Natylie Baldwin's Blog, page 115

Yves Smith: kraine End Game: Putin and Medvedev Discuss Maps, Putting Kiev on the Menu

By Yves Smith, Naked Capitalism, 11/20/23

Yves Smith is creator of the influential blog, Naked Capitalism, a top ranked economics and finance blog with over 250,000 unique visitors each month. She is the author of ECONned: How Unenlightened Self Interest Undermined Democracy and Corrupted Capitalism. Smith has been working in and around the financial services industry since 1980 as an investment banker, management consultant, and corporate finance advisor. Smith has appeared, on CNBC, CNN, and FOX Business News, and has written over 40 articles in venues such as The New York Times, Slate, and the Christian Science Monitor. She lives in Manhattan.

Putin and Medvedev recently made statements that took an expansive view of what “Russian lands” in Ukraine amounted to. At least as far as Putin is concerned, what he said at the November 3 meeting with members of the Civic Chamber is, philosophically, not all that different than the sort of historical observations Putin had made before. Nevertheless, both Ukrainian Pravada and Alexander Mercouris regarded the Putin remarks as potentially significant, and Medevedev reiterating them would seem to confirm that take. And both suggested that Kiev might wind up as part of Russia. From Medvedev, who loves trolling Western officials:

Now admittedly, Ukraine has plenty of reason to be jumpy, Putin was arguably just ringing the changes on favored themes before a relevant audience, and Medvedev was putting on his usual tough cop hat. Or perhaps both Russian leaders are trying to get Ukraine and the West to understand that Russia will control the end-game and reset their views as to what that could amount to.

Regardless of whether these remarks represent a meaningful shift, they serve as a reminder that Russia is on track to take a maximalist stance in terms of territorial acquisition. For instance, even Russia-friendly commentators wondered if Russia would take Odessa. Most now seem to see that as a given and are adding more sections of Ukraine as potential acquisitions. But as we flagged from the very outset, Russia could lose the peace by not coming up with a good solution as to what to do about Western Ukraine.

So does the renewed talk about Ukraine being an artificial construct carved out of Russia, and of Ancient Rus? Or is this just posturing, to make those paying attention less unhappy about the endgame, to act as if Russia has serious designs on parts of Western Ukraine so that when Russia integrates less into Russia, that the West can claim a face saving success?

Ukraine’s Appallingly Poor Prospects

Things are so bad it is hard to know where to begin.

Big Serge recently posted a fine, detailed account of why it was vanishingly unlikely that Ukraine would achieve its aims of pushing Russia back to Ukraine’s 1991 borders. Admittedly, hindsight is 20/20. At the start of the war, many thought, including many in Russia, that the shock and awe sanctions would cripple Russia, ideally lead to Putin’s ouster or at least severely destabilize Russian leadership, and undermine industrial, particularly military, output. The West also believed what is now clear was its own nonsense, that Russia had a poorly armed and led military, when it was was the US and NATO that had optimized their forces to fight insurgents, and had gotten very good at building super expensive, fussy weapons systems that didn’t necessarily perform all that well when tested. Even worse, it still has not been adequately acknowledged that Russia is ahead in many critical categories, such as air defense, hypersonic missiles, and signal jamming.

What is striking about the current state of play is not simply that Ukraine is losing the war with Russia, and it’s just a matter of time before Russia dictates terms, but that the Ukraine government is acting in ways that benefits the Russian military, to the destruction of what is left of its society and economy.

Militarily, Ukraine is approaching a catastrophic condition. That does not mean a collapse is imminent; key variables include whether the Ukraine military leadership revolts against Zelensky and how hard Russia pushes into growing Ukraine weakness. Russia may prefer to go slowly (mind you, it is making a concerted effort to crack the well fortified Avdiivka1), not just to reduce losses of its troops, but also to more throughly bleed out Ukraine and give the West time to adjust psychologically to Ukraine’s prostration.

Another factor that bears repeating is that Russia knows well this is a war against NATO. That will make the eventual defeat more consequential, even if the US and its minions come up with a face-saving pretense, like Putin was going march all the way to Paris (or Poland) and they succeeded in stopping that. That is one aspect that Big Serge gives short shrift: that this was a messy coalition war, which meant that for Ukraine to message success often trumped realistic assessments (how often was Russia just about to run out of missiles? Or having to raid washing machines for chips?). So not only were Ukraine’s backers not making enough weaponry to keep up with Russia’s output (which Russia then kept increasing), it was not the right equipment. Ukraine first stripped NATO cupboards bare of old Soviet style gear, which their troops were trained to handle. They then got a hodge podge of Western materiel, which they were often not well trained enough to handle proficiently, plus the mix of weaponry created a logistical nightmare. Scott Ritter argued that so many different types of equipment put Ukraine in a worse position.

And that’s before getting to poorly (barely) trained forces. Depending on how you are counting, Ukraine is on its third or fourth army. A recent story in Time Magazine serves as one-stop shopping for the deteriorating state of its forces and its difficulty in replenishing losses. The average age at the start of the war (30 to 35, due in part to a demographic dearth of men in their 20s) is now up to 43. And:

Now recruitment is way down. As conscription efforts have intensified around the country, stories are spreading on social media of draft officers pulling men off trains and buses and sending them to the front. Those with means sometimes bribe their way out of service, often by paying for a medical exemption. Such episodes of corruption within the recruitment system became so widespread by the end of the summer that on Aug. 11 Zelensky fired the heads of the draft offices in every region of the country.

The decision was intended to signal his commitment to fighting graft. But the move backfired, according to the senior military officer, as recruitment nearly ground to a halt without leadership. The fired officials also proved difficult to replace, in part because the reputation of the draft offices had been tainted. “Who wants that job?” the officer asks. “It’s like putting a sign on your back that says: corrupt.”

A new CNN article also discusses Ukraine’s manpower problems, but weirdly tries to spin Ukraine as having headroom by not having yet gone to full conscription. But it does point out that Ukraine has imposed martial law and restricts travel

Ukraine’s military was about 15% female as of 2020, and recent rule changes allowed for conscription of women with medical and pharmacy training, so recent claims that Ukraine is conscripting women look largely to be misrepresentations of existing policy. However, it may still be that Ukraine is using more women in combat roles of late: Dima of Military Summary reported this week of seeing a video of a trench with dead women soldiers in it.

Experts have argued that even with diminishing levels of equipment and shells, that absent a revolt or surrender by the military, Ukraine could keep up a fight for a while. The West, after all, is probably capable of sending in materiel at some level. But the manpower, particularly trained manpower, problem is only going to get worse. And it’s now acknowledged in the Western press as pretty bad.

There’s been much less discussion of the Ukraine economy, which is set to go off a more dramatic cliff than its combat capability. Western journalists go almost entirely to Kiev, and then likely only near government buildings and foreign-official venues (tony restaurants) and so have little feel for day to day life. The reporters who do venture further afield are going mainly to combat areas. We need to do a bit more digging and give a fuller report, but it doesn’t take a lot of effort to work out that the near and long-term prospects for Ukraine are terrible, and it was staring out as the poorest and most corrupt country in Europe.

