As someone who was regularly accused of secretly supporting, and/or being secretly supported by Vladimir Putin for something like eight years straight — despite never actually supporting Putin, nor receiving any support from him — it’s interesting to now be regularly attacked by the real-deal, self-avowed Putin supporters for not supporting Putin strongly enough. The prevalence of people in my online periphery who openly espouse support for Russia’s war effort has become highly noticeable — and it’s a trend I probably would have been inclined to dismiss a few years ago as something a Russiagate pundit would make up or exaggerate. But today, it’s undeniably a “thing.”
I find the political Gnosticism of the liberal imperium abhorrent. Everywhere they go they lay waste. The promotion of democracy and human rights is always a cloak, they have ulterior motives, usually just old fashion, greed. The global American empire is a war machine.
So I find myself rooting for Putin. I am the person you warn about.
Great points and genuinely unbiased. You are correct about the change in attitude as I've also seen it in my periphery. My personal opinion has always been pro Russia leaning w/o originally heaping praise & always urging caution. And by "pro Russia leaning" I mean understanding of their grievances. The Ukraine War is an unmitigated disaster. And because of that, I've come to openly root for Russia in that the faster they win the less lives will be ultimately lost.
Michael, I think you're sadly off base in your assessment of the US/NATO proxy war against Russia. While I agree with sharp analysts like Gilbert Doctorow that Putin missed an opportunity to talk more directly to a US audience through the Tucker Carlson interview, the fact remains that Russia's position has been clear for decades. Go back to Putin's 2007 Munich speech, to see a forthright warning against further NATO expansion and placement of missile systems ever closer to Russia's borders. The US pushed on anyway. The Maidan coup - with the US deeply involved, to put in mildly (just ask Cookies "Fuck the EU" Nuland about the $5Billion she says the US spent on the project) was absolutely a red-flag of US intentions. Russia presented the US and NATO with draft treaties at the end of 2021, seeking serious negotiations on a comprehensive reworking of the European security order to benefit all parties. The US batted away the proposals with nary a glance. Since the 2022 war started, we've had the admissions by Ukraine, German, and French leaders that NONE of them had any intention of implementing the 2015 Minsk Accords (which they'd all signed, and of which the US was supposed to be a guarantor); instead they planned to use it to build up Ukraine's military power in preparation for a military assault against the anti-coup regions. Indeed, Ukraine became a de facto member of NATO, with interoperability with the rest of the US military alliance. The US placed missile systems in Poland and Romania, capable of striking Moscow and other major Russian centers with nuclear weapons in a matter of minutes. It was obvious that the US desired to move such systems into Ukraine itself as part of another eastward NATO expansion. You may not be old enough to remember the US response to the Soviet Union stationing missiles in Cuba (as a counter to US missiles stationed in Turkey.) The polite way to describe the US response then is "batshit crazy." And yet you fail to grasp how the US takeover of Ukraine threatens Russia.
Participants in the April 2022 Istanbul negotiations (including Ukrainians) have said Russia was willing to accept very minimal terms (Ukraine neutrality, and a halt to the attacks on the people of the Donbass regions), which would have ended this war before it really got started in earnest. The US/UK torpedoed that peace. It is US hubris and arrogance, not to mention a complete and total erroneous assessment of the real strength of the Russian economy relative to that of the US and its European vassals, most especially in the real economy of industrial production, that resulted in this war. The RUSI study "The Return of Industrial Warfare" laid out the disastrous state of "the West," de-industrialized by decades of financialization, privatization, and looting of the real economy. The reality is playing out on the battlefield right now, as the US and its poodles are simply incapable of providing Ukraine with arms and ammunition anywhere near matching Russia's capablity. Meanwhile, Europe is already in decline, accelerated by the US blowing up the Nordstream pipelines, ending the cheap and reliable energy that was the lifeblood of German industry.
You need to give up the crap about Hitler analogies, as if the nonsense spouted by US politicians who have no fucking clue what really went on, is at all equivalent to the deep understanding among Russians of the death and destruction they suffered at the hands of the German invasion, through Ukraine. Or how Russians see the acolytes of Bandera and other Nazi collaborators playing major roles in the Ukraine military and post-coup government. For the Russians, Hitler's invasion was real, not a Patton movie.
As to Finland joining NATO: Putin's response, along the lines of "we didn't have a problem with Finland before. But we will now" can be read two ways. The more valid reading is that this has placed Finland in far greater danger than it was before this idiotic move. There was nothing of benefit gained by the Finnish populace through joining NATO.
