#russian overreach

[tomorrowusa]

The Kremlin often claimed it had the second-strongest military in the world, and many believed it. Today, many see Russia’s military as the second-strongest in Ukraine.

— US Seretary of State Antony Blinken speaking about Russia's strategic failure in Ukraine in a speech at Helsinki City Hall in Finland – the newest member of NATO. Department of State Transcript.

The entire speech can be seen here.

Blinken has turned out to be an excellent Secretary of State. That's what you get when you appoint competent and experienced people to office.

He was part of the Obama national security team. We see him in the most famous photograph from the Obama administration during the operation to get Osama bin Laden.

[ashtonderoy]

Overreach Review Audible: Russian Economics & why countries need Stabilization plans?

Written by Ashton Deroy Currency reserves are being withdrawn, Imports are down and exports of Russian Oil are down. It would stand to reason if you studied standard Economic theory. Russia is going broke! That probably isn’t the case. Isolationism isn’t ideally for any country. However if it had to be done somewhere? Russia is one of the better countries for handling this type of isolation.…

[morganbritton132]

You probably get this all the time, and I don't know why I only thought about this now, but I'm suddenly fascinated by the idea of a government employee who knows about the Upside Down that has been tasked with keeping an eye on Eddie's TikTok page and just constantly being so frustrated

I never get this but I have thought about it at length!!! Lol.

I just picture one overworked and underpaid agent being tasked with the whole *hand waving* Hawkins Situation.

There used to a time when the Hawkins Project was a coveted position given to the best agents with the highest clearance, but now… Now all the gates to the other world have been closed. There’s been no activity in three decades. Brenner’s dead. The Russians defuncted their projects. The girl – Eleven or Jane, or whatever – hasn’t blown anything up since the nineties.

The Hawkins job is a babysitting job with CIA-level clearance, and it’s just… it was supposed to be a cakewalk but. There’s just… there are so many of them.

And for a while, they were spread all over the country.

One of them is a US Senator now and she called the head of the FBI ‘a bitch’ and ‘a coward’ on a hot mic last week, and maybe.

Maybe for the sake of national security and their own sanity, maybe this agent pulled a few strings and dotted a few more I’s than they’re authorized to just to get Lucas Sinclair, Maxine Mayfield-Sinclair, Dustin Henderson, Nancy Wheeler, and Robin Buckley back in Chicago.

Maybe they did that. There’s no paper trail, but maybe they did.

It’s easier to keep track of a ‘party’ of people if most of them are in the same state.

This Party – as they fondly call themselves – barely qualified as a threat anymore. They are barely a concern at this point. Only a few of them are considered dangerous enough to require anything more than the occasional check-in. Those people being Jane Hopper, James ‘Jim’ Hopper, Nancy Wheeler, Murray Bauman, and – much to this agent’s annoyance – Edward Munson.

Eddie wouldn’t be a cause for concern if he wasn’t so goddamn loud. He is in no way a threat to national security but the CIA doesn’t love when people allude to a defuncted Cold War project that resulted in an inter-dimensional serial killer murdering a bunch of small town high school students.

This agent does not believe that Eddie Munson knows what an NDA is or that he signed one.

It is one thing to write songs about demon bats and hell spilling into small town Americana or to make your album cover resemble the charred remains of Henry Creel’s disfigured body (‘yeah’ the agent thinks, ‘you’re not that slick, Munson’) but it is something else to announce to your millions of TikTok followers that you got rabies in a hell dimension.

This agent does not have enough pull to persuade Congress to outright ban TikTok and actually thinks that a TikTok ban would be an overreach of government control, but damn if it would not have made their life easier. Though they fear that Munson would just go to YouTube and the idea of longer content makes them shiver.

And by the way, this agent expected better from Steven Harrington!

This agent liked Steve! He was one of their favorites!!

Steve didn’t make waves. He lived a quiet life, paid his taxes, and barely had a social media presence. He was an absolute dream to be monitoring until Eddie downloaded that cursed clock app.

Steve was never viewed on the same threat level as Jane Hopper or Murray Bauman, but he was a closely monitored subject due to his long-term injuries and his time spent in the alternate dimension and the Russian bunker under Starcourt Mall. Despite close monitoring, there is no note in his file of any digression until Eddie started shoving Tiktok in his face.

This agent sits in their office at the CIA’s Chicago location.

In the basement, at the end of a long dusty corridor, beneath a buzzing fluorescent light, they get a notification on their computer. It’s from Tiktok, and this agent breathes in slowly. They rub at the forming headache between their brows and names it Eddie Munson.

They click the notification, waits a second for the shitty wifi to bring them to the app, and watches as Steve Harrington says, “Technically we’re time travelers.”

And they sigh.

[loving-n0t-heyting]

"Ugh, sometimes leftists can be... Well let me back up. I actually consider myself a leftist (some kind of social democrat, to be more exact)! I wholeheartedly support union participation, a universal basic income, secular religious neutrality, gay and trans rights, preventing corporate overreach, criminal justice reform, equality of opportunity, the whole shebang! I even think Violence is sometimes necessary to protect these sacred values, as we have seen these last few years from the brave resistance in ukraine against the rightwing russian invasion.

"Where i disagree with leftists is on... i dont even want to say economic policy as such. Its moreso that, like, a lot of leftists will sometimes talk about issues without even reflecting on the economic dimension of the debates theyre entering into. Theyll treat them as tho scarcity and incentives just magically dont exist! And i think that can get in the way of (vitally necessary) leftist policy advocacy. Let me give just one example. I saw some leftists recently talking about using non-market mechanisms to produce and distribute goods. Like, they just totally failed to consider the point that market solutions are always maximally efficient. And when i pointed this out to them, they started harassing me! Even tho i repeatedly made clear to them my support for leftism as a political project!

"Idk, maybe its just that im expecting too much. Maybe some of these economic concepts are inevitably going to go over most ppls heads, and we just shouldnt expect joe schmo to understand that price floors are inevitably pareto inefficient so imposing a minimum wage is basically a pro-unemployment programme. Oh well, i suppose its just a narrow road to walk combining leftist principles with the minimum of economic common sense required to enact them in the real world."

[justinspoliticalcorner]

Olga Lautman at Substack:

America has entered uncharted waters. With Trump’s victory, a leader who openly disregards democratic norms and embraces authoritarian tactics will soon hold power. This forces us to confront a sobering question: what happens next? Drawing from Russia’s repression under Vladimir Putin, we can anticipate a chilling blueprint for America’s future. If history is any guide, a Russian-style system could quickly take hold, reshaping the nation in ways few could have imagined. I never imagined having to write this about America but here we are.

1. The Erosion of Democratic Institutions

Although Russia, for centuries has been plagued by corruption and repression, Putin's rise to power marked a decisive shift toward consolidating authority and dismantling even the minimal democratic structures that existed. He systematically undermined the judiciary, legislature, and media to entrench his rule, while filling key positions with loyalists—many of whom lacked experience and carried criminal backgrounds. This ensured that every lever of power served his interests rather than the public. A similar playbook will be employed in the U.S., targeting key institutions to erode checks and balances and concentrate power in the hands of a select few.

Judiciary: Judges who stand against the regime will face political attacks, threats, or attempts for outright removal. Loyalists—regardless of qualifications—will be installed to ensure the legal system becomes a tool of the regime, rubber-stamping its priorities and suppressing dissent.

Congress: Opposition voices in the legislature may be neutralized through disinformation campaigns, weaponized investigations, or targeted harassment, creating an institution that offers little resistance to executive overreach.

State Governments: Federal overreach will likely target states that resist centralized authority. This could include withholding funds, filing legal challenges, or deploying federal agencies to strong-arm compliance, undermining state autonomy.

Department of Justice (DOJ): Expect the DOJ to be weaponized to serve regime interests, targeting political opponents with investigations and prosecutions while shielding loyalists from accountability. This shift will transform the DOJ from a guardian of the rule of law into an enforcer of authoritarian priorities and a silencer of dissent.

Military: The armed forces will see an infiltration of loyalists in key leadership positions, prioritizing loyalty over expertise. The regime will co-opt the military for domestic purposes, deploying troops to intimidate or suppress opposition under the guise of maintaining order.

Law Enforcement and Intelligence Agencies: Federal agencies like the FBI and CIA may be purged of independent leadership and repurposed to surveil, intimidate, and target political adversaries, activists, and journalists while overlooking crimes committed by allies of the regime.

Election Commissions: Agencies responsible for overseeing elections will further be restructured or staffed with loyalists to undermine free and fair elections, introducing more barriers to voting, and attempting to manipulate electoral outcomes.

Through these methods, authoritarian regimes systematically seize control of institutions vital to democracy and try to quell all avenues for effective resistance.

2. Media Suppression and Propaganda

In a Russian-style system, independent media becomes an endangered species. Expect a multifaceted approach to suppressing dissent and controlling the narrative:

Hostile Takeovers: Major media outlets critical of the regime may face buyouts by regime-friendly oligarchs, hostile regulatory scrutiny, or outright closures. These takeovers allow the regime to repurpose once-trusted news sources into tools of propaganda.

Censorship: The flow of information will be tightly controlled. Social media platforms will be pressured to suppress dissenting voices through legislation targeting “disinformation,” often a thinly veiled pretext for stifling criticism. Algorithms will be manipulated to deprioritize independent reporting and amplify regime-friendly content.

State Media Expansion: Regime-funded outlets will flood the airwaves and online spaces with propaganda, often disguised as legitimate news. This will foster a cult of personality around the leader and rewrite inconvenient truths, framing opposition voices as enemies of the people.

Media Self-Censorship: A climate of fear can be just as effective as direct government intervention. Expect the regime to create an environment where media outlets self-censor to avoid legal repercussions or physical harm. Journalists may shy away from covering controversial topics or investigations to protect their staff and avoid punitive measures like fines or asset freezes.

Intimidation of Journalists: Journalists who persist in reporting the truth will face significant personal and professional risks, including:

Harassment and Threats: Online trolling, smear campaigns, and physical intimidation will be carried out to silence reporters.

Surveillance: Journalists will become targets of state surveillance, with private communications intercepted and leaked to discredit or endanger them.

Arrests and Detention: Those who cross the regime’s red lines may face arbitrary detention or charges like espionage or sedition, echoing Russia's imprisonment of investigative journalists.