Ukraine is facing a demographic disaster, as Moon of Alabama and others have chronicled. It already had a dearth of young adults due to a birth collapse (similar to what Russia suffered) in the 1990s. It’s no secret that many Ukrainians have fled for Europe and the majority are not expected to come back. Moreover, that population is also likely to skew young. Douglas Macgregor had said that his sources estimate that Ukraine is down from a pre-war population of 43 million to 19 million in the territories the government in Kiev controls. And the scuttlebutt is Zelensky, to keep the fight up, is looking to or has actually started throwing more young people into the meat grinder, by tightening up on essential employment and college exemptions.

And keep in mind that Ukraine is also suffering a high level of debilitation among war survivors. The Wall Street Journal reported months ago that orders for prosthetics might be as high as 50,000. That was before the famed counteroffensive got going.

As we pointed out and the Western press has also been acknowledging, Ukraine has not done a very good job of repairing its grid after the Russian attacks last fall and winter, to the degree it may fall over in certain areas under higher winter loads. Some sources have suggested the repair funds were partly looted. That may be true. But we’ve also pointed out that Ukraine is using Soviet gear and has been exhausting stocks of spared among former Warsaw Pact members. No one is going to set up new factories to do a very large but limited run of various components for Ukraine’s rebuilding. That means that any of the areas that have suffered critical damage that can no longer get replacements from the West will find Russia controls their reconstruction.

Ukraine tax receipts have collapsed as defense spending has spiked. Ukraine projected a budget deficit of $38 billion in March. Given optimistic assumptions about its super duper counteroffensive, one has to think that forecast was similarly optimistic. Set that against two stopgap spending bills with no Ukraine funding and Europe saying loudly that it can’t fill the US money gap. I have no idea what the lag is between allocation approvals and cash actually arriving in Ukraine official coffers, but one would have to think the US till is about to be emptied. And Ukraine will crash from its already fallen level of functioning. In Russia even during its mass privatizations, loss of services and economic/demographic decline, some critical public servants kept working for no or little compensation. Putin made a point of giving teachers their back pay in his early years as President. How much social cohesion is there in Ukraine, particularly after so many have already abandoned it?

Also keep in mind Ukraine had a nominal GDP in 2022 of $160 billion on a nominal basis, nearly $380 billion on a PPP basis. Those figures are likely exaggerated by including the parts of Ukraine that voted to join Russia. So even looking at these results in the most generous way possible, Ukraine is running a deficit of 10% of GDP, when it already has inflation of 30%. Big deficits after a sudden reduction of productive capacity is a textbook prescription for hyperinflation.

We’ve also pointed out the Western reconstruction talk was a bunch of hooey, since private sector types do infrastructure deals only as exercises in looting (we’ve posted on how new-build deals go bankrupt). So at best, this initiative was set to be an exercise in strip mining what was left of Ukraine. That’s now been indirectly confirmed by the reconstruction czar Penny Pritzker herself. From Ukrainska Pravda via Yahoo in Imagine there may be no help: conclusions of US Special Representative’s visit to Ukraine:

Penny Pritzker, US Special Representative for Ukraine’s Recovery, has suggested that officials imagine how the country could survive economically without US aid during her first visit to Ukraine….

Ukrainska Pravda stated that her first visit to Ukraine had left “a rather disturbing aftertaste in many government offices” here.

One of the sources, familiar with the course of Pritzker’s meetings, said that she tried to “lead [them] to the idea” of how Ukraine could survive economically without American aid.

Quote from the source: “At the meetings, Penny tried to get people to think, like, let’s imagine that there is no American aid: what do you need to do over the next year to make sure that your economy can survive even in this situation? And it really stressed everyone out.”

More details: Andrii Hunder, the president of the American Chamber of Commerce in Ukraine, told Ukrainska Pravda that Pritzker’s main question during her visit and meetings with businesses was “What hinders success and who hinders it?”

The UP article reads that perhaps the strongest concern among most people who interacted with Biden’s representative was her call not to wait for Western assistance, but to seek areas of growth as if it wouldn’t be coming.

Does the Russian Map Talk Represent New Thinking About the End Game?

John Mearsheimer has argued that Russia wants a dysfunctional rump Ukraine. The same way the US, NATO and Ukraine obliged Russia’s war of attrition game plan by continuing to throw ever weaker forces against Russian lines, so to have they managed to do even more damage to Ukraine’s economy that the war already would have done by pumping up the military and government with support it could not maintain for the long haul, and then withdrawing it abruptly.

However, even though Russia looks like it will eventually impose its will on Ukraine, Russia still faces constraints. The more of Ukraine Russia decides to incorporate, the more it will have to rebuild. Those efforts would compete with another Putin initiative, announced early in the SMO, of greatly improving public amenities in remote areas (I envision manufacturing and mining towns in the hinterlands). Russia is also already facing labor shortages. To some degree, it might be able to redeploy men now working in manufacturing, particularly arms related, to reconstruction. But Russia may face labor constraints on how quickly it can restore infrastructure and buildings.

Putin and his inner circle likely also recognize the risk and cost of tying to hold areas where Russia is not welcome. Putin even said words to that effect early on. Putin also seems to value referendums as validating integrating territory into Russia. These would argue, all things being equal, for limiting the parts of Ukraine that are candidates for integration to ones with a solidly ethnic Russian majority.

To look at an overlapping set of consideration, ever since the Munich Security Conference, Putin has been trying to get a hostile Europe and US to acknowledge and respect Russia’s security needs. So what territorial end state is optimal, or alternatively, the least bad compromise, particularly given that ex Hungary and Belarus, Russia would continue to have hostile neighbors to its west?

This is why both Putin and Medvedev suggesting Kiev might be part of the equation would seem to be a significant shift. There are lots of maps of electoral results that Western pundits have used as proxies for ethnic Russian versus ethnic Ukrainian representation. This one from the Washington Pos is indicative. You can see Kiev is most assuredly in a European-leaning part of the country, as if that were in doubt:

But in Putin’s November 3 speech, he described long form as to how Russia has claims on “Ancient Rus” and that would seem to include Kiev2:

Contrast this with Medvedev’s not-exactly-a-joke earlier proposal:

Admittedly, Putin has said repeatedly, such as in his 2021 article, On the Historical Unity of Russians and Ukrainians, that Russians and Ukrainians are one people and the recent divisions were engineered to facilitate control. But it’s going to be hard to put the discord genie back in the bottle.

One guess is that Russia has decided it eventually has to take, or ideally, find some other way to subdue Kiev as the administrative center of Ukraine. But what does it do then? Even if Russia is able to create a puppet state, how does it exercise enough control without it becoming a governance and financial albatross? Remember, Kiev is a physically sprawling city of 3 million, straddling the Dnieper. It would be hard to secure it against the will of its inhabitants….unless, say, even more could be encouraged to decamp.

But it seems any other way, with rump Ukraine entering into some sort of victor’s peace with Russia, is ripe for the West trying to undo that. Perhaps (as we and John Helmer have suggested) Russia creates a particularly impoverished and very low population buffer zone (one way is by de-electrifying it) as a DMZ of sorts.