In short: US rulers wanted this war. But the end result will be a shattered Ukraine, a greatly diminished Europe, further US decline, and a much strengthened Russia - if the idiots in DC don't blow us all to Kingdom Come. The sooner the US and its proxies lose this war, the better off we'll all be. That opinion is growing among a larger proportion of the world population, the longer the US shoves Ukrainians toward death.
I'm curious as to what other options you think Putin had with regard to Ukraine, keeping in mind the utter failure of the Minsk agreements to end the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The civil war in Ukraine began in 2014 and continued more or less unabated until February 2022. From what I gather, and I could be wrong, when the "Special Military Operation" began Ukraine had massed about 40,000 troops on the border of the breakaway republics with the aim of ending the conflict once and for all. I agree wholeheartedly that this war is a disaster for all involved. Speaking as an ethnic Ukrainian, I can hardly get my head around the utter devastation experienced by that country, but I think we both know that the goal of US policy has been to destabilize Russian for decades, in large part by using Ukraine as a proxy, so how exactly was Russia supposed to stop them from doing that?
With regard to what Putin was saying about Poland, I don't think the point was to equate himself with Hitler. He wasn't just speaking to Americans, he was speaking equally to all the parties involved in this conflict, including the Poles and the Germans. Though the minutia of the history he was referring to was lost on me, I'm certain it was not lost on them. Whatever point he was making was aimed at Poland, and also very likely his fellow Russians, who are, as you must know, enormous history buffs.
In wars and sports we're expected to pick a side. If your team is not playing you can pick a side based on uniform color if you know nothing else, and then cheer like hell for that color if you're nuts and many people are. Any war is a reason for warmongers everywhere to celebrate. The losing warmongers will never die in battle and always make a profit. During WWI my understanding is that the soldiers were ordered not to shoot at the officers on the other side while they were being blown to pieces. That shows you the real delineation or battle line. The "battle" we should really have is between the warmongers and the rest of us and we easily outnumber (and can outvote) them.
A great piece, and it is sadly necessary to delineate between understanding something and endorsing it. I’ve lost friends who don’t get that and think I’m a Putin puppet.
I wonder what your thoughts are about the Ukrainian government attacks on people in the Donbas over those 8 years with 14,000 people killed. Of course NATO and US, CIA etc were training and arming ultranationalists to fight Russia, and encouraged them to attack people in the East as a provocation.
But curious what you think about Russia saying there was a massive attack poised to take place against people in the Donbas, and Putin decided to go in at that point because Ukraine wouldn’t back off and he knew there was no way Ukraine would honor the peace deals he had helped negotiate. If that attack was in fact going to happen, what do you think Russia/Putin should have done?
I’m not one to cheer on any war, but I’m at a loss sometimes when it appears force is the only way to “protect” defenseless people, in the international law sense. In the case of Israel now, the US and others could pull funds and block weapons etc and perhaps Israel would stop, at least eventually. Perhaps it would take force to save Palestinian lives. It seems Russia was the only state interested in helping the people in the Donbas, so not sure how that ought to have been dealt with.
Clearly Putin and the others didn’t think that Zelensky would be stupid enough to keep going. If Boris hadn’t intervened perhaps the peace deal would have stuck, or perhaps the ultranationalists would have hung Zelensky from a tree as they promised. Anyway, curious what you think could have been done then.
I stand with Putin, however, can still see your point of view. All I know is that this is going to be a long war between what is right and what is wrong and we are now at a point where we have to pick which side we are on. I believe that the Multi polar world is right.
I'm disappointed. ******* You condemn the Russian Federation for causing "a huge disaster." ******* Has there ever been a war that wasn't a disaster? A valid question would be, "Did the Russian Federation have any credible options?" If you truly believe they did, please supply ONE realistic, practical, effective Russian option. A few reminders: (1) The US & NATO ignored, or summarily dismissed, two draft treaties put forward by the Russians, before 2/24/22. They gave no substantive response whatsoever. Not a single serious counter-proposal. (Correct me, if I'm wrong.) (2) Ukraine and its European partners failed to fulfill their pledges in the Minsk Agreements. Thanks to Merkel & Budanov, we now know that Ukraine, France and Germany cynically used the agreements to build up the Ukrainian military into one of the most powerful armed forces in Europe. (3) The OSCE recorded a dramatic increase in Ukrainian shelling of the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts in the days preceding Russia's special military operation. ******* Can you deny that the situation was threatening for the Russian Federation, and its future? It was more than "provocative," to say the least. Given 30 years of bad-faith US/NATO "diplomacy," Russia had no viable alternative, and, with noticeable reluctance, they took military action. People more qualified than you or I have carefully considered what choice Russian leadership had, other than to capitulate. Your readers should consult them, especially Ray McGovern.
