All Things Russia & Ukraine

[dislaxxic]

PMM's follow up post on all that is wrong with Jeff Gerth's "reporting" on RussiaGate:

CJR's Error at Word 18

It took just 18 words into a 23,000-word series complaining about journalistic mistakes in the coverage of the investigation into Trump’s ties with Russia before Jeff Gerth made his first error.

And I’m spotting him the use of “collusion” at word 12.

Columbia Journalism Review published the series, in four parts, last week.

Gerth claimed that, “The end of the long inquiry into whether Donald Trump was colluding with Russia came in July 2019,” when Mueller testified to Congress.

There are multiple ways you might measure the end of the inquiry — on March 22, 2019 when Mueller delivered his report to Bill Barr; on May 29, 2019 when Mueller closed up shop the moment his team secured Andrew Miller’s grand jury testimony; on November 15, 2019, when a jury convicted Roger Stone; or the still undisclosed date when an ongoing investigation into whether Stone conspired to hack with Russia ended (a September 2018 warrant to Twitter seeking evidence of conspiracy, hacking, and Foreign Agent crimes, which was originally sealed in its entirety to hide from Stone the full scope of the investigation into him, was still largely sealed in April 2020).

None of those events happened in July 2019.

Gerth appears not to know about the ongoing investigation into Stone. He doesn’t mention it. He barely mentions Stone at all, just 205 words out of 23,000, or less than 1% of the entire series.

Trump also commuted the sentence of Roger Stone, a Trump associate, who was convicted on false-statement and obstruction charges related to his efforts in 2016 to serve as an intermediary between the campaign and WikiLeaks. Mueller “failed to resolve” the question of whether Stone had “directly communicated” with Julian Assange, the site’s founder, before the election, according to the Times.

In 2020, the 966-page report by the Senate intelligence panel went a little further. It said that WikiLeaks “very likely knew it was assisting a Russian intelligence influence effort” when it acquired and made public in 2016 emails from the DNC. A few months after the report was released, new information surfaced showing why the special counsel, with greater investigative powers than the Senate panel, couldn’t bring a case. The newly unredacted documents were obtained by BuzzFeed, via a Freedom of Information Act request. The Mueller team, the documents show, determined that while Russian hacking efforts were underway at the time of the releases by WikiLeaks in July 2016, “the Office did not develop sufficient admissible evidence that WikiLeaks knew of—or even was willfully blind to—that fact.” The Senate report also suggests Stone had greater involvement with the dissemination of hacked material released by WikiLeaks.

And those 205 words include mention of the WikiLeaks disclosure that came out in the same FOIA release that disclosed the referral of a conspiracy investigation involving Stone, so unlike other journalists who don’t know about the once-ongoing investigation into Stone (which is virtually all of them), Gerth should know about the Stone detail. He explicitly cites the FOIA release that first confirmed it.

On the one hand, this is an obscure detail, one few besides me have reported. On the other hand, the fact that DOJ was continuing to investigate Roger Stone for conspiring with Russia at such time as Barr was loudly and inaccurately making claims about the Mueller investigation is not only a critical detail for someone assessing the press coverage of the investigation, but it also undermines the entire premise of Gerth’s series.

Gerth seems to think that the fact that Mueller didn’t charge conspiracy has some bearing on the merit of reporting on Trump’s ties to Russia. Mueller did prove, via three guilty pleas, a judge’s order, and a jury verdict, that Trump’s foreign policy advisor, his National Security Adviser, his personal lawyer, his campaign manager, and his rat-heck were lying to hide their ties to the Russian operation, which Gerth only mentions serially over the course of the piece. But because Mueller developed evidence of, but did not charge, a conspiracy, Gerth treats the abundant inappropriate ties between Trump’s team and the Russian operation as a conspiracy theory invented by Hillary Clinton.

And for that reason, along with the suffocating number of other errors and misrepresentations, this series is more a symptom of what Gerth claims to combat, the degree to which coverage of the Russian investigation has been swamped by tribalist takes that only serve to increase polarization, rather than the cure he fancifully imagines he is offering. Indeed, I made the effort to wade through Gerth’s interminable series in significant part because it is such a delightful exemplar of everything “Russiagate,” that frenzy of screen-cap driven claims about a complex investigation chased by self-imagined contrarians who weren’t actually engaged in journalism. It replicates so many of the claims, and in some cases, the legal and factual errors that “Russiagate” propagandists have, that my list of questions for CJR might serve as a source document for others to understand what’s in the actual record.

..

[MDlaxfan76]

Hilarious that you are now on the Hersh bandwagon. He is nothing more than an over-the-hill investigative journalist who hasn't broken a big story in over 20 years and has been WRONG quite often since then on things are varied as the Skripal poisoning and the details of the death of bin Laden. When pressed for evidence, he never delivers.

Have you read his report ? It's a plausible story. Technically accurate in detail, like a Tom Clancy novel. No readily apparent holes, thus your tactic of discrediting the author, rather than refuting the details of the report. Biden's & Nuland's foolish braggadocio give it credence & made stories like this inevitable, but this story doesn't have any holes that make it obvious disinformation. Let's see what the Biden Admin comes up with to refute the story. Will they disprove it with substance or just attack the source, as you are. If it proves to be accurate, I'll be disappointed in Bill Burns if he went along with something this risky & provocative. It would help if some govt comes up with proof of a credible alternative explanation of who did it. Given Team Biden's PR bumbling of the China balloon "domain awareness gap", they don't have much more cred than Hersh. Maybe the impartial, unbiased 51 retired intel old pros will render an assessment.

Read the story. Unsourced (typical Hersh). No evidence otherwise. Government has already denied the story. So have the Norwegians who allegedly provided the plane to drop the sonar detonator.

Did you believe him on OBL, Skripal, JFK, Cheney on Iraq War?

Not too long ago,, they had the Brits doing the sabotage. Went nowhere

Of course, you choose to denigrate your own country while defending the Russians all because you don't like when a D is in charge. On brand for you. You sound more like Snowden every day.