Again, at a minimum Russia’s leadership recognizes it has ever more degrees of freedom in terms of what Ukraine’s end state might be. And I may not be imaginative enough. But I don’t see how things have gotten much better regarding the potentially festering problem of western Ukraine. Perhaps there have been better remedies bandied about by Russian pundits and pols that have not gotten coverage here. Any reader intel or informed speculation very much welcomed.

Intervention: America

Link here.

Mischa Paullin is a satirist and producer for the Jimmy Dore Show.

Ben Aris: Putin holds a third oligarch meeting

By Ben Aris, Intellinews, 11/17/23

Russian President Vladimir Putin held a late-night oligarch meeting on November 16 where dozens of Russia’s top oligarchs expressed anxiety over a wave of nationalisations since the start of the war in Ukraine just under two years ago, Vedomosti reports.

As reported by bne IntelliNews, there has been a tsunami of M&A deals in the last year, as leading Russian companies and people close to the government have snapped up the businesses of departing multinationals. Amongst the victims of forced takeovers have been some leading Russian companies like Tinkoff bank and Yandex that have been acquired, or are being acquired, by state-owned businesses of people close to the Kremlin.

This is the third time that Putin has called in Russia’s business elite for a meeting. The first was held on July 28 just after he took office for the first time in 2000, where the president famously made the pact: keep what you got but stay out of politics.

Oil tycoon Mikhail Khodorkovsky famously reneged on that deal and was arrested in 2003, convicted of fraud in May 2005 and spent the next nine years in a Russian labour camp. Putin held a second oligarch meeting shortly after Khodorkovsky’s arrest where he added to the terms of the unwritten agreement, “… and use your wealth for the betterment of the country,” ushering in the “ZAO Kremlin” economic model. For several years Putin held one-on-one meetings with leading businessmen, who had to present their investment plans. Putin, acting more like a CEO than a president, would then “explain” how those plans could be adjusted to dovetail with the Kremlin’s own development plans.

ZAO Kremlin was a failure as the oligarchs continued to buy influence and pursue their own goals. In one famous incident at the end of this era Putin flew to the mono-city of Pikalyovo in 2009 and publicly humiliated a top oligarch Oleg Deripaska who had a factory there where the workers had not been paid for months. Putin, playing on the anger of protesting workers in the town, forced Oleg Deripaska, a top metals tycoon and once Russia’s richest man and a close Kremlin insider, to sign a contract for supplies to help idle factories restart operations on live TV. The coup de grace was Putin’s venomous comment: “Give me back my pen” after Deripaska had signed the deal, but walked off the pen he had been given by Putin.

Putin abandoned trying to co-op the oligarchs into his programme to develop the economy and focused more on containing their avarice, turning instead to the stoligarchs, the small group of state-sponsored oligarchs that were personal friends of Putin’s and came to control a fifth of the Russian economy. The rest of the oligarchs were left largely alone to run their business in the privately owned part of the economy, managed by the liberal economics team, headed by former Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin and his protegees.

The details of the third meeting, held between 10am and midnight on November 16 remain vague, as few of those that attended where willing to talk, but leading Russian business daily Vedomosti reports that one of the topics of conversation was the rising anxiety amongst Russia’s captains of industry over the Kremlin’s aggressive policy of taking control of some of Russia’s biggest businesses.

At the meeting with dozens of Russian business leaders they complained of the increasing number of nationalisations that have occurred since the invasion of Ukraine, according to anonymous sources cited by Vedomosti.

The sources highlighted the trend of state seizures of private businesses over the past year and a half as “frightening” and expressed alarm. While officials attempted to address the 80 business mens’ concerns during the two-hour meeting, participants left with the impression that the Kremlin would also raise taxes for increased war spending, rather than tightening fiscal policies, and that would also cause them problems.

The stated purpose of the meeting was to discuss ways to “improve Russia’s investment climate” in the face of extreme Western sanctions and create conditions for companies transferring assets to Russian jurisdiction from “unfriendly” countries. However, the meeting can be characterised as yet another addition to Putin’s pact with the oligarchs: “… and pay more taxes to support the war effort or I will take your companies away after all.”

Prominent attendees at the meeting included Sberbank CEO German Gref and Russian Railways head Oleg Belozerov, who are both stoligarchs identified in bne IntelliNews’ 2016 cover article. Also in attendance were Kamaz head Sergei Kogogin, as well as government officials like presidential economic advisor Maxim Oreshkin, First Deputy Prime Minister Andrey Belousov, and Economics Minister Maxim Reshetnikov.

Russian Finance Minister Anton Siluanov has been working hard to avoid raising taxes to fund the war, where state spending has been ballooning as Putin clearly is preparing for a long war.

The sanctions were designed to starve the Kremlin of funds to fuel its war machine and that goal has clearly failed. After reporting deep twin deficits in December 2022 and January 2023, the economy has made a strong recovery and the economy is on course to turn in 2.2% growth this year, while most of the rest of Europe is teetering on the edge of recession. “The worst is over”, declared Prime Minister Mikhail Mishustin at an economic conference in October. The realisation that sanctions have failed to do enough damage to Russia to end the war quickly is starting to sink in as epitomised by a Wall Street Journal editorial on November 16 entitled “It’s Time to End Magical Thinking About Russia’s Defeat”, which admits sanctions have failed.

“At the front line, there are no indications that Russia is losing what has become a war of attrition. The Russian economy has been buffeted, but it is not in tatters. Putin’s hold on power was, paradoxically, strengthened following Yevgeny Prigozhin’s failed rebellion in June. Popular support for the war remains solid, and elite backing for Putin has not fractured,” the Wall Street Journal wrote.

Russia has survived the first two years of a proxy war against the West, but analysts are unanimous that the sanctions will tell over the longer term. Putin’s third oligarch meeting was all about getting ready for the problems to come, not the problems he already has to cope with.

Russia has already transformed from an open, largely private sector economy with an open current account, to a closed system where the state’s share and interference in the economy has rapidly escalated.

The threat of nationalisation is seen as a component of Russia’s approach to punishing countries that have seized Russian [assets] in the rest of Europe, but well connected opportunistic entrepreneurs are also making use of the war chaos and the complete shake up nearly ever sector to enrich themselves and establish new empires, as bne IntelliNews reported in Russia’s new business elite.

Lee Fang: NewsGuard’s For-Profit Censorship Model Merges Government and Corporate Power

Photo by Markus Winkler on Pexels.com

By Lee Fang, Substack, 11/15/23

In an exchange that came to light in the “Twitter Files” revelations about media censorship, Crovitz, former publisher of the Wall Street Journal, touted his product, NewsGuard, as a “Vaccine Against Misinformation.” His written pitch highlighted a “separate product” – beyond an extension already on the Microsoft Edge browser – “for internal use by content-moderation teams.” Crovitz promised an out-of-the-box tool that would use artificial intelligence powered by NewsGuard algorithms to rapidly screen content based on hashtags and search terms the company associated with dangerous content.

How would the company determine the truth? For issues such as COVID-19, NewsGuard would steer readers to official government sources only, like the federal Centers for Disease Control. Other content-moderation allies, Crovitz’s pitch noted, include “intelligence and national security officials,” “reputation management providers,” and “government agencies,” which contract with the firm to identify misinformation trends. Instead of only fact-checking individual forms of incorrect information, NewsGuard, in its proposal, touted the ability to rate the “overall reliability of websites” and “’prebunk’ COVID-19 misinformation from hundreds of popular websites.”

