they are starting to doubt the Party Line on Russia. A million trolls regurgitating clichés will have no effect on either.

And the reverse is true: the fabled Putin troll army typing “USA sucks”, “Ukraine sucks”, “Americans are couch potatoes and they’ll lose against the mighty Russians” or “you’re wrong because more people are in jail in the USA than anywhere else” will have zero effect on a neocon discussion group.

So who are these trolls persuading? No one.

So let’s move up Graham’s hierarchy, shall we? Here we find Counter Argument, Refutation, Refuting the Central Point. In short: you say this; I say that: here is my evidence, here is my argument. So, rather than “Putin sucks”, here is what Putin said (with reference to the actual speech, please, not the NYT/BBC/WaPo’s carefully-chosen selections), here is why he is wrong (argument, facts, discussion, examples). You may or may not agree, but there is something to get your teeth into: a logical fallacy, a misstatement. Or maybe not: maybe you will be convinced that you got it wrong. Or missed something. That, as Graham would agree, is how to argue.

No endless variations on “you suck”, no “cliché, cliché. Nya nya nya”. Instead, actual engagement, person to person, of what you said. Respectful, convincing, detailed, factual, logical.

Let us return to Troll Centre St Petersburg and try to envisage two variants.

One variant: rooms full of people re-typing “Putin’s great, you suck” or “cliché, cliché”.

Another variant: the people typing, from an index card pasted to their computer screens, Grahamian Counter Arguments, Refutations, Refuting the Central Points.

Well, the second variant isn’t trolling is it? No matter how many times it’s typed at you the Argument remains. The Argument is the thing that has to be answered. Not the frequency, the Argument itself.

In short, ladies and gentlemen, the Putin-Troll-Army story is nonsense. Real trollery is an irritation and no more. Actual argument has to be answered on its own merits. And the Western troll armies – sorry, fighting lies with truth – would, if they ever get off the ground, be equally pointless.

The Western fantasy of a mighty Putin Troll army ruining A Noble Effort to Spread Truth and Democratically Valid Explanations is yet more evidence that the Party Line knows it is losing its audience. Whingeing on about Putin’s troll army and closing comments sections is the equivalent of a temper tantrum, hands over ears, screaming “I can’t hear you!”.

Lies work for a while – quite a long time – but, eventually, reality bites. On its own. It wasn’t a building-full of people in St Petersburg typing “Putin ist ein Genie, Du bist ein Idiot” over and over again that made the German leadership see General Breedlove’s statements as “dangerous propaganda” any more than “Putin’s a genius and you are an idiot” made the editors at The Guardian feel their heads explode.

QED.

http://russia-insider.com/en/ten-delusions-show-obama-hasnt-clue-about-russia/ri4064

Lots of other things out there to be wrong about too

Something to bear in mind is that Obama and his advisors are spectacularly (is that strong enough? how about apocalyptically?) mis-informed about Russia. Rather frighteningly so indeed for people who are making such important decisions. For example…

“Russia doesn’t make anything.”

“Immigrants aren’t rushing to Moscow in search of opportunity.”

“The life expectancy of the Russian male is around 60 years old. The population is shrinking.”

“Russia is isolated”

“with its economy in tatters.”

The above five have been adequately exploded in numerous pieces on this website and elsewhere. They are, in short… no other way to put it… wrong. Russia makes lots of things; it attracts immigrants second only to the USA; its population is growing; Washington and its followers may not like Putin very much, but he’s an honoured guest in many parts of the world; its economy is doing reasonably well.

What is (scarily, if you think about it) interesting about all these beliefs is how out-of-date they are. They are as old-fashioned as John McCain’s notion that the Russian equivalent of the NYT is Pravda.

Let’s see if we can find another five delusions.