Ted Cruz would have approved of it.. He isn't talking either.

I did not say I believed it. I said it's plausible & technically detailed & feasible. Much of the world will believe it unless we convincingly refute it because we are the most likely suspect, thanks to Biden's & Nuland's threats. We had the motive, the means & the opportunity. What would Russia gain by doing it ? If they want to stop the flow, they just close the valves, as they already had done. So long as a Nordstream existed, there was the temptation for the EUroburghers to start buying cheaper Russian gas again, financing Russia & undermining ongoing support for Ukraine.

Russia gets to pretend they didn't do it...they were and are trying to scare the Europeans...make them sweat (and shiver).

Moreover, they seed the disinformation that the US did it, sowing division...which has always been their primary objective with disinformation.

I don't find it particularly "plausible" that Biden would have green lighted such an operation, way, way, way too much risk of blowback.

He's had the opposite objective as the Russians, to build trust.
Which, at least IMO, he's (and the Admin has) done rather masterfully, albeit with the backdrop of Russian invasion, war crimes and obvious lying.

I don't see this crew as likely to unilaterally take such an action which could blow such trust.

Could a rogue CIA group do something like this?...well, mebbe 'possible' but again, very highly unlikely.

We need more transparency on the investigation of the underwater pipeline ruptures.
If the blast pattern on the ruptured pipes is outward, indicating an internal explosion, caused by explosive "pigs" sent through the pipeline, then Russia is the most likely suspect.

If the blast pattern indicates an external explosion caused by charges placed outside the pipeline, western suspects are most likely, with the US having the best capability. The ruptures are far from Russian waters in underwater areas closely monitored by Sweden & NATO allies.
The NATO exercise was perfect cover for such an operation.

The longer we wait in providing forensic evidence, the more likely the West & the US will be the prime suspects.

Nope, that's just a disinformation set-up.
It ain't either/or, though you're right that if there was clear evidence of an internal blast, that's likely to increase odds of Russia given logistical difficulty of anyone else doing so, but the obverse ain't accurate. Any spook worth their salt, trying to create a disinformation cover to blame the US or "West" would do it from the outside, not the inside.

[MDlaxfan76]

Russia's eastern offensive has begun.

https://www.understandingwar.org/backgr ... ary-8-2023

"The Wagner Group is reportedly resorting to more coercive tactics in its prison recruitment campaign, possibly in response to the campaign’s declining effectiveness."

[old salt]

Hilarious that you are now on the Hersh bandwagon. He is nothing more than an over-the-hill investigative journalist who hasn't broken a big story in over 20 years and has been WRONG quite often since then on things are varied as the Skripal poisoning and the details of the death of bin Laden. When pressed for evidence, he never delivers.

Have you read his report ? It's a plausible story. Technically accurate in detail, like a Tom Clancy novel. No readily apparent holes, thus your tactic of discrediting the author, rather than refuting the details of the report. Biden's & Nuland's foolish braggadocio give it credence & made stories like this inevitable, but this story doesn't have any holes that make it obvious disinformation. Let's see what the Biden Admin comes up with to refute the story. Will they disprove it with substance or just attack the source, as you are. If it proves to be accurate, I'll be disappointed in Bill Burns if he went along with something this risky & provocative. It would help if some govt comes up with proof of a credible alternative explanation of who did it. Given Team Biden's PR bumbling of the China balloon "domain awareness gap", they don't have much more cred than Hersh. Maybe the impartial, unbiased 51 retired intel old pros will render an assessment.

Read the story. Unsourced (typical Hersh). No evidence otherwise. Government has already denied the story. So have the Norwegians who allegedly provided the plane to drop the sonar detonator.

Did you believe him on OBL, Skripal, JFK, Cheney on Iraq War?

Not too long ago,, they had the Brits doing the sabotage. Went nowhere

Of course, you choose to denigrate your own country while defending the Russians all because you don't like when a D is in charge. On brand for you. You sound more like Snowden every day.

Ted Cruz would have approved of it.. He isn't talking either.

I did not say I believed it. I said it's plausible & technically detailed & feasible. Much of the world will believe it unless we convincingly refute it because we are the most likely suspect, thanks to Biden's & Nuland's threats. We had the motive, the means & the opportunity. What would Russia gain by doing it ? If they want to stop the flow, they just close the valves, as they already had done. So long as a Nordstream existed, there was the temptation for the EUroburghers to start buying cheaper Russian gas again, financing Russia & undermining ongoing support for Ukraine.

Russia gets to pretend they didn't do it...they were and are trying to scare the Europeans...make them sweat (and shiver).

Moreover, they seed the disinformation that the US did it, sowing division...which has always been their primary objective with disinformation.

I don't find it particularly "plausible" that Biden would have green lighted such an operation, way, way, way too much risk of blowback.

He's had the opposite objective as the Russians, to build trust.
Which, at least IMO, he's (and the Admin has) done rather masterfully, albeit with the backdrop of Russian invasion, war crimes and obvious lying.

I don't see this crew as likely to unilaterally take such an action which could blow such trust.

Could a rogue CIA group do something like this?...well, mebbe 'possible' but again, very highly unlikely.

We need more transparency on the investigation of the underwater pipeline ruptures.
If the blast pattern on the ruptured pipes is outward, indicating an internal explosion, caused by explosive "pigs" sent through the pipeline, then Russia is the most likely suspect.

If the blast pattern indicates an external explosion caused by charges placed outside the pipeline, western suspects are most likely, with the US having the best capability. The ruptures are far from Russian waters in underwater areas closely monitored by Sweden & NATO allies.
The NATO exercise was perfect cover for such an operation.

The longer we wait in providing forensic evidence, the more likely the West & the US will be the prime suspects.