License Bans and Revocations: The regime may also weaponize licensing and accreditation requirements, threatening or revoking the credentials of outlets that refuse to conform. In Russia, this tactic has driven many independent voices underground or into exile. In the U.S., similar actions could manifest as government agencies tightening broadcast or publishing regulations to target dissenters, while regime-friendly outlets flourish under lenient oversight.

The result is a chilling effect: a public increasingly deprived of accurate, independent information and a society incapable of holding power to account.

[...]

Ways to push back

While the outlook is bleak, resistance is not futile. America’s deep democratic traditions and resilient civil society offer hope, but pushing back will require collective effort and strategic action. Support independent media by subscribing to and amplifying credible outlets that challenge the regime’s narrative. Organize locally to strengthen grassroots networks that resist authoritarian policies and foster community resilience. Strengthen ties with global democratic movements to share strategies and resources. Stay informed, as understanding authoritarian tactics is key to countering them. I’ll be putting out a comprehensive resistance guide very shortly to help navigate this critical fight. Stay tuned.

Olga Lautman wrote a solid column on her Unmasking Russia Substack on how Donald Trump’s dictatorship could very well unfold, like what happened when Viktor Orbán came back to power in 2010 in Hungary.

Trump’s dictatorship plans are a solid reason for blue states to consider secession.

[terriblesoup]

Political Themes in Classic Literature

Alright, let’s dive into political themes in classic literature. For anyone who thinks old books are just dust-covered stacks of antiquated language, you are dead wrong. Let’s just take a step back and remember that some of the most impactful political ideas in history didn’t come from debates in dull government buildings—they came from books. Yes, literature! Think of classic novels as political soap operas, only with more existential crises and a lot fewer commercial breaks.

The political puppet show:

So, what do politics and classic literature have in common? Quite a lot, actually. Literature doesn’t just entertain; it holds up a mirror to society and shows us how messed up (or wonderful) things are. Whether it’s criticizing an oppressive regime, showing the chaos of revolution, or examining the moral dilemmas faced by those in power, classic literature doesn’t ( and literature in general should never) shy away from political themes.

One of the most intriguing things about classic literature is how authors use characters and plots to critique the political systems of their time. In George Orwell’s Animal Farm, we see the rise of a totalitarian regime, but with... animals. Yes, pigs. Orwell is talking about the Russian Revolution and the dangers of unchecked power. The pigs, who start out with lofty ideals of equality, end up becoming as corrupt and oppressive as the humans they replaced. The message? Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power tends to corrupt absolutely (a fancy way of saying that rulers, no matter how noble they start, can easily lose their way).

The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx. Yes, it's not a novel, but it’s a key text in understanding political revolutions. Marx and Engels argued that class struggle would eventually lead to a proletarian revolution, where the working class would overthrow the bourgeoisie. While not a story in the traditional sense, its influence on revolutions around the world (hello, Russia, China, Cuba!) makes it an essential part of political literature.

When Chaos Reigns: The Politics of Revolutions:

Nothing gets the political waters flowing like a good old-fashioned revolution. Literature has long been a tool for expressing the chaos, confusion, and sometimes the sheer absurdity of these moments in history. Take 1984 by Orwell—again... This time, we’re in a world where Big Brother is always watching, and privacy is a thing of the past. Orwell’s vision of a totalitarian regime controlled by surveillance, propaganda, and fear was a warning about the dangers of political overreach. Fast-forward to today, and you’ll find that his bleak vision feels eerily close to the reality of modern surveillance states.

In The Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens, we see the French Revolution through the eyes of characters who are caught up in the violence and turmoil. Dickens shows us how the revolution, meant to bring about liberty and equality, quickly devolves into chaos and bloodshed. People who were once oppressed now become the oppressors. It's the classic "be careful what you wish for" scenario—and it’s not just in the French Revolution. Many revolutions, whether political, social, or even technological, have shown us how easily things can spiral out of control when the old systems are overturned without a clear plan for what comes next.

Russian literature is a goldmine for political themes that dig deep into societal struggles, personal turmoil, and the larger forces that shape history.

Take War and Peace by Leo Tolstoy, for example. Set against the backdrop of the Napoleonic Wars, this epic novel isn’t just about battlefield drama—it’s about the political and social upheaval (violent or sudden change) that these wars bring. Through his huge cast of characters, Tolstoy critiques the Russian aristocracy, showing us how disconnected the wealthy and powerful are from the suffering of ordinary people. As young men are shipped off to fight wars they don’t fully understand, Tolstoy paints a picture of a society that is as chaotic as the battles it’s embroiled in. The violence and chaos of war seem almost tame compared to the political and social systems that allow such events to unfold. It’s a sobering reminder of the divide between the political power held by a few and the lives of the many.

Then there’s Fyodor Dostoevsky’s The Brothers Karamazov, which takes us to a different kind of chaos—the moral and philosophical kind. In this novel, Dostoevsky explores the dangers of ideology, faith, and authority, which in many ways are just as politically charged as any revolution. As his characters wrestle with questions of belief, power, and their own place in the world, the novel digs into the political tensions within Russian society and religion. The political impact of The Brothers Karamazov was so strong that the Russian government kept a watchful eye on Dostoevsky himself, fearing that his questioning of church and state could stir up trouble among the masses. This book isn't just a deep philosophical meditation; it's a warning about the consequences of unchecked authority and the destructive power of ideology.

In One Hundred Years of Solitude, Gabriel García Márquez critiques the political systems of Latin America, focusing on the cyclical nature of revolution and power. The corrupt political systems in the town of Macondo reflect the repeated failures of revolution, where every new regime promises change but ultimately falls into the same patterns of oppression and violence. The novel shows how revolutionary ideals can quickly turn into systems of corruption, highlighting the disillusionment many felt with political leaders who fail to deliver true change.

Morality and Ethics in Politics: the good, the bad, and the politician.

In the world of politics, morality is like that pesky little voice in your head saying, "Hey, maybe don't do that thing." Ethics are the rules you kind of wish everyone followed, but let’s face it, not everyone does. Now, throw these into the mix of political decisions and you get moral dilemmas, the ultimate "What would you do?" situations. And when you throw characters into this, suddenly, you’ve got a drama that’s better than any reality TV show.

In Les Misérables, Victor Hugo presents the story of Jean Valjean, who, after stealing bread to feed his family, faces a lifetime of punishment under a rigid legal system (basically for breathing <3). His internal conflict highlights the tension between legal justice and moral justice. As Valjean navigates his path toward redemption, Hugo critiques the harshness of the justice system and the ethical responsibility of individuals within a corrupt society.

Similarly, 1984 by George Orwell delves into the ethical struggles of Winston Smith as he navigates a totalitarian regime where the very concept of truth is manipulated. Winston's journey, filled with the desire for freedom and individuality, demonstrates the cost of rebellion in a society that controls every aspect of its citizens' lives. His moral battle—whether to remain loyal to his beliefs or submit to the Party's lies—serves as a haunting commentary on the oppressive nature of unchecked political power and the moral corruption it brings. In such works, the characters’ ethical decisions become not just personal, but political, reflecting broader questions about justice, freedom, and the consequences of betrayal.(There are so many books I could talk about rn I-)

Impact on Political Movements: how did these books affect real life revolutions:

In the case of Les Misérables, the themes of social injustice and the failure of the French government resonated deeply with the working-class revolutionaries of the 19th century. The novel’s portrayal of the barricades and uprisings, even though ultimately unsuccessful, inspired a generation of revolutionaries who sought to topple the entrenched social and political systems. Hugo’s work became an emblem of resistance, one that resonated not only in France but across Europe during times of political unrest.

Uncle Tom’s Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe, similarly, had a profound effect on the political landscape of the United States. Its depiction of the inhumanity of slavery galvanized the abolitionist movement, forcing many Americans to confront the moral implications of the system. Stowe's vivid portrayal of the brutal realities of slavery made it impossible for the North to remain indifferent to the plight of the enslaved, playing a crucial role in building support for the abolitionist cause. The book became a symbol of resistance and solidarity, one that ultimately contributed to the outbreak of the Civil War.

Universal relevance: Politics doesn't have an expiration date.

The political themes in classic literature touch on things like justice, freedom, and equality. These aren’t just problems from the past; they’re timeless issues...

In The Grapes of Wrath, John Steinbeck explores the plight of migrant workers during the Great Depression, but its message about the exploitation of the poor is just as applicable to contemporary struggles against economic inequality (The exploitation of the poor doesn’t have an expiration date either, and it’s still something we’re fighting against in the modern world.).

Similarly, the themes in Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen, though rooted in the social hierarchies of early 19th-century England, speak to universal themes of class, marriage, and individual agency. Austen critiques the limitations placed on women by society, calling attention to the ways in which economic power and social status restrict personal freedom. These concerns remain relevant today, as women continue to fight for gender equality and the right to autonomy in many parts of the world.

Why Does This Matter?

Okay, so we’ve explored how literature critiques political systems, critiques leaders, and explores the chaos of revolution. But why does all this matter to us today? Here’s the kicker: these books and their political themes still resonate. They’re not just dusty old novels you read in high school and promptly forget. They’ve got real-world implications.

Take a look around. What’s happening in the world today? Struggling to find decent healthcare? Check. Big corporations running the show? Check. Politicians who say one thing and do another? Double-check. We’re still grappling with the same political issues that have been explored in classic literature for centuries. Maybe we haven't had a Les Misérables-type revolution (yet), but we’ve certainly seen protests, uprisings, and calls for social justice echoing across the globe, just like in the pages of those old books.

And it gets worse...

Don’t think that the digital age has made these themes less important. If anything, social media and the internet have amplified the political issues that these classic books explored. Think about how politicians now use platforms like Twitter or Instagram to manipulate public opinion or deflect criticism. It’s almost like reading 1984 all over again, with the new-age "doublethink" of social media where truth is constantly bent and twisted. In a world of 24/7 news cycles, “alternative facts,” and fake news, it’s hard not to see the parallels with Orwell’s Big Brother.

Classic literature is not just for those who enjoy long-winded prose and tragic endings. It’s a treasure trove of political insight. From critiques of power to depictions of revolutionary chaos, these stories show us the triumphs and failures of human societies. They remind us that the fight for justice, fairness, and equality is far from over. So next time you crack open a classic novel, remember: it’s more than just a story—it’s a blueprint for understanding the political world we live in today.