I can’t find a quotation, but it’s evident Obama believes – and certainly many have told him so – that Putin is a sort of Criminal-in-Chief surrounded by lesser criminals and if these lesser criminals can be hurt enough by sanctions, they will overthrow Putin. Here’s the theory voiced by Khodorkovskiy. Here’s another piece of wishful thinking about how fragile Russia is. Not working, is what one would say. And, in a ridiculous attempt to save the theory, we have this notion: the theory was true but it isn’t any more. Anything but admit that Putin and his team are strongly supported because of their record of success and that Russians, of all people (history, people, a thousand years of stubborn defiance and eventual victory) aren’t to be bullied. They believe they are at war and they rally around the leader; always have, always will.

Obama’s circle believe that they can fool the Russians (as easily as they can fool their own people). While Western media outlets are in full shriek over Nemtsov’s murder, not even Putin’s opposition thinks he was responsible for it; nor does one of Nemtsov’s closest associates. Even if Putin were in the habit of killing his critics (and how many prosperous and long-lived Putin opponents, without any shred of irony, will assure us that he is?), only the most credulous would think he would do it against a photo backdrop of the Kremlin. Russians know, even if consumers of managed Western media outlets do not, that there have been too many conveniently timed events of late.

Obama’s entourage believe they are (in their boss’s absence of course) the smartest guys in the room. Well, Dear Reader, you decide how small the room is. Here’s US Secretary of State John Kerry keeping it real. “Russia Today can be heard in English. (Takes off glasses to show sincerity) Do we have an equivalent that can be heard in Russian?”. Yes, actually, you have, and it’s been broadcasting away for most of your life. Who briefs these people?

Putin is short and that somehow means something. I wouldn’t bet on it. And let’s stop talking about bare chests.

The tenth reason. You – Washington – you can’t take on everybody at once. You can’t do regime changes in Ukraine, Russia, Belarus, Kyrgyzstan, Hungary, Syria, Yemen, Czech Republic, China, Macedonia all at once. You can’t have wars in Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran, Ukraine, Yemen, Somalia, Uganda all at once. “During the fiscal year that ended on September 30, 2014, U.S. Special Operations forces (SOF) deployed to 133 countries”. “According to the report, US forces are deployed and equipped for combat in no less than fourteen countries!” Big as you are you’re not big enough to take on everybody at once. It’s all falling apart. Every day there’s another crisis caused by what you did about the last crisis. Listen to some Chinese advice: Washington’s involvement in Ukraine could “become a distraction in its foreign policy… The United States is unwilling to see its presence in any part of the world being weakened, but the fact is its resources are limited, and it will be to some extent hard work to sustain its influence in external affairs.” “A distraction”, “limited”, “to some extent hard work”… Typically enigmatic but clear enough. It’s over. Live with it.

And one bonus reason. If we get rid of Putin, all will be well. If we get rid of Qaddafi, all will be well. If we get rid of Saddam Hussein, all will be well. If we get rid of Milosevic, all will be well. If we get rid of Aidid, all will be well.

Oh, and by the way, Russia is not Libya.

There’s lots of other things they don’t know, but as I’m concerned about Russia here, I’ll just enumerate a few. They don’t know Lecture 1 of Ukraine 101. They’re constantly being fooled by the “moderate opposition” they fund. Always surprised when something goes wrong. Like Yemen, just after boasting about it. Of course it helps that the MSM is covering your back. But that just leads to more hubris.

These people are in charge of our destinies. They don’t know what they’re doing, (“speaking languages that other people understand”, “I don’t know what the term is in Austrian”, not only the wrong word, but the wrong alphabet, “I think there is too much of, ‘Oh, look, this is what intervention has wrought’ … one has to be careful about overdrawing lessons”) and nobody is there to tell them.

Sleep well.

http://russia-insider.com/en/2015/02/14/3491

But one of us is pretty stupid

This video is a good laugh – it’s an old one but still worth watching as an illustration of the level of falsehood of our “leaders” and how stupid they think we are.