Nope, that's just a disinformation set-up.
It ain't either/or, though you're right that if there was clear evidence of an internal blast, that's likely to increase odds of Russia given logistical difficulty of anyone else doing so, but the obverse ain't accurate. Any spook worth their salt, trying to create a disinformation cover to blame the US or "West" would do it from the outside, not the inside.

You are dismissing the technical difficulty in doing such an op, undetected, & the degree of surveillance in that area.
"Any spook worth their salt" could not pull it off.

[MDlaxfan76]

Hilarious that you are now on the Hersh bandwagon. He is nothing more than an over-the-hill investigative journalist who hasn't broken a big story in over 20 years and has been WRONG quite often since then on things are varied as the Skripal poisoning and the details of the death of bin Laden. When pressed for evidence, he never delivers.

Have you read his report ? It's a plausible story. Technically accurate in detail, like a Tom Clancy novel. No readily apparent holes, thus your tactic of discrediting the author, rather than refuting the details of the report. Biden's & Nuland's foolish braggadocio give it credence & made stories like this inevitable, but this story doesn't have any holes that make it obvious disinformation. Let's see what the Biden Admin comes up with to refute the story. Will they disprove it with substance or just attack the source, as you are. If it proves to be accurate, I'll be disappointed in Bill Burns if he went along with something this risky & provocative. It would help if some govt comes up with proof of a credible alternative explanation of who did it. Given Team Biden's PR bumbling of the China balloon "domain awareness gap", they don't have much more cred than Hersh. Maybe the impartial, unbiased 51 retired intel old pros will render an assessment.

Read the story. Unsourced (typical Hersh). No evidence otherwise. Government has already denied the story. So have the Norwegians who allegedly provided the plane to drop the sonar detonator.

Did you believe him on OBL, Skripal, JFK, Cheney on Iraq War?

Not too long ago,, they had the Brits doing the sabotage. Went nowhere

Of course, you choose to denigrate your own country while defending the Russians all because you don't like when a D is in charge. On brand for you. You sound more like Snowden every day.

Ted Cruz would have approved of it.. He isn't talking either.

I did not say I believed it. I said it's plausible & technically detailed & feasible. Much of the world will believe it unless we convincingly refute it because we are the most likely suspect, thanks to Biden's & Nuland's threats. We had the motive, the means & the opportunity. What would Russia gain by doing it ? If they want to stop the flow, they just close the valves, as they already had done. So long as a Nordstream existed, there was the temptation for the EUroburghers to start buying cheaper Russian gas again, financing Russia & undermining ongoing support for Ukraine.

Russia gets to pretend they didn't do it...they were and are trying to scare the Europeans...make them sweat (and shiver).

Moreover, they seed the disinformation that the US did it, sowing division...which has always been their primary objective with disinformation.

I don't find it particularly "plausible" that Biden would have green lighted such an operation, way, way, way too much risk of blowback.

He's had the opposite objective as the Russians, to build trust.
Which, at least IMO, he's (and the Admin has) done rather masterfully, albeit with the backdrop of Russian invasion, war crimes and obvious lying.

I don't see this crew as likely to unilaterally take such an action which could blow such trust.

Could a rogue CIA group do something like this?...well, mebbe 'possible' but again, very highly unlikely.

We need more transparency on the investigation of the underwater pipeline ruptures.
If the blast pattern on the ruptured pipes is outward, indicating an internal explosion, caused by explosive "pigs" sent through the pipeline, then Russia is the most likely suspect.

If the blast pattern indicates an external explosion caused by charges placed outside the pipeline, western suspects are most likely, with the US having the best capability. The ruptures are far from Russian waters in underwater areas closely monitored by Sweden & NATO allies.
The NATO exercise was perfect cover for such an operation.

The longer we wait in providing forensic evidence, the more likely the West & the US will be the prime suspects.

Nope, that's just a disinformation set-up.
It ain't either/or, though you're right that if there was clear evidence of an internal blast, that's likely to increase odds of Russia given logistical difficulty of anyone else doing so, but the obverse ain't accurate. Any spook worth their salt, trying to create a disinformation cover to blame the US or "West" would do it from the outside, not the inside.

You are dismissing the technical difficulty in doing such an op, undetected, & the degree of surveillance in that area.
"Any spook worth their salt" could not pull it off.

I'm not claiming it's easy, but yes, I am claiming that "any spook worth their salt", with the purpose of deception and disinformation, would want to make it look like it was someone other than them... better yet, their primary adversary...

Ya gotta be a dumb "military" type not to understand the actual purpose of the operation. But we're talking about spooks...not helo pilots or tank commanders...and their training is about deception.

As to technical difficulty, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to do it without detection...but someone did. No one detected. (far as we know).

Russia has these capabilities. That they pulled it off without detection is a major feat, and undoubtedly required some luck, but well within their capabilities.

BTW, there are all sorts of issues with detecting threats, of all sorts, unless you're specifically looking for them, with the necessary technology to do so.
In this case, gotta be looking for the craft that would have been required, it's not as if all craft are seen at all times...if they don't want to be...

And who was looking for this?

[Kismet]

Hilarious that you are now on the Hersh bandwagon. He is nothing more than an over-the-hill investigative journalist who hasn't broken a big story in over 20 years and has been WRONG quite often since then on things are varied as the Skripal poisoning and the details of the death of bin Laden. When pressed for evidence, he never delivers.

Have you read his report ? It's a plausible story. Technically accurate in detail, like a Tom Clancy novel. No readily apparent holes, thus your tactic of discrediting the author, rather than refuting the details of the report. Biden's & Nuland's foolish braggadocio give it credence & made stories like this inevitable, but this story doesn't have any holes that make it obvious disinformation. Let's see what the Biden Admin comes up with to refute the story. Will they disprove it with substance or just attack the source, as you are. If it proves to be accurate, I'll be disappointed in Bill Burns if he went along with something this risky & provocative. It would help if some govt comes up with proof of a credible alternative explanation of who did it. Given Team Biden's PR bumbling of the China balloon "domain awareness gap", they don't have much more cred than Hersh. Maybe the impartial, unbiased 51 retired intel old pros will render an assessment.