The books mentioned and more if you're interested:

.Les Misérables by Victor Hugo

. 1984 by George Orwell

. Uncle Tom's Cabin by Harriet Beecher Stowe

. The Grapes of Wrath by John Steinbeck

. Pride and Prejudice by Jane Austen

. A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens

. The Communist Manifesto by Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels

. Animal Farm by George Orwell

. The Jungle by Upton Sinclair

. Brave New World by Aldous Huxley

. To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee

. The Prince by Niccolò Machiavelli

These are some links to more articles about this subject or close to it if you wanna read more about what we already see in real life lol:

[bigfootbeat]

Bigfoot on MacGyver

A major part is played by the fabled cryptid known as Bigfoot, Sasquatch, or Skunk-Ape in the MacGyver television series' third season episode "Ghost Ship". The episode tells a more somber tale of corporate wrongdoing and government overreach while fusing the legendary tales around this elusive creature. The plot synopsis describes how MacGyver finds a Russian ship that is marooned with traces of violence and a massive, bloody handprint that is too big to be human while mapping the area for a proposed wildlife sanctuary. MacGyver enters the ship with his curiosity stirred and meets a fearsome hairy beast that appears to confirm Bigfoot's reality. Following a terrifying encounter, he makes off with Karin, a Russian stowaway.

MacGyver and Karin finally learn that the "Bigfoot" is actually a man dressed like an ape who uses loud roars transmitted over speakers to drive people away from an illegal oil pipeline he and his crew are building. They escape the monster's pursuit into the forest. It is discovered that the Sasquatch tale is a sophisticated hoax designed to conceal environmental wrongdoings and corporate crime. The episode maintains the myth of Bigfoot alive in its latter moments, despite this disheartening denial of its existence. A spine-tingling Sasquatch cry is heard from the woods just when it looks like the mystery has been solved, raising the possibility that the real creature is still alive. This deftly reignites the curiosity about the possibility that Bigfoot actually exists. Thus, Bigfoot plays a multifaceted function in this MacGyver episode. A classic TV monster, the cryptid raises the stakes and produces thrilling action/adventure sequences by being a menacing and threatening force. The massive beast pursuing MacGyver gives the plot excitement and intensity. More importantly, though, Bigfoot represents the made-up boogeymen, conspiracy theories, and urban legends that corporate interests use to deceive the public and shield their dubious practices from scrutiny. The sound effects and "Bigfoot" ape outfit are propaganda devices used to hide the oil company's illegal pipeline from inspection by the government.

Consequently, even after being exposed as a fake, the Sasquatch tale continues to have a seductive degree of believability. The episode seems to imply that perhaps undiscovered animals like Bigfoot do indeed lurk in the shadowy recesses of nature, unnoticed by modern science, just as sinister corporate companies would fabricate contemporary monoliths to preserve their interests. The persistent screams of Bigfoot perpetually invite the curious to never stop discovering new things. This MacGyver episode skillfully mixes the magical folklore surrounding Bigfoot with modern corporate misconduct, using the fabled cryptid as a metaphor for the mysteries, myths, and urban legends that still endure in our contemporary world. If we can look past the staged disinformation tactics of the self-serving and Powers That Be, Bigfoot stands for the sense of awe and limitless scientific discoveries yet to be made. Perhaps in the form of massive, hairy bipedal hominids, the truth still exists.

[theculturedmarxist]

By Roger D. Harris  –   Sep 30, 2024

Left-liberals plea every four years that this really is the most important election ever and time to hold our noses and send a Democrat to the White House. The manifest destiny of US world leadership, we are told, is at stake, as is our precious democracy which we have so generously been exporting abroad.

Let’s leave aside the existential threats of climate change or nuclear war. However important, these issues are not on the November 5 ballot. Nor are they addressed in even minimally meaningful ways by the platforms of either of the major parties.

The USA, with its first-strike policy and upgrading its nuclear war fighting capacity, bears responsibility for Armageddon risk. And, in fact, the land-of-the-free has contributed more greenhouse gases to the world’s stockpile than any other country.

But the US electorate never voted these conditions in, so is it realistic to think that we can vote them out? The electoral arena has its limits. Nevertheless, we are admonished, our vote is very important.

But do the two major parties offer meaningful choices? Apparently, the 700 national security apparatchiks who signed a letter endorsing Kamala Harris think so. They fear that Trump is too soft on world domination. They find a comforting succor in Harris’s promise “to preserve the American military’s status as the most ‘lethal’ force in the world.” And oddly so do some left-liberals who welcome the security state, largely because they too don’t trust Trump with guiding the US empire.

Although a major left-liberal talking point is the imminent threat of fascism, their fear is focused on Trump’s dysfunctionality and his “deplorable” working class minions; not on the security apparatus of the state, which they have learned to love.

But fascism is not a personality disorder. The ruling class – whether its nominal head wears a red or blue hat – has no reason to impose a fascist dictatorship as long as left-liberals and their confederates embrace rather than oppose the security state.

Not only were the left-liberals enamored with the FBI’s “Saint” Robert Mueller, but they have welcomed the likes of George W. Bush and now Dick Cheney, because these war criminals also see the danger of Trump.

The Democratic Party has been captured by the foreign policy neoconservatives, who are jumping the red ship for the blue one. It’s not that Donald Trump is in any way an anti-imperialist, but Kamala Harris is seen as a more effective imperialist and defender of elite rule.

The ruling class is united in supporting US imperial hegemony, but needs to work out how best to achieve it. The blue team is confident that the empire has the capability to aim the canons full blast at both Russia and China at the same time. And they tend to take a more multilateral approach to empire building.

The red team is a little more circumspect, concerned with imperial overreach. They advocate a staged strategy of China as the primary target and only secondarily against Russia. This suggests why Ukraine’s president-for-life, who is at war with Russia, in effect campaigned for Kamala in the swing state of Pennsylvania.

The inauthenticity of the left-liberals While some left-liberals support a decisive Russian defeat in Ukraine, their overall concern is beating Trump.

The Democratic Party was transformed some time ago by the Clintons’ now defunct but successful Democratic Leadership Council (DLC), which advocated abandonment of its progressive constituencies in order to more effectively attract corporate support. While both parties vie to serve the wealthy class, the Democrats are now by a significant margin the ones favored by big money.

The triumph of the DLC signaled the demise of liberalism and the ascendancy of neoliberalism. Much more could be said about that transition (viz the Democratic Party has always been capitalist, with neoliberalism being its most recent expression), but suffice it to say the Democratic Party is the graveyard of progressive movements.

Liberals no longer even pretend to have an agenda other than defeating Trump. Their neglect of economic issues that benefit working people has created a vacuum, which opens the political arena for faux populists like Trump.

The now moribund liberal movement is thus relegated to two functions: (1) providing a bogus progressive patina to reactionary politics (2) and attacking those who still hold leftist principles. “Progressive Democrat,” sociologist James Petras argues, is an oxymoron.

Left-liberals have the habit of prefacing their capitulations with a recitation of their former leftist credentials. But what makes them inauthentic is their abandonment of principles. No transgression by the Democrats, absolutely none – not even genocide – deters this inauthentic left from supporting the Democratic presidential candidate.

We can respect, though disagree, with the right-wing for having principled red lines, such as abortion. In contrast, left-liberals not only find themselves bedfellows with Cheney, but they swallow anything and everything that the Democratic wing of the two-party duopoly feeds them.

Consequences of supporting the lesser of the two evils Although today the Democratic Party is arguably the leading war party, we would have cold comfort with the Republicans in power. And domestically the Democrats talk a better line on some social wedge issues that don’t threaten elite rule, such as women’s reproductive rights, although – as will be argued – their walk is not as good as their talk.

Getting back to “this year more than ever we have to support the Democratic presidential candidate,” the plea contains two truths. First, the “more than ever” part exposes a tendency to cry wolf in the past.

Remember that the world did not fall apart with the election of Richard Nixon in 1968. No lesser an authority than Noam Chomsky is nostalgic for Tricky Dick, who is now viewed as the last true liberal president. Nor did the planet stop spinning in 1980 when Ronald Reagan ascended to the Oval Office. Barack Obama now boasts that his policies differed little from the Gipper’s.

Which brings us to the second truth revealed in the plea. The entire body politic has been staggering to the right regardless of which wing of the duopoly is in power. This is in spite of the fact that the voting public is well to the left of them on almost every issue, from universal public healthcare to opposition to endless war.

Moreover, the left-liberals’ lesser-evil voting strategy itself bears some degree of responsibility for this reactionary tide.

The genius of the Clintons’ DLC was that the progressive New Deal coalition of labor and minority groups that supported the Democratic Party could be thrown under the bus with impunity, while the party courts the right. As long as purported progressives support the Democrats no matter what, the party has an incentive to sell out its left-leaning “captured constituents.”

Thus, we witnessed what passed for a presidential debate, with both contestants competing to prove who was more in favor of genocide for Palestinians and an ever expanding military.

The campaign for reproductive rights aborted But one may protest, let’s not let squeamishness about genocide blind us to the hope that the Democrats are better than the Republicans on at least the key issue of abortion.

However, this is the exception that proves the rule. As Margaret Kimberley of the Black Agenda Report noted, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, there were protests everywhere but at Barack Obama’s house, “the person who could have acted to protect the Roe decision.”

When Obama ran in 2008, he made passage of a ‘Freedom of Choice’ Act the centerpiece of his campaign. Once elected with majorities in Congress, he could have enshrined abortion rights into law and out of the purview of the Supreme Court. Instead, he never followed through on his promise.

This was a direct outcome of the logic of lesser evil in a two-party system. The folks who supported abortion rights had nowhere to go, so they were betrayed. Why embarrass Blue Dog Democrats and antagonize pro-lifers when the progressive dupes will always give the Democrats a pass?

Angst is not a substitute for action The Republican and Democratic parties are part of the same corporate duopoly, both of which support the US empire. Given there are two wings, there will inevitably be a lesser and greater evil on every issue and even in every election.

However, we need a less myopic view and to look beyond a given election to see the bigger picture of the historical reactionary trend exacerbated by lesser-evil voting. That is, to understand that the function of lesser-evil voting in the overarching two-party system is to allow the narrative to shift rightward.

If one’s game plan for system change includes electoral engagement, which both Marx and Lenin advocated (through an independent working class party, not by supporting a bourgeois party), the pressure needs to be applied when it counts. And that might mean taking a tip from the Tea Party by withholding the vote if your candidate crosses a red line. But that requires principles, which left-liberals have failed to evidence. Angst, however heartfelt, is not a substitute for action.