Oliver Boyd-Barrett. MAY 24, 2023: https://oliverboydbarrett.substack.com/p/russian-options **** Ray McGovern. May 22, 2023: https://raymcgovern.com/2023/05/22/did-putin-have-other-options-on-ukraine/ ******* Finally, there had been an eight-year, ongoing, disaster in the Donbas. Do you discount that disaster because it wasn't "huge"? ******* Let me be clear -- I respect your reporting. It's diligent and honest. But I think your analysis on this critical issue -- whom should we BLAME? -- is seriously flawed. I think your reasoning is sincere, but faulty. I hope you'll re-think your condemnation of Russia, and I hope you'll continue to do first-rate gathering of news and information. Thank you.
I think many analysts or pundits fail to understand (not needing to agree, but *understand*) the actual psychological/political reality that Russians live in. They watched their country picked clean like a dead carcass by the West after the fall of the Soviet Union, then watched as they clawed their way back to some semblance of prosperity the brazen breaking of promises that NATO would not expand, only to watch the noose being placed around their neck and slowly tightened. No one is defending Putin, but rather the obvious and understandable response that any country, especially one like Russia, would have to these continuing provocations and threats. The fact that the West has failed to understand this is their problem and sadly, and in many respects ironically, will lead to their inevitable demise as the weaponization of the U.S. dollar will cause a similar Soviet Union economic collapse of their economies. This is what late-stage capitalism (the Rules Based Order) has inevitably brought, the consumption of the coffers of the state until it is eventually broke and dead.
Admittedly I haven't watched all of Tucker's interview, but from what I've seen and other's opinions, such as yours, I can safely say politicians everywhere are the same.
There are those who valorize war and those who don't. If those who valorize war can't justify the US/Ukraine position, they're obviously going to take the other side because the consistent principle is not that X side is in the right, but that war is a legitimate first-line reaction to a threat on territory. Something similar happens in the Israeli-Palestine conflict.
I find the political Gnosticism of the liberal imperium abhorrent. Everywhere they go they lay waste. The promotion of democracy and human rights is always a cloak, they have ulterior motives, usually just old fashion, greed. The global American empire is a war machine.
So I find myself rooting for Putin. I am the person you warn about.
Good to have you back.
Great points and genuinely unbiased. You are correct about the change in attitude as I've also seen it in my periphery. My personal opinion has always been pro Russia leaning w/o originally heaping praise & always urging caution. And by "pro Russia leaning" I mean understanding of their grievances. The Ukraine War is an unmitigated disaster. And because of that, I've come to openly root for Russia in that the faster they win the less lives will be ultimately lost.
Michael, I think you're sadly off base in your assessment of the US/NATO proxy war against Russia. While I agree with sharp analysts like Gilbert Doctorow that Putin missed an opportunity to talk more directly to a US audience through the Tucker Carlson interview, the fact remains that Russia's position has been clear for decades. Go back to Putin's 2007 Munich speech, to see a forthright warning against further NATO expansion and placement of missile systems ever closer to Russia's borders. The US pushed on anyway. The Maidan coup - with the US deeply involved, to put in mildly (just ask Cookies "Fuck the EU" Nuland about the $5Billion she says the US spent on the project) was absolutely a red-flag of US intentions. Russia presented the US and NATO with draft treaties at the end of 2021, seeking serious negotiations on a comprehensive reworking of the European security order to benefit all parties. The US batted away the proposals with nary a glance. Since the 2022 war started, we've had the admissions by Ukraine, German, and French leaders that NONE of them had any intention of implementing the 2015 Minsk Accords (which they'd all signed, and of which the US was supposed to be a guarantor); instead they planned to use it to build up Ukraine's military power in preparation for a military assault against the anti-coup regions. Indeed, Ukraine became a de facto member of NATO, with interoperability with the rest of the US military alliance. The US placed missile systems in Poland and Romania, capable of striking Moscow and other major Russian centers with nuclear weapons in a matter of minutes. It was obvious that the US desired to move such systems into Ukraine itself as part of another eastward NATO expansion. You may not be old enough to remember the US response to the Soviet Union stationing missiles in Cuba (as a counter to US missiles stationed in Turkey.) The polite way to describe the US response then is "batshit crazy." And yet you fail to grasp how the US takeover of Ukraine threatens Russia.