Read the story. Unsourced (typical Hersh). No evidence otherwise. Government has already denied the story. So have the Norwegians who allegedly provided the plane to drop the sonar detonator.

Did you believe him on OBL, Skripal, JFK, Cheney on Iraq War?

Not too long ago,, they had the Brits doing the sabotage. Went nowhere

Of course, you choose to denigrate your own country while defending the Russians all because you don't like when a D is in charge. On brand for you. You sound more like Snowden every day.

Ted Cruz would have approved of it.. He isn't talking either.

I did not say I believed it. I said it's plausible & technically detailed & feasible. Much of the world will believe it unless we convincingly refute it because we are the most likely suspect, thanks to Biden's & Nuland's threats. We had the motive, the means & the opportunity. What would Russia gain by doing it ? If they want to stop the flow, they just close the valves, as they already had done. So long as a Nordstream existed, there was the temptation for the EUroburghers to start buying cheaper Russian gas again, financing Russia & undermining ongoing support for Ukraine.

Russia gets to pretend they didn't do it...they were and are trying to scare the Europeans...make them sweat (and shiver).

Moreover, they seed the disinformation that the US did it, sowing division...which has always been their primary objective with disinformation.

I don't find it particularly "plausible" that Biden would have green lighted such an operation, way, way, way too much risk of blowback.

He's had the opposite objective as the Russians, to build trust.
Which, at least IMO, he's (and the Admin has) done rather masterfully, albeit with the backdrop of Russian invasion, war crimes and obvious lying.

I don't see this crew as likely to unilaterally take such an action which could blow such trust.

Could a rogue CIA group do something like this?...well, mebbe 'possible' but again, very highly unlikely.

We need more transparency on the investigation of the underwater pipeline ruptures.
If the blast pattern on the ruptured pipes is outward, indicating an internal explosion, caused by explosive "pigs" sent through the pipeline, then Russia is the most likely suspect.

If the blast pattern indicates an external explosion caused by charges placed outside the pipeline, western suspects are most likely, with the US having the best capability. The ruptures are far from Russian waters in underwater areas closely monitored by Sweden & NATO allies.
The NATO exercise was perfect cover for such an operation.

The longer we wait in providing forensic evidence, the more likely the West & the US will be the prime suspects.

There were Russian ships in the area of the explosions at the time so it is entirely possible that external explosions could be done by Russians as well as others. Sweden has already sent divers to examine the damage (which is in Swedish territorial waters) although they have not issued an assessment as of yet. If anybody is going to say something it is them and not the USA.

Hersh has no documents, cites one anonymous source, some of his claims contrast with available public data.

[old salt]

Hilarious that you are now on the Hersh bandwagon. He is nothing more than an over-the-hill investigative journalist who hasn't broken a big story in over 20 years and has been WRONG quite often since then on things are varied as the Skripal poisoning and the details of the death of bin Laden. When pressed for evidence, he never delivers.

Have you read his report ? It's a plausible story. Technically accurate in detail, like a Tom Clancy novel. No readily apparent holes, thus your tactic of discrediting the author, rather than refuting the details of the report. Biden's & Nuland's foolish braggadocio give it credence & made stories like this inevitable, but this story doesn't have any holes that make it obvious disinformation. Let's see what the Biden Admin comes up with to refute the story. Will they disprove it with substance or just attack the source, as you are. If it proves to be accurate, I'll be disappointed in Bill Burns if he went along with something this risky & provocative. It would help if some govt comes up with proof of a credible alternative explanation of who did it. Given Team Biden's PR bumbling of the China balloon "domain awareness gap", they don't have much more cred than Hersh. Maybe the impartial, unbiased 51 retired intel old pros will render an assessment.

Read the story. Unsourced (typical Hersh). No evidence otherwise. Government has already denied the story. So have the Norwegians who allegedly provided the plane to drop the sonar detonator.

Did you believe him on OBL, Skripal, JFK, Cheney on Iraq War?

Not too long ago,, they had the Brits doing the sabotage. Went nowhere

Of course, you choose to denigrate your own country while defending the Russians all because you don't like when a D is in charge. On brand for you. You sound more like Snowden every day.

Ted Cruz would have approved of it.. He isn't talking either.

I did not say I believed it. I said it's plausible & technically detailed & feasible. Much of the world will believe it unless we convincingly refute it because we are the most likely suspect, thanks to Biden's & Nuland's threats. We had the motive, the means & the opportunity. What would Russia gain by doing it ? If they want to stop the flow, they just close the valves, as they already had done. So long as a Nordstream existed, there was the temptation for the EUroburghers to start buying cheaper Russian gas again, financing Russia & undermining ongoing support for Ukraine.

Russia gets to pretend they didn't do it...they were and are trying to scare the Europeans...make them sweat (and shiver).

Moreover, they seed the disinformation that the US did it, sowing division...which has always been their primary objective with disinformation.

I don't find it particularly "plausible" that Biden would have green lighted such an operation, way, way, way too much risk of blowback.

He's had the opposite objective as the Russians, to build trust.
Which, at least IMO, he's (and the Admin has) done rather masterfully, albeit with the backdrop of Russian invasion, war crimes and obvious lying.

I don't see this crew as likely to unilaterally take such an action which could blow such trust.

Could a rogue CIA group do something like this?...well, mebbe 'possible' but again, very highly unlikely.

We need more transparency on the investigation of the underwater pipeline ruptures.
If the blast pattern on the ruptured pipes is outward, indicating an internal explosion, caused by explosive "pigs" sent through the pipeline, then Russia is the most likely suspect.

If the blast pattern indicates an external explosion caused by charges placed outside the pipeline, western suspects are most likely, with the US having the best capability. The ruptures are far from Russian waters in underwater areas closely monitored by Sweden & NATO allies.
The NATO exercise was perfect cover for such an operation.