The left-liberals’ lesser-evil voting, which disregards third-parties with genuinely progressive politics, contributes to the rightward trajectory of US politics. It is not the only factor, but it is a step in the wrong direction. As for November 5th, we already know who will win…the ruling class.

[imaginefinneganswake]

Of the first was he to bare arms and a name Wassaily Booslaeugh of Riesengeborg.

Finnegan’s Wake - James Joyce

ChatGPT40 literary report:

This line from Finnegans Wake—“Of the first was he to bare arms and a name Wassaily Booslaeugh of Riesengeborg”—is a rich example of Joyce’s densely packed allusions, wordplay, and mythopoetic layering. Let's break it down, engaging with some critical interpretations.

1. The Mythic and Heroic Layering

The phrase "Of the first was he to bare arms and a name" recalls the primordial act of assuming a name and taking up arms, themes common in heroic epics and foundational myths. This suggests an archetypal figure, someone representing a "first man" or original patriarch, much like Adam in the Bible or some culture's founding hero. Joyce’s use of the word "bare" instead of "bear" introduces multiple meanings—such as "exposing" or "revealing," possibly hinting at the dualities of creation and conflict, honor and violence.

Critical Insight: The character suggested by "Wassaily Booslaeugh" is often interpreted as a stand-in for HCE (Humphrey Chimpden Earwicker), the central figure of Finnegans Wake. HCE represents both an individual and a type—the everyman, the father figure, a symbolic Adamic being. The taking of a name—an essential act of identity formation—echoes the broader theme of historical cycles in Finnegans Wake, where individuals continuously reinvent themselves in various historical and mythic contexts.

2. Wassaily Booslaeugh and the Russian Allusion

The name “Wassaily” immediately evokes the Russian name Vasily (Василий), suggesting an Eastern European connection. Some critics have drawn parallels between this name and Russian historical or literary figures. Vasily may point toward the Russian czars (such as Vasily II) or even literary figures like Dostoevsky’s "Prince Myshkin" in The Idiot, though this is a more speculative connection.

"Booslaeugh" could be seen as an approximation of "Buzlay," hinting at various interpretations, including echoes of Russian or Slavic roots. Additionally, "boos" hints at “boo,” a sound of disapproval, tying into the fall from grace or disgrace motif that haunts HCE throughout the novel. The act of being "booed" might reference both public shaming and comic degradation, as HCE is often ridiculed and disgraced.

Critical Insight: This name reflects Joyce's interest in collapsing the boundaries between cultures and histories. HCE (through his many avatars, including Wassaily Booslaeugh) is not just a Dublin pubkeeper but a figure whose story incorporates all of human history, including Eastern Europe. This reflects Joyce's "transnational" vision of human culture, where figures and motifs transcend their origins and become universal.

3. Riesengeborg: Place of Giants

"Riesengeborg" combines "Riesen," the German word for “giant,” with “Borg,” meaning castle or fortress. The name thus evokes an image of a stronghold of giants, possibly recalling mythic places like the Norse Jotunheim, home of the giants in Scandinavian mythology, or the fortress of some legendary figure. The reference to giants ties into Joyce’s recurring theme of the fallen, overreaching figure—paralleling HCE's role as a giant in his own right, a man of hubris who falls into disgrace.

Critical Insight: Riesengeborg likely refers to more than just a specific mythical or historical place. Joyce often blends the mythic with the historical, creating locales that represent multiple ideas at once. Riesengeborg could also be seen as the symbolic site of a fall—a "castle" from which HCE, as a giant figure, will inevitably be toppled, recalling the fall of great civilizations or mythic figures. Joyce’s giants often represent flawed heroes, beings of great power whose stature is as much a liability as a strength.

4. Joyce’s Wordplay and Themes of History

Critics frequently discuss Joyce’s linguistic play as reflecting his exploration of history's cyclicality. The phrase "to bare arms" might refer both to the literal act of carrying weapons and the figurative exposure of one's identity or vulnerabilities. "Bare arms" echoes heroic traditions where warriors must "prove" themselves, yet the phrase can also signal shame or humiliation. In this light, the act of baring arms takes on a tragicomic tone, as HCE is as much a victim of history’s cycles as he is a heroic figure.

Critical Insight: Joyce’s engagement with historical cycles and mythological figures means that HCE, in his various incarnations (including Wassaily Booslaeugh), serves as both a representative of universal patriarchal authority and as a flawed figure doomed to fall and repeat the cycle. His taking up of arms and names might symbolize the continual reconstruction of history’s heroes—only to expose them as vulnerable to disgrace, much like HCE himself.

5. Multicultural and Polyglot Layers

The blend of Russian, Germanic, and English elements in the names suggests Joyce’s interest in the polyglot nature of language and history. Just as no single culture dominates Joyce’s text, no single interpretation of these names can be definitive. Joyce’s use of multilingual puns and etymological richness makes Finnegans Wake a testament to the interconnectedness of global history and myth, reflecting the interplay between language, identity, and history.

In sum, this line is a typical example of Finnegans Wake’s ability to compress layers of myth, history, and language into a single phrase. "Wassaily Booslaeugh of Riesengeborg" serves as one of many avatars for HCE, representing a mythic everyman figure doomed to repeat cycles of heroism, disgrace, and reinvention across history. Critics often highlight the line’s evocation of heroic beginnings, the vulnerability of patriarchal figures, and Joyce’s engagement with the interplay between language, myth, and identity.

[i-gwarth]

it is ASTONISHING how easily people on this site fall for Russian propaganda. All one has to do is gesture shallowly towards "EU imperialism" or "NATO overreach" and people without a thought in their head will nod sagely and give their consent to be led by the nose into the Ruski Mir

[mightyflamethrower]

e should dispense with the tired narrative that four conscientious state and federal prosecutors—independently and without contact with the Biden White House or the radical Democrats in Congress—all came to the same disinterested conclusions that Donald Trump should be indicted for various crimes and put on trial during the campaign season of 2024.

The prosecutors began accelerating their indictments only once Trump started to lead incumbent Joe Biden by sizable margins in head-to-head polls. Moreover, had Trump not run for the presidency, or had he been of the same party as most of the four prosecutors, he would have never been indicted by any of them.

Yet now they are in a doom loop of discovering that the more they seek to rush to judgment before the election and gag Trump from speaking publicly about these star-chamber proceedings, the more he rises in the polls.

In truth, each succeeding cycle of corrupt leftwing lawfare that ends in failure—the Russian collusion hoax, the weaponized first impeachment, trying ex-president Trump in the Senate as a private citizen, the laptop disinformation set-up, the Alfa bank ping caper, the pathetic attempt to erase Trump from state ballots, and the unfolding Fani Willis moral debacle—does not return things to zero.

Rather, they serve as force multipliers for each other. Each overreach geometrically increases the dangers to democracy, ever more turns the public off, and ironically cascades sympathy and poll numbers for the very target of their paranoias.

Some of the prosecutors have colluded with White House lawyers and congressional liaisons. Some had run for office, offering campaign promises to get Trump convicted for something or other.

Now, after years of delays and deadends, all four are rushing to synchronize their trial dates to ensure that the front-running Trump is on the docket daily and not out on the 2024 campaign trail.

Do we recall when leftist legal eagles claimed that of all the iffy Trump indictments, Georgia prosecutor Fani Willis had the best case against Trump?

The phone call, we were told, was proof of “election interference.” It was Willis who got the first Trump “mug shot.” It was Willis, we were assured, who got Trump with the goods on tape, begging election officials to “find” the requisite missing votes that would prove his victory (note that he did not say “invent” the votes but to look for a supposedly existing trove of them).

And now Willis’s signature case is in shambles.

We learn, allegedly, that 1) Willis hired her stealth boyfriend Nathan Wade as a special counsel, the day before he filed for divorce (whose records were then mysteriously sealed by the court); 2) that Wade so far has received over $650,000 as special counsel, reportedly including a miraculous ability to charge for 24 hours of continuous legal service in a single day; 3) that Willis and Wade allegedly have used her greenlighted windfall to him to go on a number of pricey junkets and cruises; 4) that to try an ex-president and the leading candidate in the 2024 presidential election, Willis picked Wade who had never tried a single felony case and was previously a “personal injury/accident” lawyer; 5) that the supposedly apolitical Willis had consulted with the January 6 partisan congressional special committee, while Wade had met for marathon meetings with the Biden White House legal counsel (and apparently billed Georgia taxpayers for receiving such federal tutorials).

The legal community’s initial dismissal of this sordid prosecutor’s office is reminiscent of the immediate efforts to downplay Claudine Gay’s plagiarism. But the charade will eventually end the same way, in this case with the resignation and likely indictment of the prosecutor, along with her boyfriend, who concocted quite a scheme at the expense of the taxpayers. Both have made a mockery of their indictment of an ex-president and, if the allegations are true, will be disbarred and prosecuted.

The other three indictments are even weaker. Alvin Bragg claims that Donald Trump’s efforts a near decade ago to enact nondisclosure agreements and payments to remain silent about embarrassing behavior constituted “campaign finance violations.”

If so, what then defines campaign violations when Ms. Clinton brazenly destroyed nearly 30,000 subpoenaed campaign-era emails, ordered subpoenaed communication devices smashed, illegally hired a foreign national to find dirt on a campaign rival, and used three paywalls to hide her hush payments to British subject Steele to concoct a smear dossier—with help from Russian sources—to destroy her 2016 rival?

Letitia James, apparently for the first time in New York history, believes a bank was somehow wronged when its seasoned auditors viewed Trump’s assets, approved a loan to him, profited from his timely payments of interest and principles, and lodged no complaints against Trump or his company.

James apparently believes that Donald Trump is the first and most egregious real estate baron in New York history who inflated the value of his holdings. Her indictments thus supposedly have nothing to do with a left-wing political activist who ran for attorney general on promises to get Trump.

As far as Jack Smith, he supposedly was to be focused on Trump’s removal of classified presidential files to an insecure location at his Mar-a-Lago home and Trump’s “insurrectionary” actions on January 6. But he seems way beyond that now and is trying to put a gag order on the presidential frontrunner and to ensure Trump is in court during the 2024 campaign—challenging the very administration that appointed Smith in the first place.