Those nasty Russians are at NATO’s doorstep; never mind that NATO keeps moving the doorstep, those nasty Russians are just nasty.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LexhW8SCM2c

BTW is Matt Lee the only reporter in the USA?

http://russia-insider.com/en/flash-us-senator-makes-stunning-geographical-discovery/ri3481

US Senator Inhofe passed out photographs of the Latest Russian Invasion of Ukraine. None of his staff who “worked to independently verify and confirm the authenticity of the photos” seems to have bothered to wonder where the mountain range separating Russian and Ukraine was.

Nor did they stop to think that a tank column like the one shown would surely appear on satellite photos.

And of course they didn’t do a search on Google to see if the photos were from somewhere else.

Nor do they know that, in the digital photo era, photos have time and location data.

The whole absurd story is here http://fortressamerica.gawker.com/senator-duped-into-using-old-photos-to-promote-new-wa-1685511541

What a pity that the fraud was exposed before it could have been enthusiastically picked up by the NYT, CNN, Economist and the rest of the House of Presstitution.

http://russia-insider.com/en/2014/12/22/2116

As a trip down memory lane, I often recommend to people this piece from 2001, still embarrassingly available on the Internet for all to see. An uncompromising title, isn’t it? “Russia is Finished: The unstoppable descent of a once great power into social catastrophe and strategic irrelevance”. By one Jeffrey Taylor.

Who, unabashed, is still at it.

2008.

The lessons that emerge from the Russia-Georgia war are clear: Russia is back, the West fears Russia as much as it needs it, and those who act on other assumptions are in for a rude, perhaps violent, awakening.

2008.

News reports have been circulating recently that Russia, fresh from slapping down Georgia in the Caucasus, is now taking steps toward reclaiming other former territories.

2008.

Why did Russia’s two highest political figures refuse to join the global festivities over Obama’s election win?

2011

Watching protest leaders heighten their rhetoric as the regime digs in, and remembering past episodes of political violence such as the October 1993 crisis in which 187 people were killed, one hopes that the government takes the protesters’ demands seriously and act on them — before it is too late.

2011 (Remember those protests? That was SO long ago.)

But whoever rules Russia will have to take into account the newly incensed political consciousness of its younger, and now most active, generation of citizens and voters.

But, at this point, Dear Readers, I have a confession to make. For years I have delighted in sending his piece on how Russia is finished to people as a classic example of being really, really wrong; an example of the wish being father to the thought, so to speak. And I expected, when I started this little piece, to be able to turn my Sneerometer up to eleven.

But, I must confess, having read more of his stuff, that Taylor’s not that bad. He understands, for example, that Saakashvili was egged on by Washington. He kind, sort of, understands that the protesters aren’t really all that representative of Russians generally. Many of his pieces say that Washington not only doesn’t understand Moscow’s point of view, but isn’t even trying to. So, maybe he’s doing his best under the heavy hand of editorial policy. After all, people with unearned incomes can afford to defy convention but others have to pay the bills.

Anyway, I seem to detect a change this year. Note these below. (I assume the “Russia’s orbit” stuff is editorial. In respect to understanding Moscow, Moscow doesn’t want Ukraine in its “orbit”; what it wants is a Ukraine that pays for what it buys, that isn’t a NATO launch pad and that doesn’t have a political crisis every five years that keeps everybody in Moscow up nights. That’s not exactly rocket science: if Russia really wanted to expand the “empire”, Georgia and eastern Ukraine would already be in the bag. If we must use “orbit”, “Ukraine” and “Moscow” in a sentence it would be “Moscow does not want Ukraine to be in NATO’s orbit.”)

2014.

Before traveling further down the road of confrontation with the Kremlin, the Obama administration needs to answer these questions—or face the prospect of a humiliating climbdown when it becomes clear, as it will, that the United States and the European Union cannot save Ukraine from becoming part of Russia’s orbit.

2014.

But will it [the West] change course? The NATO summit in Wales has set in motion moves to create a rapid-reaction ‘spearhead’ force that, though of little real import, will further convince Russia of the threat posed by the bloc. The logic of escalation moves in only one direction: up.

Will the West change course indeed? Jeffrey Taylor seems to have.