The longer we wait in providing forensic evidence, the more likely the West & the US will be the prime suspects.

Nope, that's just a disinformation set-up.
It ain't either/or, though you're right that if there was clear evidence of an internal blast, that's likely to increase odds of Russia given logistical difficulty of anyone else doing so, but the obverse ain't accurate. Any spook worth their salt, trying to create a disinformation cover to blame the US or "West" would do it from the outside, not the inside.

You are dismissing the technical difficulty in doing such an op, undetected, & the degree of surveillance in that area.
"Any spook worth their salt" could not pull it off.

I'm not claiming it's easy, but yes, I am claiming that "any spook worth their salt", with the purpose of deception and disinformation, would want to make it look like it was someone other than them... better yet, their primary adversary...

Ya gotta be a dumb "military" type not to understand the actual purpose of the operation. But we're talking about spooks...not helo pilots or tank commanders...and their training is about deception.

As to technical difficulty, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to do it without detection...but someone did. No one detected. (far as we know).

Russia has these capabilities. That they pulled it off without detection is a major feat, and undoubtedly required some luck, but well within their capabilities.

BTW, there are all sorts of issues with detecting threats, of all sorts, unless you're specifically looking for them, with the necessary technology to do so.
In this case, gotta be looking for the craft that would have been required, it's not as if all craft are seen at all times...if they don't want to be...

And who was looking for this?

Listening as well as looking. Dumb military helo pilots would know nothing about underwater acoustic surveillance & detection capability.

[MDlaxfan76]

Hilarious that you are now on the Hersh bandwagon. He is nothing more than an over-the-hill investigative journalist who hasn't broken a big story in over 20 years and has been WRONG quite often since then on things are varied as the Skripal poisoning and the details of the death of bin Laden. When pressed for evidence, he never delivers.

Have you read his report ? It's a plausible story. Technically accurate in detail, like a Tom Clancy novel. No readily apparent holes, thus your tactic of discrediting the author, rather than refuting the details of the report. Biden's & Nuland's foolish braggadocio give it credence & made stories like this inevitable, but this story doesn't have any holes that make it obvious disinformation. Let's see what the Biden Admin comes up with to refute the story. Will they disprove it with substance or just attack the source, as you are. If it proves to be accurate, I'll be disappointed in Bill Burns if he went along with something this risky & provocative. It would help if some govt comes up with proof of a credible alternative explanation of who did it. Given Team Biden's PR bumbling of the China balloon "domain awareness gap", they don't have much more cred than Hersh. Maybe the impartial, unbiased 51 retired intel old pros will render an assessment.

Read the story. Unsourced (typical Hersh). No evidence otherwise. Government has already denied the story. So have the Norwegians who allegedly provided the plane to drop the sonar detonator.

Did you believe him on OBL, Skripal, JFK, Cheney on Iraq War?

Not too long ago,, they had the Brits doing the sabotage. Went nowhere

Of course, you choose to denigrate your own country while defending the Russians all because you don't like when a D is in charge. On brand for you. You sound more like Snowden every day.

Ted Cruz would have approved of it.. He isn't talking either.

I did not say I believed it. I said it's plausible & technically detailed & feasible. Much of the world will believe it unless we convincingly refute it because we are the most likely suspect, thanks to Biden's & Nuland's threats. We had the motive, the means & the opportunity. What would Russia gain by doing it ? If they want to stop the flow, they just close the valves, as they already had done. So long as a Nordstream existed, there was the temptation for the EUroburghers to start buying cheaper Russian gas again, financing Russia & undermining ongoing support for Ukraine.

Russia gets to pretend they didn't do it...they were and are trying to scare the Europeans...make them sweat (and shiver).

Moreover, they seed the disinformation that the US did it, sowing division...which has always been their primary objective with disinformation.

I don't find it particularly "plausible" that Biden would have green lighted such an operation, way, way, way too much risk of blowback.

He's had the opposite objective as the Russians, to build trust.
Which, at least IMO, he's (and the Admin has) done rather masterfully, albeit with the backdrop of Russian invasion, war crimes and obvious lying.

I don't see this crew as likely to unilaterally take such an action which could blow such trust.

Could a rogue CIA group do something like this?...well, mebbe 'possible' but again, very highly unlikely.

We need more transparency on the investigation of the underwater pipeline ruptures.
If the blast pattern on the ruptured pipes is outward, indicating an internal explosion, caused by explosive "pigs" sent through the pipeline, then Russia is the most likely suspect.

If the blast pattern indicates an external explosion caused by charges placed outside the pipeline, western suspects are most likely, with the US having the best capability. The ruptures are far from Russian waters in underwater areas closely monitored by Sweden & NATO allies.
The NATO exercise was perfect cover for such an operation.

The longer we wait in providing forensic evidence, the more likely the West & the US will be the prime suspects.

Nope, that's just a disinformation set-up.
It ain't either/or, though you're right that if there was clear evidence of an internal blast, that's likely to increase odds of Russia given logistical difficulty of anyone else doing so, but the obverse ain't accurate. Any spook worth their salt, trying to create a disinformation cover to blame the US or "West" would do it from the outside, not the inside.

You are dismissing the technical difficulty in doing such an op, undetected, & the degree of surveillance in that area.
"Any spook worth their salt" could not pull it off.

I'm not claiming it's easy, but yes, I am claiming that "any spook worth their salt", with the purpose of deception and disinformation, would want to make it look like it was someone other than them... better yet, their primary adversary...

Ya gotta be a dumb "military" type not to understand the actual purpose of the operation. But we're talking about spooks...not helo pilots or tank commanders...and their training is about deception.

As to technical difficulty, it would be extremely difficult for anyone to do it without detection...but someone did. No one detected. (far as we know).

Russia has these capabilities. That they pulled it off without detection is a major feat, and undoubtedly required some luck, but well within their capabilities.