NewsGuard’s ultimately unsuccessful pitch sheds light on one aspect of a growing effort by governments around the world to police speech ranging from genuine disinformation to dissent from officially sanctioned narratives. In the United States, as the Twitter Files revealed, the effort often takes the form of direct government appeals to social media platforms and news outlets. More commonly the government works with through seemingly benign non-governmental organizations – such as the Stanford Internet Observatory – to quell speech it disapproves of. 

Or it pays to coerce speech through government contracts with outfits such as NewsGuard, a for-profit company of especially wide influence. Founded in 2018 by Crovitz and his co-CEO Steven Brill, a lawyer, journalist and entrepreneur, NewsGuard seeks to monetize the work of reshaping the Internet. The potential market for such speech policing, NewsGuard’s pitch to Twitter noted, was $1.74 billion, an industry it hoped to capture.

Instead of merely suggesting rebuttals to untrustworthy information, as many other existing anti-misinformation groups provide, NewsGuard has built a business model out of broad labels that classify entire news sites as safe or untrustworthy, using an individual grading system producing what it calls “nutrition labels.” The ratings – which appear next to a website’s name on the Microsoft Edge browser and other systems that deploy the plug-in – use a scale of zero to 100 based on what NewsGuard calls “nine apolitical criteria,” including “gathers and presents information responsibly” (worth 18 points), “avoids deceptive headlines” (10 points), and “does not repeatedly publish false or egregiously misleading content” (22 points), etc. 

Critics note that such ratings are entirely subjective – the New York Times, for example, which repeatedly carried false and partisan information from anonymous sources during the Russiagate hoax, gets a 100% rating. RealClearInvestigations, which took heat in 2019 for unmasking the “whistleblower” of the first Trump impeachment (while many other outlets including the Times still have not), has an 80% rating. (See the NewsGuard-RCI exchange over the whistleblower.) Independent news outlets with an anti-establishment bent receive particularly low ratings from NewsGuard, such as the libertarian news site Antiwar.com, with a 49.5% rating, and conservative site The Federalist, with a 12.5% rating.

As it stakes a claim to being the Internet’s arbiter of trust, the company’s site says it has conducted reviews of some 95% of news sources across the English, French, German, and Italian web. It has also published reports about disinformation involving China and the Ukraine-Russia and Israel-Hamas wars. The model has received glowing profiles in CNN and the New York Times, among other outlets, as a viable solution for fighting fake news. 

NewsGuard is pushing to apply its browser screening process into libraries, academic centers, news aggregation portals, and internet service providers. Its reach, however, is far greater because of other products it aims to sell to social media and other content moderation firms and advertisers. “An advertiser’s worst nightmare is having an ad placement damage even one customer’s trust in a brand,” said Crovitz in a press release touting NewsGuard’s “BrandGuard” service for advertisers. “We’re asking them to pay a fraction of what they pay their P.R. people and their lobbyists to talk about the problem,” Crovitz told reporters.

NewsGuard’s largest investor and the biggest conglomerate of marketing agencies in the world. Its clients include Pfizer, whose COVID vaccine has been questioned by some news outlets that have received low scores. 

NewsGuard’s BrandGuard tool provides an “exclusion list” deters advertisers from buying space on sites NewsGuard deems problematic. But that warning service creates inherent conflicts of interest with NewsGuard’s financial model: The buyers of the service can be problematic entities too, with an interest in protecting and buffing their image.

A case in point: Publicis Groupe, NewsGuard’s largest investor and the biggest conglomerate of marketing agencies in the world, which has integrated NewsGuard’s technology into its fleet of subsidiaries that place online advertising. The question of conflicts arises because Publicis represents a range of corporate and government clients, including Pfizer – whose COVID vaccine has been questioned by some news outlets that have received low scores. Other investors include Bruce Mehlman, a D.C. lobbyist with a lengthy list of clients, including United Airlines and ByteDance, the parent company of much-criticized Chinese-owned social media platform TikTok. 

NewsGuard has faced mounting criticism that rather than serving as a neutral public service against online propaganda, it instead acts as an opaque proxy for its government and corporate clients to stifle views that simply run counter to their own interests. 

The criticism finds support in internal documents, such as the NewsGuard proposal to Twitter, which this reporter obtained during Twitter Files reporting last year, as well as in government records and discussions with independent media sites targeted by the startup. 

And although its pitch to Twitter (now Elon Musk’s X) “never went anywhere,” according to Matt Skibinski, the general manager of NewsGuard, his company remains “happy to license our data to Twitter or any platform that might benefit.” Coincidentally (or not), X comes in for criticism in NewsGuard’s latest “misinformation monitor” headlined: “Blue-Checked, ‘Verified’ Users on X Produce 74 Percent of the Platform’s Most Viral False or Unsubstantiated Claims Relating to the Israel-Hamas War.”

Meanwhile, one of the sites targeted by NewsGuard earlier, Consortium News, has filed a lawsuit against it claiming “First Amendment violations and defamation.”

Beginning last year, users scanning the headlines on certain browsers that include NewsGuard were warned against visiting Consortium News. A scarlet-red NewsGuard warning pop-up said, “Proceed With Caution” and claimed that the investigative news site “has published false claims about the Ukraine-Russia war.” The warning also notifies a network of advertisers, news aggregation portals, and social media platforms that Consortium News cannot be trusted.

But Consortium News, founded by late Polk Award-winning investigative journalist Robert Parry and known for its strident criticism of U.S. foreign policy, is far from a fake news publisher. And NewsGuard, the entity attempting to suppress it, Consortium claims, is hardly a disinterested fact-checker because of federal influence over it. 

NewsGuard attached the label after pressing Consortium for retractions or corrections to six articles published on the site. Those news articles dealt with widely reported claims about neo-Nazi elements in the Ukrainian military and U.S. influence over the country – issues substantiated by other credible media outlets. After Consortium editors refused to remove the reporting and offered a detailed rebuttal, the entire site received a misinformation label, encompassing over 20,000 articles and videos published by the outlet since it was founded in 1995.

The left-wing news site believes the label was part of a pay-for-censorship scheme. It notes that Consortium News was targeted after NewsGuard received a $749,387 Defense Department contract in 2021 to identify “false narratives” relating to the war between Ukraine and Russia, as well as other forms of foreign influence.

Bruce Afran, an attorney for Consortium News, disagrees. “What’s really happening here is that NewsGuard is trying to target those who take a different view from the government line,” said Afran, He filed an amended complaint last month claiming that NewsGuard not only defamed his client, but also acts as a front for the military to suppress critical reporting. 

“There’s a great danger in being maligned this way,” Afran continued. “The government cannot evade the Constitution by hiring a private party.” 

Joe Lauria, the editor in chief of Consortium News, observed that in previous years, anonymous social media accounts had also targeted his site, falsely claiming a connection to the Russian government in a bid to discredit his outlet. 

“NewsGuard has got to be the worst,” said Lauria. “They’re labeling us in a way that stays with us. Every news article we publish is defamed with that label of misinformation.” 