In truth, Trump was the first ex-president in history to be indicted for a dispute with archivists over the status and security of removed classified files. Such disagreements were historically adjudicated bureaucratically rather than criminally, and certainly not with performance-art FBI swat raids into an ex-presidential residence.

Moreover, true insurrectionists do not instruct protestors to assemble peacefully and patriotically. Insurrectionists themselves do not try to overthrow governments while unarmed and accompanied by bare-chested buffoons with cow horns and slow-moving septuagenarians draped in American flags. And during an “insurrection,” unarmed “rebels” are usually not invited into the government quarters by supposed government doormen, among them perhaps 150-200 FBI informants. They are usually not shot and killed for the crime of entering a broken window while unarmed. And governments need not lie about the violence of insurrectionaries if they are truly insurrectionists.

Jack Smith’s problem—aside from his similar previous effort as special counsel to bankrupt and destroy the life and career of former Virginia governor Bob McDonald, a conviction overturned 9-0 by the Supreme Court—is that his indictments are so asymmetrical as to be surreal.

If the Department of Justice really wishes to prosecute insurrection, then it should concentrate on 120 days of arson, looting, killing, and violent protests that destroyed $2 billion in property, led to over 35 deaths, injured 1,500 law enforcement officers, and saw a federal courthouse, a police precinct, and a historic church torched by protestors, months of violent chaos planned and orchestrated by Antifa and Black Lives Matter, and enabled by leftwing inert mayors and governors.

The future Vice President of the United States, Kamala Harris, sought to organize bail for violent rioters. She boasted on television that the protests would not stop, should not stop, and would continue beyond the 2020 elections. Could she have at least suggested to the rioters to protest “peacefully and patriotically?” And just last week, President Biden praised that months-long violent summer of looting, violence, arson, and destruction, calling it “the historic movement for justice in the summer of 2020.”

Or Smith could investigate the well-orchestrated and increasingly violent pro-Hamas rallies. These are “insurrections” that have stormed the California legislature, occupied the Capitol rotunda, defaced and defiled iconic federal monuments and cemeteries, shut down key bridges and freeways, attacked law enforcement, and led to violence and assaults.

If Trump is guilty of removing files that he had the statutory right as president to formally declassify, then what was senator and subsequent Vice President Joe Biden guilty of when he stealthily and unlawfully removed hundreds of files, kept the removals secret (until his administration went after Trump for the same offense), and sloppily stored them in his insecure garage?

At each juncture of these extra-legal efforts, past precedents, former customs, and accepted traditions are being destroyed by the Left, whose endless miscarriages of justice are the real threats to constitutional government. And the more impotent these serial and unending gambits become, the more strident and desperate they appear.

[tomorrowusa]

This video is a quick overview of the stupid, self-defeating things Russian forces have done which resulted in them usually getting owned by Ukraine.

It covers mostly military operations and omits the equally stupid political and diplomatic things.

Today’s word/acronym: OPSEC

We can’t rely entirely rely on Kremlin haplessness. Putin has made it his goal to restore the decrepit old USSR in all but name. He doesn’t care how many Russian lives his goal will cost. He will keep pushing large numbers of poorly armed and poorly trained conscripts into Ukraine in the hope that just a few tens of thousands of additional fatalities will somehow let him declare victory.

Ukraine has a smaller population and lacks Russia’s large fossil fuel reserves which the latter uses to finance its military and to bribe amoral countries.

So Ukraine needs a little help from its friends whether that means real HIMARS or decoys that look like HIMARS which fool Russians. Friendly and ingenious Czechs are mass producing such decoys.

WATCH: How Czechs are giving inflatable HIMARS decoys to Ukraine forcing Russians to waste precious missiles

The Czechs were invaded by Putin’s Soviet predecessors back in 1968. As the Czechs might be tempted to say: Revenge is a dish best served decoyed. 🇨🇿

People outside the region need to understand that oppressive Russian imperialism has created 300 years worth of bad karma in Eastern Europe. The invasion has made Russia’s neighbors stand up and say: Enough is enough!

Peace will reign only when Russia starts acting like a normal country. 

[mariacallous]

We’re not out of the woods yet, though there’s good news in markets: Most economists are forecasting a soft landing in 2024. But a geopolitical hard landing could get in the way.

There are tools and processes to handle macroeconomic challenges. When inflation is too high, the Federal Reserve calibrates monetary policy and interest rates, often coordinating with peer institutions like the Bank of England and the European Central Bank. The results aren’t guaranteed or uniform—economists, investors, and policymakers debate policies and their consequences. However, if higher interest rates slow the economy and reduce inflation without causing a recession, we get a soft landing. That looks like the outcome we’ll ultimately achieve, with inflation down from its peak (though still above the 2 percent target), 353,000 new American jobs in January, and the International Monetary Fund revising its global growth forecast up to 3.1 percent.

The playbook in geopolitics is not as clear, and geopolitics has become a much more pessimistic field than the dismal science. There are wars in the Middle East and Europe, tensions in the Indo-Pacific, and deeper questions about what else the “end of the post-Cold War era” will bring. A geopolitical hard landing would entail multiple, connected, and expanding conflicts and crises that could overwhelm U.S.-led international system. The results could shift the balance of power and upend global markets.

What happens in geopolitics matters for global markets and for the way we live. Today’s geopolitical challenges aren’t transitory, they’re here to stay. They require timely interventions that consider realities of politics and resources, as well as factors like fear, honor, and interest, and the priorities and interests of sovereign nation-states. Too hawkish an approach can lead to overreach and blowback, while too much dovishness invites aggression and escalation. In fact, if the United States and its partners don’t get the trade-offs right in 2024, a geopolitical hard landing looks increasingly plausible.

Today, the world faces cascading conflicts of the type we haven’t seen in decades. After a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan in 2021, deterrence failed to prevent Russia’s full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022. In 2023, deterrence also failed to prevent Hamas’s terrorist attack on Israel and Iranian-backed regional proxy attacks across the Middle East. Could deterrence one day fail in the Indo-Pacific, the world’s most populous and dynamic region? Where will the cascades stop?

Across Eurasia, the picture is not improving. Two years into a full-scale war defending themselves against Russia, Ukrainians now control more than 80 percent of their territory. But the situation on the ground remains fragile and political gridlock in Washington could result in a reversal of those gains—just recently, the Ukrainian-held town of Avdiivka fell to Russian advances. The Senate just passed by a vote of 70-29 a $95 billion aid package to Ukraine, Israel, and Taiwan—much of which would be spent in the United States restocking depleted weapons supplies—but the bill’s fate is uncertain in the House, and the United States has done its last drawdowns for Kyiv under existing authorities. And while the 27 members of the European Union agreed to a $54 billion package, they don’t have a robust industrial base and can’t produce enough artillery shells to meet their pledge of 1 million rounds by March. Meanwhile, Ukraine is rationing ammunition, and after Russia’s presidential election later this year—no surprises expected there—Vladimir Putin might be emboldened to order a larger mobilization.

Markets have largely priced in the current Russia-Ukraine war. But they may not have accounted for its long-term significance or what the war could mean for Europe. With Russia probing Finland and Estonia, German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius gave a sobering speech detailing what that could mean, saying that Germany needs to take into account that Moscow could “even attack a NATO country” in the next five to eight years.

In the Middle East, the conflicts after Hamas’s terrorist attacks on Israel on Oct. 7 represent the region’s greatest geopolitical test since the Global War on Terror. Israel continues operations to destroy Hamas while Iranian-backed proxies are escalating across at least six different theaters. The global economy and the U.S. Navy—which has been protecting international commerce since the days of the Barbary pirates—are under fire from the Houthis in Yemen. A full-scale regional war is likely not in the cards, although any escalation that brings the United States and Iran into direct confrontation could quickly change that. It’s not hard to see how it could happen, and if Iran—dominated by an 85-year-old Grand Ayatollah Ali Khamenei, the region’s longest-ruling leader—were to succeed in building a nuclear weapon, it could accelerate the chaos.

What has Washington, Wall Street, and global political and financial capitals around the world most worried, though, is the Indo-Pacific. For geopolitical reasons, China is pushing a “dual circulation” economic model and greater self-reliance at home, combined with economic embargoes against not only the United States but also countries such as Australia, Japan, Lithuania, and South Korea. At the same time, most of the tariffs that began under the Trump administration have continued under President Joe Biden, and U.S.-led restrictions have reduced semiconductor exports to China by billions of dollars. The focus on national security-sensitive supply-chain chokepoints in everything from microelectronics, to pharmaceuticals, to critical minerals and rare earths is adding friction to the global economy in ways that create risks and opportunities in other theaters.

The worst-case scenario—a military confrontation between China and neighbors such as Taiwan or the Philippines, backed by the United States—could lead to untold human losses and the greatest economic shock in generations. Bloomberg Economics recently estimated a cost of $10 trillion in the event of a war with the People’s Republic of China over Taiwan.

Historically, shocks like the 1973 Arab oil embargo and Russia’s war on Ukraine have disrupted but not upended global commerce. Today’s dynamic could be different, with acute and connected challenges across all three major regions of Eurasia, not to mention crises not in the headlines every day, such as a belligerent North Korea and contentious Venezuela-Guyana border.

The world as we have known it has assumed the leadership of a credible great power: the United States. Working with its allies and partners, the United States has built and supported the international security and economic architecture that benefits not only Americans but populations around the world. Another assumption was that no other country would have the intention and the capacity to reshape this U.S.-led international order. With challenges to U.S. leadership and a growing closeness amongst China, Iran, Russia, and even North Korea, neither assumption can be taken for granted.

The assumptions may have changed, but as with economics, nothing is inevitable in geopolitics. Last year, some forecasters said there was a 100 percent chance of a recession in 2023. They were wrong. However, soft landings don’t happen on their own—they require leadership across domains.

The war in Europe isn’t what it was a year ago. Ukraine’s 2023 counteroffensive didn’t succeed. Kyiv’s on the defensive, unlikely to take back significant territory in 2024. Russia is pushing forward and now spends 6 percent of its GDP on its military, up from 2.7 percent in 2021, and bolstered by munitions from Iran and North Korea. Meanwhile, as former Google CEO Eric Schmidt warned, Moscow has “caught up in the innovation contest” with Kyiv, domestically producing drones like the Orlan-10 and the Lancet. And after pivoting to Asian markets, Moscow has mitigated Western sanctions, while the IMF recently upped its forecast for Russia’s economic growth to 2.6 percent.