Participants in the April 2022 Istanbul negotiations (including Ukrainians) have said Russia was willing to accept very minimal terms (Ukraine neutrality, and a halt to the attacks on the people of the Donbass regions), which would have ended this war before it really got started in earnest. The US/UK torpedoed that peace. It is US hubris and arrogance, not to mention a complete and total erroneous assessment of the real strength of the Russian economy relative to that of the US and its European vassals, most especially in the real economy of industrial production, that resulted in this war. The RUSI study "The Return of Industrial Warfare" laid out the disastrous state of "the West," de-industrialized by decades of financialization, privatization, and looting of the real economy. The reality is playing out on the battlefield right now, as the US and its poodles are simply incapable of providing Ukraine with arms and ammunition anywhere near matching Russia's capablity. Meanwhile, Europe is already in decline, accelerated by the US blowing up the Nordstream pipelines, ending the cheap and reliable energy that was the lifeblood of German industry.
You need to give up the crap about Hitler analogies, as if the nonsense spouted by US politicians who have no fucking clue what really went on, is at all equivalent to the deep understanding among Russians of the death and destruction they suffered at the hands of the German invasion, through Ukraine. Or how Russians see the acolytes of Bandera and other Nazi collaborators playing major roles in the Ukraine military and post-coup government. For the Russians, Hitler's invasion was real, not a Patton movie.
As to Finland joining NATO: Putin's response, along the lines of "we didn't have a problem with Finland before. But we will now" can be read two ways. The more valid reading is that this has placed Finland in far greater danger than it was before this idiotic move. There was nothing of benefit gained by the Finnish populace through joining NATO.
In short: US rulers wanted this war. But the end result will be a shattered Ukraine, a greatly diminished Europe, further US decline, and a much strengthened Russia - if the idiots in DC don't blow us all to Kingdom Come. The sooner the US and its proxies lose this war, the better off we'll all be. That opinion is growing among a larger proportion of the world population, the longer the US shoves Ukrainians toward death.
I'm curious as to what other options you think Putin had with regard to Ukraine, keeping in mind the utter failure of the Minsk agreements to end the conflict in eastern Ukraine. The civil war in Ukraine began in 2014 and continued more or less unabated until February 2022. From what I gather, and I could be wrong, when the "Special Military Operation" began Ukraine had massed about 40,000 troops on the border of the breakaway republics with the aim of ending the conflict once and for all. I agree wholeheartedly that this war is a disaster for all involved. Speaking as an ethnic Ukrainian, I can hardly get my head around the utter devastation experienced by that country, but I think we both know that the goal of US policy has been to destabilize Russian for decades, in large part by using Ukraine as a proxy, so how exactly was Russia supposed to stop them from doing that?
With regard to what Putin was saying about Poland, I don't think the point was to equate himself with Hitler. He wasn't just speaking to Americans, he was speaking equally to all the parties involved in this conflict, including the Poles and the Germans. Though the minutia of the history he was referring to was lost on me, I'm certain it was not lost on them. Whatever point he was making was aimed at Poland, and also very likely his fellow Russians, who are, as you must know, enormous history buffs.
In wars and sports we're expected to pick a side. If your team is not playing you can pick a side based on uniform color if you know nothing else, and then cheer like hell for that color if you're nuts and many people are. Any war is a reason for warmongers everywhere to celebrate. The losing warmongers will never die in battle and always make a profit. During WWI my understanding is that the soldiers were ordered not to shoot at the officers on the other side while they were being blown to pieces. That shows you the real delineation or battle line. The "battle" we should really have is between the warmongers and the rest of us and we easily outnumber (and can outvote) them.
A great piece, and it is sadly necessary to delineate between understanding something and endorsing it. I’ve lost friends who don’t get that and think I’m a Putin puppet.
I wonder what your thoughts are about the Ukrainian government attacks on people in the Donbas over those 8 years with 14,000 people killed. Of course NATO and US, CIA etc were training and arming ultranationalists to fight Russia, and encouraged them to attack people in the East as a provocation.
But curious what you think about Russia saying there was a massive attack poised to take place against people in the Donbas, and Putin decided to go in at that point because Ukraine wouldn’t back off and he knew there was no way Ukraine would honor the peace deals he had helped negotiate. If that attack was in fact going to happen, what do you think Russia/Putin should have done?