Both Lauria and Afran said that they worry that NewsGuard is continuing to collaborate with the government or with intelligence services. In previous years, NewsGuard had worked with the State Department’s Global Engagement Center. It’s not clear to what extent NewsGuard is still working with the Pentagon. But earlier this year, Crovitz wrote an email to journalist Matt Taibbi, defending its work with the government, describing it in the present tense, suggesting that it is ongoing:

For example, as is public, our work for the Pentagon’s Cyber Command is focused on the identification and analysis of information operations targeting the U.S. and its allies conducted by hostile governments, including Russia and China. Our analysts alert officials in the U.S. and in other democracies, including Ukraine, about new false narratives targeting America and its allies, and we provide an understanding of how this disinformation spreads online. We are proud of our work countering Russian and Chinese disinformation on behalf of Western democracies.

The company has not yet responded to the Consortium News lawsuit, filed in the New York federal court. In May of this year, the Air Force Research Lab responded to a records request from journalist Erin Marie Miller about the NewsGuard contract. The contents of the work proposal were entirely redacted.  

Asked about the company’s continued work with the intelligence sector, Skibinski replied, “We license our data about false claims made by state media sources and state-sponsored disinformation efforts from China, Russia and Iran to the defense and intelligence sector, as we describe on our website.” 

Take the case of The Daily Sceptic, a small publication founded and edited by conservative English commentator Toby Young. As a forum for journalists and academics to challenge a variety of strongly held public-policy orthodoxies, even those on COVID-19 vaccines and climate change, The Daily Sceptic is a genuine dissenter. 

Last year, Young reached out to NewsGuard, hoping to improve his site’s 74.5 rating. 

In a series of emails from 2022 and 2023 that were later forwarded to RealClearInvestigations, NewsGuard responded to Young by listing articles that it claimed represent forms of misinformation, such as reports that Pfizer’s vaccine carried potential side effects. The site, notably, has been a strident critic of COVID-19 policies, such as coercive mandates. 

Anicka Slachta, an analyst with NewsGuard, highlighted articles that questioned the efficacy of the vaccines and lockdowns. The Daily Sceptic, for example, reported a piece casting COVID-19 lockdowns as “unnecessary, ineffective and harmful,” citing academic literature from Johns Hopkins University.

Rather than refute this claim, Slachta simply offered an opposing view from another academic, who criticized the arguments put forth by lockdown critics. And the Hopkins study, Slachta noted, was not peer-reviewed. The topic is still, of course, under serious debate. Sweden rejected the draconian lockdowns on schools and businesses implemented by most countries in North American and Europe, yet had one of the lowest “all-cause excess mortality” rates in either region. 

Young and others said that the issue highlighted by NewsGuard is not an instance of misinformation, but rather an ongoing debate, with scientists and public health experts continuing to explore the moral, economic, and health-related questions raised by such policies. In its response to NewsGuard’s questions about the lockdown piece, Young further added that his site made no claim that the Hopkins paper was peer-reviewed and added that its findings had been backed up by a paper from the National Bureau of Economic Research. 

Yet to NewsGuard, Young’s site evidently posed a misinformation danger by simply reporting on the subject and refusing to back down. Emails between NewsGuard and the Daily Sceptic show Young patiently responding to the company’s questions; he also added postscripts to the articles flagged by NewsGuard with a link to the fact checks of them and rebuttals of those fact checks. Young also took the extra step of adding updates to other articles challenged by fact-checking non-governmental organizations. “I have also added postscripts to other articles not flagged by you but which have been fact checked by other organisations, such as Full Fact and Reuters,” Young wrote to Slachta.

The remainder of this article requires a subscription to read.

Did the CIA Kill JFK? Glenn Greenwald Interviews Leading Expert David Talbot on Allen Dulles, Kennedy’s Assassination, & the Rise of America’s Secret Government

Link here.

JFK’s Quest for Peace – Chris Hedges Interviews Jeffrey Sachs About His New Book

Link here.

Big Serge: Russo-Ukrainian War: The Reckoning

By Big Serge, Substack, 11/15/23

The Russo-Ukrainian War has been a novel historical experience for a variety of reasons, and not only for the intricacies and technicalities of the military enterprise itself. This became the first conventional military conflict to occur in the age of social media and planetary cinematography (that is, the ubiquitous presence of cameras). This brought a veneer (though only a veneer) of immanence to war, which for millennia had unveiled itself only through the mediating forces of cable news, print newspapers, and victory steles.

For the eternal optimist, there were upsides to the idea that a high intensity war was slated to be documented in thousands of first-person view videos. Purely from the standpoint of intellectual curiosity (and martial prudence), the flood of footage from Ukraine offers insight into emerging weapons systems and methods and allows for a remarkable level of tactical-level data. Rather than waiting for years of agonizing dissection of after action reports to reconstruct engagements, we are aware in near real time of tactical movements.

Unfortunately, all the obvious downsides of airing a war live on social media were also in effect. The war instantly became sensationalized and saturated with fake, fabricated, or incorrectly captioned videos, cluttered with information that most people are simply not equipped to parse through (for obvious reasons, the average citizen does not have extensive experience differentiating between two post-Soviet armies using similar equipment and speaking similar, or even the same language), and pseudo-expertise.

More abstractly, the war in Ukraine was transformed into an American entertainment product, complete with celebrity wonder weapons (like Saint Javelin and the HIMARS), groan-inducing references to American pop culture, visits from American celebrities, and voiceovers from Luke Skywalker. All of this fit very naturally with American sensibilities, because Americans ostensibly love underdogs, and in particularly spunky underdogs who overcome extreme odds through perseverance and grit.

The problem with this favored narrative structure is that underdogs rarely win wars. Most major peer conflicts do not have the conventional Hollywood plot structure with a dramatic turning point and reversal of fortune. Most of the time, wars are won by the more powerful state, which is to say the state with the ability to mobilize and effectively apply more fighting power over a longer period of time. This has certainly been the case in American history – no matter how much Americans may long to recast themselves as a historical underdog, America has historically won its wars because it has been an exceptionally powerful state with irresistible and innate advantages over its enemies. This is nothing to be ashamed of. As General George Patton famously said: Americans love a winner.

Thus we arrived at a convolution situation where, despite Russia’s many obvious advantages (which in the end come down to a superior indigenous capacity to mobilize men, industrial output, and technology), it became “propaganda” to argue that Russia was going to achieve some sort of victory in Ukraine – that Ukraine would end the war having failed to re-attain its 1991 borders (Zelensky’s stated victory condition) and with the country in a wrecked state of demographic hollowing and material destruction.

At last, we seem to have reached a denouement phase, where this view – allegedly an artifact of Kremlin influence, but in reality the most straightforward and obvious conclusion – is becoming inescapable. Russia is a bigger fighter with a much bigger bat.

The case for Ukraine’s victory rested almost entirely on dramatic success in a summer counteroffensive, which was supposedly expected to smash its way through the Russian positions in Zaporizhia Oblast, knife to the Sea of Azov, sever Russia’s land bridge to Crimea, and place the entire underbelly of Russia’s strategic position in jeopardy. A whole host of assumptions about the war were to be tested: the supremacy of western equipment, Russia’s paucity of reserves, the superiority of Western-Ukrainian tactical methods, the inflexibility and incompetence of Russian commanders in the defense.