BTW, there are all sorts of issues with detecting threats, of all sorts, unless you're specifically looking for them, with the necessary technology to do so.
In this case, gotta be looking for the craft that would have been required, it's not as if all craft are seen at all times...if they don't want to be...

And who was looking for this?

Listening as well as looking. Dumb military helo pilots would know nothing about underwater acoustic surveillance & detection capability.

Nope, I'm sure all sorts of "technical" capabilities are 'learned' by various military sorts, dumb and smart...but military doesn't equal "spook". Of course, really smart military folks understand the strategic value of deception too...but not the dumb ones.

Classify yourself any way you wish, but my point is that the spook's first instinct is to deceive, to create cover, and better yet to divide opposition. These have analogues in military tactics, but it's not the primary purpose of military training.

Very few military folks are trained to think that way, to emphasize these tactics over superior force, whether manpower or technology.

If you were, you're not demonstrating it here in your analysis.

As to the technical aspect of your post, "listening as well as looking", that the same thing...if you ain't specifically seeking to detect a particular capability, at the right time, you're very likely not to pick it up...regardless of detection methodology. We simply don't see, hear, detect everything, all the time, everywhere.

[MDlaxfan76]

Anyone surprised?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/politics ... index.html

[old salt]

As to the technical aspect of your post, "listening as well as looking", that the same thing...if you ain't specifically seeking to detect a particular capability, at the right time, you're very likely not to pick it up...regardless of detection methodology. We simply don't see, hear, detect everything, all the time, everywhere.

In several critical areas (hint, hint), we listen & record continuously for real time acoustic data, for tracking, classification & post-analysis, when needed.

[PizzaSnake]

As to the technical aspect of your post, "listening as well as looking", that the same thing...if you ain't specifically seeking to detect a particular capability, at the right time, you're very likely not to pick it up...regardless of detection methodology. We simply don't see, hear, detect everything, all the time, everywhere.

In several critical areas (hint, hint), we listen & record continuously for real time acoustic data, for tracking, classification & post-analysis, when needed.

And what does a high-altitude balloon sound like?

[PizzaSnake]

Anyone surprised?

https://www.cnn.com/2023/02/09/politics ... index.html

That Ellie is revealing his true, weasel-dcik nature?

Nope.

[old salt]

As to the technical aspect of your post, "listening as well as looking", that the same thing...if you ain't specifically seeking to detect a particular capability, at the right time, you're very likely not to pick it up...regardless of detection methodology. We simply don't see, hear, detect everything, all the time, everywhere.

In several critical areas (hint, hint), we listen & record continuously for real time acoustic data, for tracking, classification & post-analysis, when needed.

And what does a high-altitude balloon sound like?

Splash

[old salt]

WRM describes how the Biden admin, US body politic, the Western alliance & the global community is dividing over the war in Ukraine.
FTR (if anyone cares) -- I agree with these points.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world- ... 1675720087

Opinion/Global View

The World Rejects the Wilsonian Order

Global liberals cling to the internationalist vision, but its appeal is fading everywhere.

by Walter Russell Mead, Feb. 6, 2023

Ninety nine years ago this month, Woodrow Wilson, crippled by strokes and humiliated by the Republican landslide of 1920, lay dying in Washington. His dream of a liberal, rules-based world order survived him, however, and the Western response to Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine demonstrates how powerful his legacy remains.

Liberal internationalists around the world believe that global institutions (like Wilson’s ill-fated League of Nations) can replace the anarchic, often deadly, power struggles between nations with a system of orderly management that brings the rule of law to a weary world. Institutions like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, as well as agreements like the Paris climate accords, reflect efforts by diplomats and politicians in the U.S. and abroad to create the kind of world that Wilson sought.

For Wilson’s modern heirs, technocratic governance through rules-based international institutions represents humanity’s last, best hope to avoid cataclysmic disruptions ranging from world wars to climate change. From this perspective, Mr. Putin’s defiant international rule-breaking threatens the foundations of Wilsonian order. If a great power gets away with breaking the rules this egregiously, humanity falls back into a nuclear jungle.

Mr. Putin’s challenge to Wilsonian order is why so many liberals, especially in the U.S. and Europe, have become uber-interventionist on Ukraine. Many expected traditional national-security hawks would rally to oppose Mr. Putin’s assault on his neighbor. What was more surprising and, given the politics of the Democratic Party and the Biden administration, more consequential for American foreign policy, was the response of Wilsonian liberals to the war. Normally dovish columnists and members of Congress now cry “praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!” as they urge Western governments to step up shipments of advanced weaponry and supplies to Ukraine.

Within the Biden administration, the struggle is among three groups: liberal internationalists, who want America and the West to do what it takes to ensure that Russia loses the war; pragmatists who want to check Russia but fear Russian escalation and believe that the war will inevitably end in a compromise peace that falls short of Wilsonian hopes; and Asia-firsters who worry that U.S. support for Ukraine reduces America’s ability to face the more consequential and long-term threat from China. President Biden has tried to stay in the middle, giving Ukraine more support than the pragmatists and Asia hands prefer, but dribbling it out more slowly than the Wilsonians would like.

For Wilsonians, world politics today is less about great-power rivalries between the U.S. and rivals like China and Russia and more about the struggle between principles and selfishness, order and chaos, democracy and authoritarianism. Wilsonians hailed the recent wins of a pro-Western candidate in the Czech election and of Lula da Silva over Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil as victories in the global struggle for liberal order.

Last week German chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Lula to celebrate his victory over Mr. Bolsonaro—and to ask Brazil to send ammunition to Ukraine. Lula accepted the congratulations but turned down the request. Brazil, like India, South Africa and much of the rest of the world, wants nothing to do with Wilsonian crusades.

Lula’s skepticism reflects decades of wariness in the Global South about the Wilsonian agenda. To the degree that Wilsonian institutions work, much of the Global South sees them as instruments of Western domination that should be feared and resisted.