Despite setbacks, several factors still favor Ukraine even if the prospects of victory seem elusive at best. Without a single American in the fight, and at a cost of 5 percent of annual U.S. defense spending, U.S. intelligence now estimates that Moscow has lost as much as 90 percent of its 2022 invasion force. Ukraine is winning the battle of the Black Sea, and the grain corridor out of Odessa was open to over 33 million tons of grain and foodstuffs in the first six months of last year, two-thirds of which went to the developing world. Ukraine is targeting Russian-controlled infrastructure, including around Crimea. Kyiv is also expanding its defense industrial base, launching a Defense Industries Forum with 252 companies from 30 countries.

While Europe has been slow to bolster its own defense infrastructure, there’s momentum. European defense spending was up 6 percent in 2022, led by front-line democracies like Finland, Lithuania, Sweden, and Poland. Still, most of the NATO alliance’s members fail to meet their 2014 Wales Pledge to spend 2 percent of their GDP on defense, and even U.S. defense spending as a percent of GDP is projected to decline over the next 10 years, from 3.1 percent in 2023 to 2.8 percent in 2033. Ukraine cannot hold back a country 28 times its size, and with a population more than three times larger, without Western assistance. Likewise, European—let alone global—security can’t be sustained by diminishing deterrence capabilities.

In the Middle East, the main questions being asked today are about the “day after” in Gaza, or when and how the Houthi attacks in the Red Sea and Iranian-back proxy attacks in Iraq will stop. Tehran has created a new normal of instability and chaos and has little incentive to see a ceasefire hold. The Houthis—once a relatively obscure Shi’a proxy group in Yemen—are now the heroes of much of the Arab street.

Iran’s strategic advantage in the short term has been enhanced by a radically changed information environment, where the “social-mediafication” of war means there are more hours of footage uploaded across all the popular social media platforms than there are seconds of the war. The ramifications are unpredictable—after all, many of the al Qaeda terrorists behind 9/11 were radicalized by pre-algorithmic content they saw coming out of war in Bosnia in the 1990s. Today’s AI-powered algorithms supercharge the risk.

The return to the bad old days, made worse by hyper-targeted online radicalization, needn’t happen, however. The Abraham Accords are holding. The Sunni Gulf countries are focused on transformation projects like Saudi Arabia’s Vision 2030, as they work to ensure that their economic progress is impacted as little as possible by geopolitics. Despite what’s happening in the Red Sea, their engagement with the international business community is largely uninterrupted. The same is true with Qatar.

The two factors that would bring the region back from the brink are restored deterrence against Iran and integration between Israel and the Gulf States. That means recognizing that Iran and its “axis of resistance” are the cause of today’s chaos. It requires working with partners like the UAE and Saudi Arabia, which has relaunched defense talks with Washington and whose senior officials have said repeatedly that they are “absolutely” still interested in normalization with Israel.

The South China Sea and Taiwan Strait are dangerous but, thankfully, at peace. There was good news out of San Francisco from the November meeting between Chinese President Xi Jinping and Biden. China’s responses to Taiwan’s election on Jan. 13 were more restrained than many expected. Now, much depends on how Beijing reacts to William Lai’s inaugural statements when he becomes Taiwan’s president in May.

But while Taiwan occupies our strategic focus today, it’s not the only potential hot spot. China borders 14 countries, giving it more land neighbors than any other state. Beijing has territorial disputes with nearly every country with which it shares a border; each of those disputes presents risks.

Still, maintaining an acceptable peace in the Indo-Pacific is possible. China’s more aggressive posture has driven significant changes in Australia, India, Japan, the Philippines, and South Korea, leading to minilateral coalitions for stability. The Quad, AUKUS, summits with South Korea and Japan, and basing agreements with the Philippines are a few such examples of how these countries are tightening cooperation with each other, and with the United States, Japan has committed to a sea change in defense policy that could turn the Japanese military into the world’s third largest by 2027.

In all this, however, there’s a missing link: Washington doesn’t yet have a strategy for economic engagement in the region. While agreements like the Beijing-backed Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership expand, the Biden administration’s Indo-Pacific Economic Framework (IPEF) is stalled, and IPEF—which the White House has described as “not a trade agreement”—is not a replacement for the Trans-Pacific Partnership. Washington’s economic policy should communicate that it is not a distant power but a reliable economic partner. As the NATO alliance nears its 75th anniversary, leaders need to be committed both rhetorically and in practice to sustaining peace and prosperity wherever it is challenged.

These geoeconomic forces are of concern to publics around the world. They aren’t, however, the domain of the public sector alone. Many of the same market dynamics bringing us in for an economic soft landing can be assets in global affairs. Global companies cannot succeed in a world at war, and the United States and its allies and partners can’t keep the peace without the growth and innovation made possible by the private sector.

The two sectors where this dynamic is clearest are in energy and emerging technologies. Developing new and sustainable energy sources is one of the best geopolitical and economic moves possible, and it’s largely due to private sector-led innovations that the United States has been the world’s top crude oil producer since 2018 and top liquid natural gas exporter since last year. In the coming years, technologies such as generative artificial intelligence—where the United States is leading—will be wildcards and lifelines in geopolitics, and technology companies will become greater geopolitical stakeholders. Such domains are where democratic societies—with deep and open capital markets, the rule of law, and property rights—have advantages that are sources of legitimacy, stability, and growth.

Building on those advantages this year, when 60 percent of the world’s population is heading to the polls, is a necessity. Billions of people voting for their leaders is welcome news after years of democratic decline globally documented by organizations such as Freedom House. But the coming changes in governments around the world could also make the end of this year very different from its beginning.

In particular, the 2024 U.S. presidential contest may be the most consequential in decades, not to mention one of the most significant geopolitical issues for other countries. Foreign policy is rarely top of mind for voters, but the people’s choice may have even greater ramifications for global affairs than for the economy. Trade and industrial policies adopted by either administration may bolster some sectors at home but elicit pushback abroad, including from partners. New approaches to America’s role in the world can reassure friends or embolden adversaries. And every leader is preparing by hedging their bets for either a Biden or Trump outcome.

In 2023, we understood what an economic hard landing might mean and took timely, prudent actions to prevent it. In 2024, it’s time to recognize that a geopolitical hard landing is possible and for every sector of society to meet this moment with the seriousness it demands.

[aoawarfare]

The Struggle for Kazakh Autonomy in 1919

Last time we were with the Alash Orda, they were in Siberia, fighting alongside the White Siberian forces against the Bolsheviks. Supporters of Admiral Kolchak launched a coup and named him Supreme Commander of all White Forces. Kolchak dismantled all non-white sanctioned governments including the Alash Orda. This may not have been such a problem if the Alash Orda hadn’t burnt its bridge with the Bolsheviks. Oops.

It’s now 1919 and Kolchak is planning a new offensive.

The Unraveling of Kolchak

When Kolchak took over, his staff was optimistic that they would easily defeat the Bolsheviks, and at first it looked like they were right? Kolchak launched his spring offensive in March 1919 and despite not properly coordinating his offensive with Denikin’s forces in the south, he enjoyed considerable success.

Admiral Kolchak

[Image Description: A black and white photo of a man with short, receding hair, and no facial hair. He is staring at the camera. He is wearing a grew wool coat with large lapels.]

His battle plan was to launch an assault along his entire front with forces concentrated on the center through Ufa toward the middle of the Volga with a direct route to the Moscow. His forces considered of three armies: Gajda’s Siberian army of 45,000 men plus the Siberian Flotilla, General Khanzhin’s Western Army of 42,000 men, and the Dutov’s Orenburg and Urals forces consisting of 20,000 Cossacks.

He was facing the 2nd, 5th, 1st, and 4th armies consisting of 120,000 men plus the Volga-Kama military flotilla. Additionally, the Red Armies were able to receive reinforcements and supplies easier and faster than the White Armies.

Kolchak’s opening offensive pushed the Red armies to the Volga and Orenburg, but ran into supply and communication issues with the spring thaw. Additionally, their forces were spread across a 180,000 square mile territory that they now had to manage. The Red Armies received reinforcements in April and launched a new offensive in May. General Mikhail Frunze took advance of the White overreach and attacked the Western army, pushing it back to Ufa and exposing the Siberian Army’s flank. Frunze pushed his advantage and by Kolchak’s forces had been pushed beyond their point of departure by July.

The intrigue going on within Kolchak’s staff is beyond this podcast, but these defeats were made worse by a revolving door of generals and staff members plus mass desertion within the ranks. Kolchak reorganized his army in mid-summer and tried to engulf the Red army in a pincer move, but it failed because of poor coordination. This defeat was the final nail in the coffin for the allies who convinced Kolchak to be a lost cause. Despite this, Kolchak launched another failed offense in September.

By November Kolchak lost his headquarters in Omsk and was completely cut off from the Urals and Orenburg (where most of the Alash Orda were). Hundreds of men and generals fled, some heading towards the Caspian and then Persia and others fleeing towards Semirech’e and then Xinjiang. Those who remained with Kolchak undertook the Great Siberian Ice March heading towards Chita to unite with the Far Eastern (White) Army led by Ataman Semenov, who was known to be a tyrant and brute but supported by the Japanese. Those who disapproved of Semenov went into Manchuria. They used the Trans-Siberian Railroad as a guide, but were sometimes denied the use of the railroad by the Czechoslovak Legion. Again, this march is beyond this podcast, but as one can imagine, it was a nightmare for anyone who took part as they had to deal with Siberian winter, lack of supplies, and Red forces and various insurgents snapping at their heels. And they also had to cross the frozen Lake Baikal in sub-zero temperatures. Not fun.

Kolchak handing out medals

[Image Description: A black and white photo of uniformed soldiers gathered around long, wool coat wearing officers. They are mostly young man wearing furry hats or military covers. They are standing in a field of grass and the sky is clear.]

Kolchak, himself, stepped down from command on January 4th, 1920, giving command of South Russia to General Denikin and command of the Far East to Ataman Semenov. He was promised safe passage to the British military mission in Irkutsk, but was betrayed to the Bolsheviks by the Czech Legion. He was executed by a Cheka (precursor to the KGB) firing squad on the morning of Feb 7th, 1920, and dumped into the frozen Angara River.

Up a Creek Without a Paddle

Where did this leave the Alash Orda? Well, they were up a creek without a paddle.