More generally – and more importantly – this was intended to prove that Ukraine could successfully attack and advance against strongly held Russian positions. This is obviously a prerequisite for a Ukraine strategic victory. If the Ukrainian armed forces cannot advance, then Ukraine cannot restore its 1991 boundaries and the war has transformed from a struggle for victory into a struggle for a managed or mitigated defeat. The issue ceases to be whether Ukraine will lose, and becomes a question only of how much…

Continue reading here.

Cara MariAnna: Israel Lobby’s Disastrous Domination

By Cari MariAnna, Consortium News, 11/14/23

“. . . the United States will not be able to deal with the vexing problems in the Middle East if it cannot have a serious and candid discussion of the role of the Israel lobby.” —John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt. 

2 NOVEMBER—Two weeks ago, as Israel continued bombing Gaza into a wasteland, the president of the United States sat with Israel’s prime minister at the start of an Israeli war cabinet meeting. Netanyahu had phoned Biden two days previously to request what The Times of Israel called a “solidarity visit.”

Much has passed since Biden’s visit to Israel. The atrocity of Israel’s indiscriminate military campaign in Gaza is now widely recognized as constituting a genocide. Principled non–Western nations—Bolivia, Chile, Columbia to date—began this week to sever relations with Tel Aviv or recall their ambassadors. The world order, as should be obvious, has been disrupted.

But questions remain. What does solidarity, as Biden pledges, mean when Israel is daily committing war crimes for all the world to see? Why is the U.S., in violation of international law and everything it claims to stand for, aiding and abetting Israel’s agenda of ethnic cleansing in Gaza? Why, bringing matters closer to home, is the United States prioritizing the interests and security of Israel above its own, while simultaneously damaging its credibility and authority abroad?

It isn’t possible to understand American conduct in West Asia at this critical moment without recognizing the role that the American Israel Public Affairs Committee plays in setting foreign policy. U.S. foreign policy aligns so congruently with AIPAC’s agenda that there is little distinction between them. In effect, the U.S. lacks an independent foreign policy that reflects its own security interests in that region of the world. 

At this critical moment of violence, human suffering, and chaos, we must recognize that AIPAC, an unelected, technically nongovernmental agency, exercises an excessive, wholly inappropriate influence in global affairs as well as in U.S. politics. This is very rarely mentioned in our corporate media, and we can read this silence as a measure of the organization’s unacceptable accumulation of power. AIPAC, it is time to conclude, must be broken. Peace in West Asia and a stable order elsewhere depend on this project. 

AIPAC’s influence on U.S. policy, domestic as well as foreign, has been considered many times. Most notably, there is the work of John Mearsheimer and Stephen Walt, whose 2008 book, The Israel Lobby and U.S. Foreign Policy, stands as the most extensive examination of AIPAC’s power we have to date. Their analysis is now more pertinent than ever. In the current context, given the magnitude of what is unfolding—given its potential impact on relationships among many different nations—we must recognize that AIPAC’s reach extends well beyond Washington or West Asia. Indeed, the committee’s influence now marks world affairs altogether. This is our disturbing new reality. 

With this reality in mind—a dangerous reality given the extremist character of this organization—let’s consider Biden’s recent visit to Israel and all that has followed from it. 

Biden has given two speeches since that war cabinet meeting, one in Tel Aviv on 18 October, the other upon returning to Washington, when he addressed the American public on 20 October. In each, the president reiterated all of the talking points and established dogma that have long characterized America’s relationship with Israel, all of which support Israeli priorities. Nothing new was offered—no moral clarity, no fresh vision of how to address the original moral crime committed against the Palestinians when their homeland was taken from them 75 years ago, a theft of land that accounts for the never-ending cycle of violence we witness once again.

Two factors explain Biden’s failure: First and obviously, this president isn’t capable of statesmanship of the magnitude required. Moreover, he professes a deep personal affinity for the Zionist vision—for Israel to seize all the lands of Biblical Palestine as its own—and no incentive to do anything other than align himself with Israel’s interest. More important and directly to my point, with Biden serving as an almost perfect example: No new thinking and no new policies are ever possible because of AIPAC’s stranglehold on U.S. elections, politics, and politicians. 

More important and directly to my point, with Biden serving as an almost perfect example: No new thinking and no new policies are ever possible because of AIPAC’s stranglehold on U.S. elections, politics and politicians. 

The world is a far more dangerous place, far more Palestinians have been killed, and the U.S. is far less secure, since Biden’s visit to Israel. AIPAC is more or less directly responsible for this.

It should not be difficult to miss the gravity, the peril indeed, of the post–Oct. 7 crisis in West Asia. The region threatens to explode, and there is no able leadership in the United States, in large part because its foreign policy has been shaped by a special-interest group that has worked for decades in behalf of another nation. 

Washington’s unthinking, pro–Israel bias has blinded U.S. policy elites such that no one in Washington, and certainly not Biden nor Secretary of State Antony Blinken, appears to understand that there is a seismic shift in global power taking place. 

U.S. security and standing in the world are suddenly more precarious than they have been the whole of its history. The U.S. is being damaged — is seriously damaging itself — by its continued unwavering support of a nation that is so clearly out of control and that has been recognized by many human rights organizations as an apartheid state. Supporting Israel is no longer in the best interest of the United States, if ever it was, and is becoming an increasing liability. 

We cannot any longer overlook the role of the American Israel Public Affairs Committee in all this. It bears considerable responsibility for this global upheaval and for the damage the U.S. sustains as it supports the nation AIPAC serves.

AIPAC & the 1953 Qibya Massacre  

Founded in 1954 as the American Zionist Committee for Public Affairs, AIPAC’s mission was at the start threefold: to advance a pro–Israel agenda within the U.S. government; to shape public opinion in support of Israel; to close ranks within the American Jewish community, so creating a monolithic and united Jewish front, by censoring and ostracizing any Jew who criticized Israel, no matter what Israel did. From the beginning, then, AIPAC’s mission was bound to be detrimental to U.S. democracy and policy alike. 

The pro–Israel lobby as we now have it emerged as a public relations response to a massacre of Palestinians in the village of Qibya 70 years ago last month. Doug Rossinow, an academic historian, described the events in “The dark roots of AIPAC, ‘America’s Pro-Israel Lobby,’” published March 6, 2018, in The Washington Post:

“. . . on Oct. 15, 1953, all hell broke loose. News spread that a special Israeli army unit had struck into the Jordanian-occupied West Bank and committed a massacre in the Palestinian village of Qibya, killing more than 60 civilians indiscriminately in retaliation for the murder of a Jewish woman and her two children in Israel on the night of Oct. 12.

The strike reflected Israeli policy. . . . Prime Minister David Ben–Gurion had fixed on a policy of reprisals — military assaults, intentionally disproportionate, on local Arab populations — as a response to any such attacks. After the Oct. 12 killings, Ben–Gurion and top colleagues chose nearby Qibya to suffer retribution.