But it is the failures of Wilsonian order more than its successes that have dramatically undercut its popularity outside the Euro-American bubble. Take the pandemic. Rich countries protected themselves and their citizens; poor countries scrambled for scraps. This has been largely true during Mr. Putin’s war as well. Mr. Scholz is spending freely to protect German industry and consumers from high energy prices, but he brought Lula no promises of financial aid adequate to the economic disruption that Western sanctions on Russia have brought to Brazil.

As United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said last month in Davos, Switzerland, the world’s rich countries fail to grasp just how alienated from the Western world system the Global South has become. Warning of the “gravest levels of geopolitical division and mistrust in generations,” Mr. Guterres went on to describe an immense gap between what the West is willing to do and what the South wants.

That gap won’t be closed; neither in Europe nor the U.S. is there anything like a political consensus for the kinds of economic concessions and aid that poor countries want. Meanwhile, the one massive benefit that the liberal world order brought the Global South, the opportunity to grow rich through free trade, is being steadily undermined by rising protectionism across the West.

Wilson’s world order-building efforts collapsed because he overestimated the political appeal of his principles in the U.S. and abroad. A similar blindness afflicts his 21st-century heirs. We must hope that their failure will be less consequential than his.

[PizzaSnake]

WRM describes how the Biden admin, US body politic, the Western alliance & the global community is dividing over the war in Ukraine.
FTR (if anyone cares) -- I agree with these points.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world- ... 1675720087

Opinion/Global View

The World Rejects the Wilsonian Order

Global liberals cling to the internationalist vision, but its appeal is fading everywhere.

by Walter Russell Mead, Feb. 6, 2023

Ninety nine years ago this month, Woodrow Wilson, crippled by strokes and humiliated by the Republican landslide of 1920, lay dying in Washington. His dream of a liberal, rules-based world order survived him, however, and the Western response to Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine demonstrates how powerful his legacy remains.

Liberal internationalists around the world believe that global institutions (like Wilson’s ill-fated League of Nations) can replace the anarchic, often deadly, power struggles between nations with a system of orderly management that brings the rule of law to a weary world. Institutions like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, as well as agreements like the Paris climate accords, reflect efforts by diplomats and politicians in the U.S. and abroad to create the kind of world that Wilson sought.

For Wilson’s modern heirs, technocratic governance through rules-based international institutions represents humanity’s last, best hope to avoid cataclysmic disruptions ranging from world wars to climate change. From this perspective, Mr. Putin’s defiant international rule-breaking threatens the foundations of Wilsonian order. If a great power gets away with breaking the rules this egregiously, humanity falls back into a nuclear jungle.

Mr. Putin’s challenge to Wilsonian order is why so many liberals, especially in the U.S. and Europe, have become uber-interventionist on Ukraine. Many expected traditional national-security hawks would rally to oppose Mr. Putin’s assault on his neighbor. What was more surprising and, given the politics of the Democratic Party and the Biden administration, more consequential for American foreign policy, was the response of Wilsonian liberals to the war. Normally dovish columnists and members of Congress now cry “praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!” as they urge Western governments to step up shipments of advanced weaponry and supplies to Ukraine.

Within the Biden administration, the struggle is among three groups: liberal internationalists, who want America and the West to do what it takes to ensure that Russia loses the war; pragmatists who want to check Russia but fear Russian escalation and believe that the war will inevitably end in a compromise peace that falls short of Wilsonian hopes; and Asia-firsters who worry that U.S. support for Ukraine reduces America’s ability to face the more consequential and long-term threat from China. President Biden has tried to stay in the middle, giving Ukraine more support than the pragmatists and Asia hands prefer, but dribbling it out more slowly than the Wilsonians would like.

For Wilsonians, world politics today is less about great-power rivalries between the U.S. and rivals like China and Russia and more about the struggle between principles and selfishness, order and chaos, democracy and authoritarianism. Wilsonians hailed the recent wins of a pro-Western candidate in the Czech election and of Lula da Silva over Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil as victories in the global struggle for liberal order.

Last week German chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Lula to celebrate his victory over Mr. Bolsonaro—and to ask Brazil to send ammunition to Ukraine. Lula accepted the congratulations but turned down the request. Brazil, like India, South Africa and much of the rest of the world, wants nothing to do with Wilsonian crusades.

Lula’s skepticism reflects decades of wariness in the Global South about the Wilsonian agenda. To the degree that Wilsonian institutions work, much of the Global South sees them as instruments of Western domination that should be feared and resisted.

But it is the failures of Wilsonian order more than its successes that have dramatically undercut its popularity outside the Euro-American bubble. Take the pandemic. Rich countries protected themselves and their citizens; poor countries scrambled for scraps. This has been largely true during Mr. Putin’s war as well. Mr. Scholz is spending freely to protect German industry and consumers from high energy prices, but he brought Lula no promises of financial aid adequate to the economic disruption that Western sanctions on Russia have brought to Brazil.

As United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said last month in Davos, Switzerland, the world’s rich countries fail to grasp just how alienated from the Western world system the Global South has become. Warning of the “gravest levels of geopolitical division and mistrust in generations,” Mr. Guterres went on to describe an immense gap between what the West is willing to do and what the South wants.

That gap won’t be closed; neither in Europe nor the U.S. is there anything like a political consensus for the kinds of economic concessions and aid that poor countries want. Meanwhile, the one massive benefit that the liberal world order brought the Global South, the opportunity to grow rich through free trade, is being steadily undermined by rising protectionism across the West.

Wilson’s world order-building efforts collapsed because he overestimated the political appeal of his principles in the U.S. and abroad. A similar blindness afflicts his 21st-century heirs. We must hope that their failure will be less consequential than his.

Weird analysis. Is this a fcuking popularity contest? Hypothetically, if I broke into your house, burned it down, beat you, raped your wife, sold your children into human trafficking, would my or your popularity have any bearing? Would you care what your neighbors on the other side of town thought? No, I'm pretty dog-damned sure you wouldn't.

'Cause that is, in effect, what Russia has done to Ukraine.