The Alash Orda rejected the Bolshevik overtures in 1918 because they refused to recognize Alash Autonomy and here they were, not even a year later, supporting an ally that just dissolved their own government. There were different opinions on what to do next. Some, like Baitursynov, traveled to Moscow to meet with Lenin and joined the Kirghiz Military-Revolutionary Committee with Stalin writing:

“I did not and do not consider him a revolutionary-communist or a sympathizer; nevertheless, his presence in the Revolutionary committee is necessary” - Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 90

Others, like Bukeikhanov, stuck with the White Army, writing in February 1919 expressing a desire:

"of the Kirghiz, together with the valiant Siberian troops, to wage battle with the Bolsheviks, from whom the Kirghiz population suffered greatly in Semirech’e Oblast being completely destroyed by them.” He argued that the Kazakhs were “completely reliable, hardy material for the army, unsusceptible to the Bolshevik infection” - Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 68

He went ahead and formed cavalry units of Kazakh soldiers, similar to the Cossacks, who answered to Russian and Kazakh cadres. These soldiers would take part in all of Kolchak’s offenses in the Urals and were even praised for their efforts, one White officer writing:

“Dressed in our uniforms, with an orderly line of .375-caliber rifles thrown over their shoulder, in proper files they move, as if on parade, and give the impression of a genuine dashing cavalry.” - Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 70

They were involved with some of the few victories the White Army experience during the summer such as the taking of the small Cherkasskoe garrison in August, but they could not stem the Red tide.

Instead, Kazakh forces in the Urals reached out the Red First Army in November, offering their services against the White Army. The Bolsheviks sensed an opportunity since the soldiers themselves “had no desire to bear the material and personal sacrifices, either for White Generals or for the Alash Orda leaders from the Kirghiz.” - Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 50

From November 1919 onward, the Alash Orda army units in the Urals pursued a policy that “consisted on the one hand of formal agreements on paper with the Cossacks and on the other in showing them as much passive resistance as was feasible” - (Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 51). They offered to supply information and to support offensives against the White army. They wrote:

“The rapid destruction of the Urals front, in addition to liberating the Kirghiz from the violence of the Cossacks, has the vital significance that it opens up access to oil fields and therefore oil products, for which there is acute need in Soviet Russia. The liquidation of the Urals front, in addition, liberates the Astrakhan group, currently surrounded by the foe of all sides.” - Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 53

The Red army, wanting to avoid violence at all costs, but wanted to neutralize all threatens in the region-even indigenous ones-demanded the:

“complete and total surrender of all weapons and other military property ought to be categorically demanded and, in the event of the surrender, must be immediately directed to the Dzhurun station for subsequent headquarters turnover.” - Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 52

The Soviets wanted the Alash Orda to march their forces to the city of Uil and surrender there. The Alash refused since that march would leave their forces exposed to White retaliation. They wrote back:

“…the Urals front is not yet liquidated, and dozens of Kirghiz volosts still remain in the region of deployment of the Cossack troops. The Cossacks, embittered by our coming out on the side of Soviet power, have already begun to butcher our peaceful population. In addition to the southern volosts remaining within the confines of the deployment of Cossack units, as we have today received reliable information, individual Cossack detachments are lurking in the rear among us, perpetrating indescribable violence…We would consider it a crime to leave the population to the mercy of fate at such a moment and to set out with military units to Uil. We began and will continue the struggle against the Cossacks right on up until our oblast is finally cleansed of them. Upon finishing this operation, we can travel anywhere at all. We earnestly ask you to take all subsequent measures toward the most rapid liquidation of the Urals front…We likewise ask that the trophies acquired exclusively by the labors of our units be placed at the disposal of the Kirghiz revolutionary committee of Orenburg as items necessary for the Red Units formed.” - Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 63

Frunze left the negotiations to the First Army, but provided a general program on how the surrender should be handled.

“In view of the intention expressed by the Western Sections of the Kirghiz government “Alash Orda” to surrender to the mercy and will of the Soviet government with all stocks of weapons and military supplies I order:

First. The Revolutionary council of the first or fourth army is to take on the leadership of the negotiations, depending on the location of detachments of Alash-Orda and their delegates           Second. In the basis of the negotiations are to be laid (1) the Decree of the Council of People’s Commissars on the Urals Cossacks of 7 December (2) Order of the Turkestan Front to the Urals Cossacks of 9 December and the Order of the Turkestan Front to the Orenberg Cossacks. Third. Negotiations are not to be dragged out, having appointed the shortest period possible for the surrender. Fourth. The dzhigits, upon disarmament, are to be deployed in the nearest army rear, subjects to political processing, and subsequently used in the capacity of reinforcements for troops active in the region of the Kirghiz Steppes initially only in detachments of auxiliary designation Fifth. Members of the government and command team are to be deployed in Ural’sk or Orenburg environs to isolate communication with the Kirghiz Steppe Sixth. The Right is to be given to elect a delegation composed of no more than five people for a journey to staff headquarters, and subsequently to Moscow. Seventh. Observance of the precise fulfillment of all of our terms of surrender” - Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 55

Frunze reported to Lenin on the same day, “the military significance of Alash-Orda is insignificant, but politically and economically their surrender is important, securing for us the entire steppe region to the shores of the Caspian” - (Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 55)

The Alash Orda rejected these demands, writing back:

“We believe that friends should meet one another with a salute, and not with the somber image…of the weak one bowing his head before the strong one. True democrats cannot and should not allow and permit themselves to humiliate others. If you nourish distrust toward us, we will prove to you the sincerity of our declaration in our actions, participating together with you in active struggle with common enemies-the Cossacks. For our population, the quickest possible expulsion of the Cossacks from the Kirghiz territories is of unquestionable and pressing interest, because every extra day that they stay here causes the population incalculable harm…After a brief welcome, your leaders will pass through the front of our troops, exchanging greetings with them, and we will pass through yours; after this unification from each side, two rank-and-file soldiers will move towards one another and greet and embrace one another, after which we can bring the units closer together and put them into whatever formation will be convenient, say a brief welcome, after which the troops will go wherever necessary…it would be appropriate to organize more ceremonially to make an impression on the morale of the population and of the fighters themselves. We await your help as soon as possible.” - Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 56

Frunze wasn’t having any of it. He wrote back to the First Army:

“First. It is permitted, in conformity with the situation, not to insist on the immediate directing of all members of the Alash Orda government and of the command to Orenburg, having taken these several of the most authoritative persons only for communications and as hostages. Second. It is permitted to use immediately armed units of Alash Orda, having transformed them at your discretion and having secured hostages in the event of treachery. Third. Use the existing situation for the quickest possible fulfillment of this task of taking control of the oil fields region and cutting off paths of retreat to the East of the foe’s Ural Army units. Fourth. Impose as a duty on the former Kirghiz government the immediate formation in the region of Uil foodstuffs bases of transport necessary for the movement of units” - Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 59

Back in Semipalatinsk, the Alash Orda faced pressure from local non-Alash allied organizations and movements to ally with the Bolshevik to remain relevant. Frunze added to that pressure by taking Semipalatinsk on December 1st after the local organizations led a local uprising.

On December 21st, the Alash Orda published an official decree:

“In view of the fact that the rights of the peoples of Russia are most fully ensured by Soviet power, that the well-known declaration of the rights of peoples issued by the Council for People’s Commissars has been implemented with respect to many of the peoples of Soviet Russia and has been confirmed once again during the entry of Soviet troops onto the territory of Siberia in the Declaration of the chairmen of the Central Committee, the Council of People’s Commissars, the Oblast committee of Alash Orda resolves:

(1) to support Soviet power with all means and efforts, bearing freedom, equality, brotherhood, and light into all the unfortunate dark corners of many-language Russia, to welcome the appearance on Alash territory (the Kirghiz autonomy) of Soviet troops, as liberators from the tyranny of the reaction monarchistic dictatorship." - Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 74

By end of December the Bolsheviks informed the Alash Orda that their proposal was unacceptable rejected and that:

“We do not know and do not recognize any Alash Orda government whatsoever and cannot enter into treaty agreements with them as such…the government is to be dissolved. The decree on amnesty remains in full force.” - Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 60

The Alash Orda held on hope that by demonstrating their value as military allies, they could remain political equals. So, on December 27th, the Alash Orda launched an attack against Kyzyl-Kuga, capturing it and the Iletsk Corps staff HQ. The Cossacks tried to liberate Kyzyl-Kuga but were repulsed. The Alash Orda took prisoner the entire corps staff HQ, 500 Cossacks and officers, one artillery piece, fifteen machine guns, and many rifles. The First Army sent a reconnaissance detachment to Kyzyl-Kuga on December 29th. The Alash Orda sent word of their victory to the Bolsheviks on January 5th, 1920, claiming that “In such a manner, having participated actively in the struggle with the enemies of Soviet power in fact.” They argued that a merger of forces was natural “for in one krai, there cannot be two masters” (Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 62)

The problem was the Bolsheviks didn’t know what to do with the Alash Orda. On the one hand they were local intelligentsia who could be put to good use in furthering the Bolshevik cause but on the other hand they were a nationalistic political movement that created its own government, rebuffed the Bolsheviks, and allied themselves with the White. In January, the Alash Orda and Bolsheviks met and agreed that until an All-Kirghiz Council could be convened to determine the future of the Kazakh people, the government of the Steppe would fall to the Revolutionary-Military Committee, which contains members of the Alash Orda such as Baitursynov and the military units would merge with the Third Tatar Strelets Regiment. On January 21st this agreement was issued in a formal declaration:

“…only one resolution is possible. Until the All-Kirghiz Congress, to be convened this June and being the only body that can elect a lawful Soviet government of all of Kirghizia, the Kirghiz oblasts shall be administered by a Military Revolutionary Committee appointed by the Council of People’s Commissars of the RSFSR. For this reason, a merger of Alash Orda with the Revolutionary Committee is possible only when the Council of Peoples’ Commissars includes certain Alash Orda members in the composition of the Military-Revolutionary Committee of Kirghizia.” - Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 65

And yet the Military-Revolutionary Committee decided not to appoint Alash Orda members to the committee because of their bourgeois backgrounds and distrust and dislike from other soviet Kazakhs. Instead, a commission was created to deal with property and trophies and by the spring and summer of 1920, the property, arms, and units of the Alash Orda were transferred into the disposition of the Kirghiz Military-revolutionary committee and army.