Time magazine carried a shocking account of deliberate, even casual mass murder by Israeli soldiers at Qibya — ‘slouching . . . smoking and joking.’ The New York Times ran extensive excerpts from a U.N. commission that refuted Israeli lies about the incident.”

The response from Washington was immediate: Aid to Israel was suspended. At the U.N. Security Council, the United States supported a censure of Israel. This was during President Dwight Eisenhower’s first term in the White House. Today, any American response of this kind to Israeli violations of international law is inconceivable — testimony to AIPAC’s success.

Ben-Gurion’s policy of asymmetrical retaliation is precisely what is now happening in Gaza. It is the enactment of a longstanding Israeli strategy of inflicting maximum casualties on Palestinians to crush them into submission or, failing that, eliminate them completely. America, it must be noted, remains silent.

This is the historical context that AIPAC has successfully erased from public discourse and memory. In direct consequence, when Hamas launched its attack on Oct. 7, Israel was able to deny that their own policies helped to create the conditions that set the stage for the Hamas strike.

This intentional erasure of history enables the Israel lobby to twist public perceptions so that American sympathy lies with Israel while the suffering of the Palestinians remains largely invisible. 

Swearing Fealty 

AIPAC’s influence on the U.S. political process and within party politics is well-known and well-documented. No one makes it into the White House, and very few are elected to Congress, without swearing fealty to Israel and the American Israel lobby. Few politicians last in political office without accommodating the demands of AIPAC.

The lobby spends millions of dollars promoting its favored candidates while aggressively undermining any who express criticism of Israel or concern for the plight of Palestinians. 

Obviously, U.S. foreign and domestic policies should reflect and respond to American security interests and the needs of its people, and not the needs of Israel. It is therefore not surprising that a key feature of AIPAC propaganda is the fiction that U.S. interests naturally align with those of Israel.

Reinforcing this, AIPAC routinely flies new congressional representatives to Israel, where they meet with government officials in a process of pro–Israel indoctrination to secure continuing U.S. political, financial, and military support. In reality, U.S. uncritical support of Israel has long enraged the Arab world, making the U.S. less safe, and was one of the motives behind the 9/11 attacks.

AIPAC’s reach extends deeply into the legislative and executive branches of U.S. government, U.S. think tanks, foreign policy elites, corporate media and academia — a phenomenon extensively researched and documented by Mearsheimer and Walt. In a working paper published in 2006 under the same name as their book and available here, the authors had this to say:

“. . . were it not for the lobby’s ability to work effectively within the America political system, the relationship between Israel and the United States would be far less intimate than it is today.”

Seventeen years later this reads like a gross understatement. The Israel lobby is effectively running U.S. foreign policy in West Asia and funneling billions of dollars to Israel in support of a racist Zionist agenda — a system of apartheid, according to the U.N. and Amnesty International — that weakens the United States, undermines our domestic policies and welfare, and destabilizes the entire region.

Here, again, are Mearsheimer and Walt: 

“If the lobby’s impact were confined to U.S. economic aid to Israel, its influence might not be that worrisome. Foreign aid is valuable, but not as useful as having the world’s only superpower bring its vast capabilities to bear on Israel’s behalf. Accordingly, the lobby has also sought to shape the core elements of U.S. Middle East policy. In particular, it has worked successfully to convince American leaders to back Israel’s continued repression of the Palestinians and to take aim at Israel’s primary regional adversaries — Iran, Iraq and Syria — as well as groups like Hezbollah.”

As we have it now, U.S. support for Israel’s brutal destruction of Gaza — its project of ethnic cleansing — for which the U.S. is now complicit in war crimes and genocide — is due largely to decades of AIPAC lobbying efforts, particularly in Congress. AIPAC’s influence is such that it has involved the U.S. in a revolting crime against humanity that will almost certainly undermine American security at home and abroad, as it threatens to expand into a regional conflict. No lobby should have this kind of power. 

It is very difficult to criticize Israel, and U.S. policy that favors Israel, for several reasons. First, media coverage of events in West Asia has long been slanted in Israel’s favor so that it is almost impossible to get unbiased information from mainstream news sources.

Related to this and as I have already mentioned, the historical context surrounding the conflict has been erased by the press and in public memory. Last, one of the more cynical strategies AIPAC employs is branding anyone who criticizes Israel an anti–Semitev— an accusation it habitually and obviously uses to censor and silence dissent.

Impeding a Resolution

All that I outline here has made it impossible to resolve the need for Palestinians to have a secure homeland, whether that is a one– or two-state solution. Until this fundamental issue is resolved, the entire region will remain unstable, Israelis will never be safe, Palestinians, denied basic human rights, will continue to suffer under Israeli apartheid, and the Palestinian resistance will continue its sporadic attacks — all of which undermines global stability and security.

For things to change the United States needs entirely new thinking, a new vision, an altogether new foreign policy agenda regarding the state of Israel and West Asia. This will only come to be when AIPAC loses the influence it currently holds over America’s elected officials and policy elites — and indeed at all levels in Washington, within corporate media, and academia — is broken.

AIPAC, it is time to conclude, must be broken. Peace in West Asia and a stable order elsewhere depend on this project. 

The way forward as I see it is twofold: 

First, a bright light must be kept focused on Israel’s war crimes and on its long-established policy of apartheid. 

Second, and related to this, the history that has been erased must be resurrected — the  history of Zionism, of the founding of Israel, and of the sustained and systemic violence perpetrated against the Palestinian people. 

Along with this, the U.S. must come to terms with the historical presence and influence of Christian Zionism, a movement that sustains AIPAC’s influence as it enables the expansion of illegal Israeli settlements. 

The project I describe is in no way easily accomplished. It will necessitate a relentless and sustained campaign: on social media, within independent journalism and within the political arena, a project capable of reaching deeply into American society and politics.

It is an effort each of us can take up according to our abilities and influence. Among other things, it will require time and courage, including the courage to risk accusations of anti–Semitism.

Ultimately, it may be that Israel’s conduct itself is what will eventually break AIPAC’s influence. People around the world, including in America, can see for themselves, now as clearly as they did after the Qibya massacre in 1953, that Israel’s behavior is not rational or just and that it constitutes an intentional program of ethnic-cleansing.

Above all else, America — and ordinary Americans — must regain a more balanced and critical perspective toward Israel, one that properly prevailed before the advent of AIPAC.

Cara MariAnna publishes a Substack newsletter,  Our Journey . She is a painter and has a Ph.D. in American Studies.

The original version of this article was published by The Floutist.

Glenn Greenwald: Exposing the Central Role of Joe Biden—Lifelong, Extremist Israel Defender—in the Ongoing Conflict. PLUS: Why Are Americans So Uniquely Provoked by Israel-Palestine?

Link here.

John Varoli: Interviewing Mr Zelensky: How Reuters Protects Him

By John Varoli, Substack, 11/10/23

John Varoli is a former foreign correspondent for New York Times, Bloomberg and Reuters TV. Trained as a U.S. foreign policy expert with a focus on Russia and Ukraine.

On Wednesday, I attended a Reuters conference in New York that gathered top CEOs and government officials to discuss global economic and technology issues. I attended as an energy expert. Alas, Reuters had a surprise guest — Vladimir Zelensky. Indeed, media support for Ukraine is a lucrative business.