I’m not one to cheer on any war, but I’m at a loss sometimes when it appears force is the only way to “protect” defenseless people, in the international law sense. In the case of Israel now, the US and others could pull funds and block weapons etc and perhaps Israel would stop, at least eventually. Perhaps it would take force to save Palestinian lives. It seems Russia was the only state interested in helping the people in the Donbas, so not sure how that ought to have been dealt with.
Clearly Putin and the others didn’t think that Zelensky would be stupid enough to keep going. If Boris hadn’t intervened perhaps the peace deal would have stuck, or perhaps the ultranationalists would have hung Zelensky from a tree as they promised. Anyway, curious what you think could have been done then.
Good to see you back Michael.
I stand with Putin, however, can still see your point of view. All I know is that this is going to be a long war between what is right and what is wrong and we are now at a point where we have to pick which side we are on. I believe that the Multi polar world is right.
I'm disappointed. ******* You condemn the Russian Federation for causing "a huge disaster." ******* Has there ever been a war that wasn't a disaster? A valid question would be, "Did the Russian Federation have any credible options?" If you truly believe they did, please supply ONE realistic, practical, effective Russian option. A few reminders: (1) The US & NATO ignored, or summarily dismissed, two draft treaties put forward by the Russians, before 2/24/22. They gave no substantive response whatsoever. Not a single serious counter-proposal. (Correct me, if I'm wrong.) (2) Ukraine and its European partners failed to fulfill their pledges in the Minsk Agreements. Thanks to Merkel & Budanov, we now know that Ukraine, France and Germany cynically used the agreements to build up the Ukrainian military into one of the most powerful armed forces in Europe. (3) The OSCE recorded a dramatic increase in Ukrainian shelling of the Donetsk and Lugansk oblasts in the days preceding Russia's special military operation. ******* Can you deny that the situation was threatening for the Russian Federation, and its future? It was more than "provocative," to say the least. Given 30 years of bad-faith US/NATO "diplomacy," Russia had no viable alternative, and, with noticeable reluctance, they took military action. People more qualified than you or I have carefully considered what choice Russian leadership had, other than to capitulate. Your readers should consult them, especially Ray McGovern.
Oliver Boyd-Barrett. MAY 24, 2023: https://oliverboydbarrett.substack.com/p/russian-options **** Ray McGovern. May 22, 2023: https://raymcgovern.com/2023/05/22/did-putin-have-other-options-on-ukraine/ ******* Finally, there had been an eight-year, ongoing, disaster in the Donbas. Do you discount that disaster because it wasn't "huge"? ******* Let me be clear -- I respect your reporting. It's diligent and honest. But I think your analysis on this critical issue -- whom should we BLAME? -- is seriously flawed. I think your reasoning is sincere, but faulty. I hope you'll re-think your condemnation of Russia, and I hope you'll continue to do first-rate gathering of news and information. Thank you.
Very reminiscent of WWI. a disaster of diplomacy and leadership on BOTH sides. While young Ukrainians and Russians are slaughtered. End this war!!
Great article with an important thesis. It swayed my own thoughts on this matter.
I think many analysts or pundits fail to understand (not needing to agree, but *understand*) the actual psychological/political reality that Russians live in. They watched their country picked clean like a dead carcass by the West after the fall of the Soviet Union, then watched as they clawed their way back to some semblance of prosperity the brazen breaking of promises that NATO would not expand, only to watch the noose being placed around their neck and slowly tightened. No one is defending Putin, but rather the obvious and understandable response that any country, especially one like Russia, would have to these continuing provocations and threats. The fact that the West has failed to understand this is their problem and sadly, and in many respects ironically, will lead to their inevitable demise as the weaponization of the U.S. dollar will cause a similar Soviet Union economic collapse of their economies. This is what late-stage capitalism (the Rules Based Order) has inevitably brought, the consumption of the coffers of the state until it is eventually broke and dead.
Admittedly I haven't watched all of Tucker's interview, but from what I've seen and other's opinions, such as yours, I can safely say politicians everywhere are the same.
There are those who valorize war and those who don't. If those who valorize war can't justify the US/Ukraine position, they're obviously going to take the other side because the consistent principle is not that X side is in the right, but that war is a legitimate first-line reaction to a threat on territory. Something similar happens in the Israeli-Palestine conflict.