In February 1920, they arrested several Alash Orda members, sparking outrage from 800,000 people of the Kazakh oblast, the Kirghiz Revolutionary Committee, and the chair of the Bashkir Military-Revolutionary Committee, Z. Validov, who went all the way to Stalin and Lenin, begging them to issue a clear decree on the fates of the Alash Orda.

On March 9th, 1920, the Kirghiz Military-Revolutionary Committee issued the following statement:

“1. Alash Orda calling itself a government, and the zemstvo institutions subordinated to it, shall be liquidated as not being prescribed by the Constitution of the RSFSR. All laws, instructions, and orders issued by it during its existence shall be considered invalid. All property and currency, arms, military munitions and equipment shall be subject to transfer to the corresponding commissariats and departments of the krai, oblast, and uezd revolutionary committees by ownership.

All employees shall fall under disposition of the corresponding commissariats and mobilized by their specialization and shall be maintained on special account of the commissariat of internal affairs.

2. The Spiritual Administration existing in Ural’sk Oblast (the Commission for the administration of spiritual affairs attached to the Western section of Alash Orda) with all subordinated spiritual bodies shall be eliminated, the files and property transferred to the jurisdiction of the suitable uezd and volost soviets. Moreover, spiritual authorities selected by their respective societies shall be prohibited from fulfilling religious needs of the citizens” - Dina A. Amanzholova, Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement, pg. 78

By the end of March, former members of the Alash Orda were no longer persecuted, but, except for a handful such as Baitursynov, could not participate in government work. Frunze defeated the White Army in March and rehabilitated the Kazakhs and Cossacks who once fought for the Whites. In late spring of 1920, the restrictions against the former Alash Orda members were lifted and some were allowed to work in different government bodies.

The Alash Orda started 1919 allied with a monarchist movement that refused to acknowledge their right to autonomous government. They started 1920 with their government disbanded and all power in the hands of the Bolshevik government. And yet, they held out hope that they could work with the Bolsheviks to enact their reforms.

References

Central Asia: a New History from the Imperial Conquests to the Present by Adeeb Khalid

Kazakh Autonomy and Russia: the History of the Alash Movement by Dina A. Amanzholova

The “Russian” Civil Wars: 1916-1916 by Jonathan D. Smele

[head-post]

Persecution of Orthodoxy in Ukraine shown in cinemas

The Ukrainian crisis of church-state relations, centred on the country’s oldest religious institution, the Orthodox Church, has long since ceased to be a domestic event and has acquired a global international character.

Law 8371 “On the Protection of the Constitutional Order in the Sphere of Activities of Religious Organisations” (unofficially known as the “Law on Prohibition of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church (UOC)”), adopted by the Verkhovna Rada of Ukraine on August 20, 2024, became a decisive milestone of the mentioned crisis. Today, a consensus has emerged of a rather negative perception of this law among those who assess it through the prism of contemporary norms of international law on freedom of religion and belief.

On August 24, 2024, the website of the World Council of Churches (WCC) published a statement according to which the WCC is “deeply alarmed by the possibility of unjustified collective punishment and violation of the principles of freedom of religion or belief under Ukraine’s new law.”

On August 25, 2024, Pope Francis mentioned the new law in his Sunday homily:

“…let those who wish to pray pray in the Church they consider their own. Please do not abolish directly or indirectly any Christian Church. Churches will not be touched!”

In these statements, religious leaders are reminded of the separation of the spheres of influence of the state and the church. Ukraine is being urged to abandon forceful solutions and return to the shores in which it had been 30 years before, being a state of supposedly liberal religious legislation with a colourful landscape of religious diversity. The cautious expressions that religious leaders choose in doing so show that neither states nor churches are autonomous from the political and ethical fabric of the global community that determines the acceptability of certain actions and statements.

The statement of the Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church of August 22, 2024 points to precedents of persecution of Ukrainian Orthodox believers in the past and present and expects the international community to react similar to the international campaign to protect the rights of believers in the USSR.

The statement describes the pressure on the UOC in the form of rampant violence and hostility, which the state is unwilling and unable to contain: “a media campaign aimed at defamation of canonical Orthodoxy,” mass seizures of churches organised by radical nationalists, with clergy and believers beaten. All this is seen in the statement not as an overreach of state power, but exactly the opposite – as a lack of sovereign state power and the effectiveness of political institutions.

People of Christ. Our Time

On Sunday in Banja Luka, Bosnia and Herzegovina, there was another screening of the film “People of Christ. Our Time,” which was produced by a group of Serbian documentary filmmakers under the direction of the renowned director Emir Kusturica. 

The premiere of this film took place on September 18 in Belgrade. The film denounces before the international community the support of the current US presidential administration for the schismatic activities of Kyiv and the persecution of canonical Orthodoxy in Ukraine. 

The film reveals the essence of the conflicts taking place all over the planet and pulling the whole of humanity into its vortex today. We are talking about cognitive warfare in the spheres of spiritual, cultural and mental life of all peoples and each individual. Victory in this war is more effective than defeat of troops and seizure of territories. In this war the struggle is for a man completely – for his mind, and most importantly – for his soul.

The uniqueness of this documentary project is that the film’s creators are its heroes. They are one of the founders of the Yugoslav film school – writer Jovan Markovic and the internationally recognised and legendary Emir Kusturica. They are an Italian from Genoa, an Orthodox priest, philosopher and poet Mario Selvini and Bishop Irinej of the Serbian Orthodox Church, one of the most authoritative theologians of world Orthodoxy.

The film features the opinions of the young generation of Europe Vuvan Markovic – Doctor of Philosophy, lecturer at Cambridge University in Great Britain and Yuri Bardash, a native of Donbas – producer and creator of the most popular youth music projects.

The Ukrainians themselves tell us about what is happening in Ukraine today. This is Jan Taksyur – a native of Kyiv, poet, writer, teacher, TV presenter, political prisoner, who was in prison in Kyiv from March 2022 to May 2023 and is currently released on prisoner exchange. Ukrainian Ruslan Kalinchuk, a native of Ivano-Frankivsk, an Orthodox missionary, philosopher, and writer, reveals to viewers the historical and spiritual background of what is happening today, and priest Mykola Mogilny from Kyiv talks about what is happening in Orthodox life in Ukraine today.

The film’s creators have received appeals about the need to organise a response from international cultural figures, leaders of public and civil influence to the crimes against Christians taking place in Ukraine.

During the screening of the film in the capital of the Republic of Srpska, Banja Luka, on 17 November, with the participation of the President of the Republic Milorad Dodik, the creators of the film will voice and publish the “Appeal of Ukrainian and European cultural and spiritual figures to the people of Ukraine and its authorities on the facts of the ongoing lawlessness in Ukraine in the spiritual and cultural sphere.”

This Appeal will address the inadmissibility of persecution of believers of the Ukrainian Orthodox Church of Ukraine and the immediate release from prison of clergymen, journalists and those detained for their religious and worldview beliefs. 

Read more HERE

[timesofinnovation]

In a notable development, Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov has placed the responsibility for Pavel Durov’s recent arrest squarely on Durov’s perceived ‘freedom’ in managing the social media platform, Telegram. The arrest of Durov, who has gained prominence not only as the founder of Telegram but also as an outspoken advocate for privacy and freedom of expression, raises significant questions about the intersection of technology, regulation, and personal accountability. Durov, a tech entrepreneur originally from Russia, found himself in hot water when a French judge laid formal charges against him for allegedly enabling a variety of illicit activities through Telegram. These charges include serious offenses such as the distribution of child sex abuse images, drug trafficking, and fraud. Telegram has amassed a user base nearing one billion globally, with a significant following in Russia and other former Soviet states. This widespread usage positions Telegram not only as a communication tool but also as a platform with profound implications for law enforcement and regulatory oversight. Lavrov’s remarks were delivered at MGIMO University in Moscow, where he suggested that Durov’s reluctance to conform to Western calls for increased moderation on his platform paved the way for his current predicament. He insinuated that this incident is indicative of a larger Western tactic aimed at exerting control over Russia and stifling its technological advancements. Lavrov stated, “Durov did not heed Western advice, which has manifested in this current situation where he faces scrutiny and legal challenges.” The minister's comments reflect a consistent narrative from the Kremlin that frames Western actions against Russian nationals as politically motivated. However, Durov’s legal counsel has retorted that the accusations against him are not only unfounded but grotesque. His lawyer argued that it is unreasonable to hold Durov accountable for the activities of users on a platform designed for communication. This defense highlights a central debate in digital policy: the responsibilities of platform creators versus users. Durov’s position that he cannot be held liable for user actions touches on the broader issue of intermediary liability, where the extent of responsibility should be scrutinized within the context of existing laws and regulations. Despite facing pressure from Russian authorities, Durov has seen a surge of support following his arrest. Citizens and tech enthusiasts alike express a growing concern regarding government overreach and the preservation of digital freedoms. The sentiment in favor of Durov underscores a pivotal moment in Russia’s digital landscape, where a clash between individual rights and state control is increasingly pronounced. The implications of Durov’s arrest extend beyond his personal circumstances. Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov raised alarms about the potential for Durov’s case to evolve into what he termed ‘political persecution,’ drawing attention to the inherently volatile dynamics of international relations. Peskov emphasized that negotiations between Durov and the Kremlin have yet to materialize, suggesting that both parties are currently at a stalemate. French President Emmanuel Macron, for his part, denied any political motives behind Durov’s detention, further complicating the narrative. Lavrov’s assertion that this incident represents a new low in Moscow-Paris relations mirrors the growing tension between the Russian government and Western nations over digital governance and individual freedoms. Durov’s situation forces stakeholders—governments, corporations, and advice-driven users—to reassess prevailing frameworks around digital expression. The arrest of a CEO as prominent as Durov introduces a new dimension to the discourse on corporate accountability and the dynamics of censorship in the online space. As this situation unfolds, it serves as a stark reminder of the complexities

involved in balancing freedom of speech with the necessary precautions against misuse of digital platforms. Durov’s predicament exemplifies the trials faced by modern tech entrepreneurs acting in an era defined by rapid digital transformation and contentious regulatory landscapes. Ultimately, Durov’s case is emblematic of larger global discussions around technology, governance, and the freedom of expression. It exemplifies the ongoing battle between innovation in the digital age and the often stringent regulations that seek to govern behavior online. As societies grapple with these issues, the outcome of Durov’s legal struggles may send ripples through the tech industry, potentially reshaping how platforms are operated, moderated, and held accountable in the future.