His interview was conducted live by Reuters via video link. For about 20 minutes, Zelensky skillfully deceived his audience with a performance worthy of an Oscar. The mesmerized audience lapped up every word. They simply don’t know any better. But the journalists in the room knew better. And that’s a huge problem.

Reuters’ Editor-in-Chief asked the questions, all of them polite and easily answered. No one else was allowed to ask a question. I could dismiss this interview as access journalism and Reuters’ wish not to upset Zelensky. But hundreds of thousands of people have died and millions more forced from their homes in a conflict incited by NATO expansion and which was easily avoidable. Therefore, I need to speak out.

Not for a moment was Zelensky put in an uncomfortable position. One question gently touched on Ukraine’s “counteroffensive” without mentioning the massive losses of Ukrainian soldiers and NATO equipment; another question delicately brought up the issue of NATO support in light of the conflict in Gaza; and a third question inquired about what a Trump victory would mean for Ukraine (without mentioning the politically-motivated prosecution that Trump faces).

Even when the question concerned a potentially difficult topic — corruption in Ukraine — it was phrased to make Zelensky look like an anti-corruption crusader, even though 77% of Ukrainians blame him for rampant corruption. (Reuters really hadn’t seen this recent poll of Ukrainians?)

The interview ended with an insult to the Ukrainian people. “Can you tell us one thing that has made you laugh amid the tears of the past two years?” With a big smile on his face, Zelensky answered that his children and his dogs are his greatest joys.

“Sometimes I think that the best way would be if this planet would be the planet of dogs. Sometimes I don’t understand people. Crazy. Crazy people,” concluded Zelensky, as the audience joined him in a burst of laughter.

All the death and destruction is indeed a joke for Zelensky, who grows wealthy on this war as an international celebrity and NATO satrap. Far from the laughter, however, Zelensky’s nationalist regime has turned Ukraine into a dead zone where the funeral and cemetery business is booming; where anyone perceived as a threat to Zelensky’s rule is labeled a “Russian agent” and jailed or killed. Ukraine is a country of horrors where mothers and wives scream in anguish as hundreds of thousands of soldiers have returned home in boxes, if their bodies can even be found.

Ukraine faces a far superior enemy that dominates the skies, the sea and the ground. Several generations of Ukrainian men are being wiped out. A merciless, tyrannical Zelensky gleefully sends his men into a meat grinder. Of course, there is also the tremendous misery that Zelensky’s regime has brought on the people of the rebel Donbass region and Crimea, both of which want to be with Russia.

This conflict could have been avoided if only Zelensky and his Western masters had agreed to keep Ukraine neutral as was stated in the country’s constitution until December 2014; as well as respect the right to self-determination of the ethnic Russians in the Donbass and Crimea regions.

Ukraine’s population is now half of what it was before 2014, with millions scattered across the globe; its economy and industrial base wrecked, and lawlessness and corruption rampant. The country has no future. None whatsoever. This is Zelensky’s legacy. But Reuters, the most powerful news agency on the planet, is apparently not aware of these facts. Why? Because it doesn’t ask the right questions.

Well, since Reuters has trouble conducting a rigorous interview with Zelensky, I’m offering my assistance. Here are 16 questions that a professional and neutral journalist would have asked Zelensky:

Political freedom. Mr Zelensky, You’ve shut down opposition parties and jailed those who speak out against your rule. Dissidents have fled abroad to escape your brutal secret police, the SBU, heir to the KGB. You justify this repression by accusing the opposition of being “Russian agents”. How can you call Ukraine a “democracy” with such human rights abuses?Press freedom. Opposition and dissenting media have been shut down and journalists intimidated. What are you afraid of? Will you ever allow freedom of the press to return to Ukraine?Religious freedom. The Ukrainian Orthodox Church, which used to represent half of the country’s population, faces brutal persecution; priests are jailed and churches closed. You justify this heinous policy with accusations that the Church is under Kremlin control. In fact, the UOC’s only “sin” is calling for peace and Slavic unity. Do you plan to entirely dismantle the Church? And do you realize that this is a gross violation of EU and international law?Presidential elections. Do you plan to hold presidential elections? Please explain Why or Why not? And what do you think about your declining popularity and the rising popularity of General Zaluzhny?Palace intrigue. There’s evidence of infighting among the Ukrainian elite, especially in light of the recent murder of Zaluzhny’s assistant. Are you afraid that you might be removed from power in a violent coup by your own military? Cheering on a 98-year old Nazi murderer in Canada’s parliament Peace. You came to power in May 2019 on a platform of peace with Russia. About 80% of Ukrainians supported you on this. They wanted peace with Russia, with whom they are related by language, blood, culture, and religion. Today, hundreds of thousands of your men are dead; 22% of your land taken away. It didn’t have to be like this. You could have made a deal with Russia. How do you justify the carnage of the past 20 months?Nationalist extremism. Ukrainian nationalists, such as Azov Battalion, are very influential in Ukraine and glorify World War 2-era Nazi collaborators that slaughtered thousands of Jews and Poles. Why do you tolerate Nazi supporters? And why did you cheer for the 98-year old Nazi murderer Yaroslav Hunka when you visited Canada’s Parliament in September?Donbass and Crimea. You very well know that Donbass and Crimea are populated by ethnic Russians who want to join the Russian Federation. Why won’t you allow them freedom and the right to self-determination?Murder of civilians in Donbass. So, you claim that the people in rebel Donbass are still “Ukrainians”, but yet your forces constantly bomb their cities, such as Donetsk and Gorlovka, with banned cluster bombs. So, why do you kill people who you consider to be “Ukrainian citizens”?Brutal conscription. We’ve seen many videos of Ukrainians snatched off the streets by your press gangs and forcibly sent to the front. Why do you think many Ukrainians don’t want to fight for you and are resisting the draft? Zelensky truly deserves an Oscar for his acting Attacks on nuclear power plants. Many reports indicate that Ukraine is targeting nuclear reactors, such as the one in Zaporozhye and the one in the Kursk region. This is extremely reckless and dangerous. How do you justify such attacks?Battle of Avdeevka. This key fortress is clearly falling to the Russians. When it falls, what does this mean for Ukrainian forces? Will this lead to a total collapse of the Donbass front, as many experts predict?Worse case scenario. What is your plan if your eastern defenses collapse and the Russians push all the way to the Dnieper River — what will you do then? Will you flee the country and retreat to your villa in Miami? By the way, how much property do you and your family own outside of Ukraine?Bankrupt, devastated country. Most of your population has fled; economy destroyed; national bankruptcy on the horizon. How do you plan to rebuild Ukraine? Are you ready for years of hostility with Russia? Don’t you realize that neither Ukraine nor the West can afford years of conflict with Moscow, which has nearly unlimited resources?NATO expansion. Don’t you realize that NATO expansion into Ukraine is a death sentence for Ukraine? Moscow will never allow it. Also, is it true that in spring 2020 you were ready to make peace with Moscow, but then the British intervened and pushed you to end those talks?Detractors. The number of your detractors in the West is growing and they ridicule you as an ungrateful, annoying beggar. How do you feel about that?