I'm tired of the Kissingerian "realpolitick" shtick. He, and his worldview are abhorrent.

Oh, and personally, I'd call Poontang's bluff. I'd give Ukraine some nukes and see what, precisely he did about it. I don't live in fear. Fcuk that noise! That is the cowardly, appeaser's way. End up on your knees getting complain-slapped. Best way to deal with an abusive bully is to punch them square in the throat and watch them gurgle.

FWIW, it's a good thing I didn't accept that full-ride NROTC scholarship, because there is no way I would have put up with such a bunch of sniveling ass-clowns as what seems to populate the US Navy. That and my father warned me about what a bunch of stuffed-shirt twats Academy boys were. He was a non-Academy flag officer. How about you, swabbie, you command a ship? Or did you catch a ride on someone else's ship? Then maybe commanded a desk? Or maybe you saw yourself as an Admiral Holloway (III) type? That it?

[old salt]

FWIW, it's a good thing I didn't accept that full-ride NROTC scholarship, because there is no way I would have put up with such a bunch of sniveling ass-clowns as what seems to populate the US Navy. That and my father warned me about what a bunch of stuffed-shirt twats Academy boys were. He was a non-Academy flag officer. How about you, swabbie, you command a ship? Or did you catch a ride on someone else's ship? Then maybe commanded a desk? Or maybe you saw yourself as an Admiral Holloway (III) type? That it?

...I don't know how we got by without you. I went to sea, flying from the decks of frigates & destroyers. They were commanded by Surface Warfare Officers, not by Naval Aviators. I spent my entire career in operational flying billets, flying aircraft, not desks. Thanks for asking.
NROTC scholarships are not full rides. You have to pay your own room & board. I sent a $25 dorm deposit to Georgia Tech before I got a telegram from USNA. I was also accepted & approved for admission at Purdue & RPI, but Boddy Dodd sent me an invitation to come our for freshman football at GT.

[Brooklyn]

Weird analysis. Is this a fcuking popularity contest? Hypothetically, if I broke into your house, burned it down, beat you, raped your wife, sold your children into human trafficking, would my or your popularity have any bearing? Would you care what your neighbors on the other side of town thought? No, I'm pretty dog-damned sure you wouldn't.

'Cause that is, in effect, what Russia has done to Ukraine.

... I'd give Ukraine some nukes and see what, precisely he did about it. I don't live in fear. Fcuk that noise! That is the cowardly, appeaser's way

...

What the US did to Afghanistan and Iraq was far worse. But instead of coming to the aid of those victims of Bush's colonialist Nazism, the world appeased and defended murderer Bush. Aren't we all glad the world did not give those victims nukes? Things would really be screwy stateside if they had done so.

[get it to x]

WRM describes how the Biden admin, US body politic, the Western alliance & the global community is dividing over the war in Ukraine.
FTR (if anyone cares) -- I agree with these points.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world- ... 1675720087

Opinion/Global View

The World Rejects the Wilsonian Order

Global liberals cling to the internationalist vision, but its appeal is fading everywhere.

by Walter Russell Mead, Feb. 6, 2023

Ninety nine years ago this month, Woodrow Wilson, crippled by strokes and humiliated by the Republican landslide of 1920, lay dying in Washington. His dream of a liberal, rules-based world order survived him, however, and the Western response to Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine demonstrates how powerful his legacy remains.

Liberal internationalists around the world believe that global institutions (like Wilson’s ill-fated League of Nations) can replace the anarchic, often deadly, power struggles between nations with a system of orderly management that brings the rule of law to a weary world. Institutions like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, as well as agreements like the Paris climate accords, reflect efforts by diplomats and politicians in the U.S. and abroad to create the kind of world that Wilson sought.

For Wilson’s modern heirs, technocratic governance through rules-based international institutions represents humanity’s last, best hope to avoid cataclysmic disruptions ranging from world wars to climate change. From this perspective, Mr. Putin’s defiant international rule-breaking threatens the foundations of Wilsonian order. If a great power gets away with breaking the rules this egregiously, humanity falls back into a nuclear jungle.

Mr. Putin’s challenge to Wilsonian order is why so many liberals, especially in the U.S. and Europe, have become uber-interventionist on Ukraine. Many expected traditional national-security hawks would rally to oppose Mr. Putin’s assault on his neighbor. What was more surprising and, given the politics of the Democratic Party and the Biden administration, more consequential for American foreign policy, was the response of Wilsonian liberals to the war. Normally dovish columnists and members of Congress now cry “praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!” as they urge Western governments to step up shipments of advanced weaponry and supplies to Ukraine.

Within the Biden administration, the struggle is among three groups: liberal internationalists, who want America and the West to do what it takes to ensure that Russia loses the war; pragmatists who want to check Russia but fear Russian escalation and believe that the war will inevitably end in a compromise peace that falls short of Wilsonian hopes; and Asia-firsters who worry that U.S. support for Ukraine reduces America’s ability to face the more consequential and long-term threat from China. President Biden has tried to stay in the middle, giving Ukraine more support than the pragmatists and Asia hands prefer, but dribbling it out more slowly than the Wilsonians would like.

For Wilsonians, world politics today is less about great-power rivalries between the U.S. and rivals like China and Russia and more about the struggle between principles and selfishness, order and chaos, democracy and authoritarianism. Wilsonians hailed the recent wins of a pro-Western candidate in the Czech election and of Lula da Silva over Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil as victories in the global struggle for liberal order.

Last week German chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Lula to celebrate his victory over Mr. Bolsonaro—and to ask Brazil to send ammunition to Ukraine. Lula accepted the congratulations but turned down the request. Brazil, like India, South Africa and much of the rest of the world, wants nothing to do with Wilsonian crusades.

Lula’s skepticism reflects decades of wariness in the Global South about the Wilsonian agenda. To the degree that Wilsonian institutions work, much of the Global South sees them as instruments of Western domination that should be feared and resisted.

But it is the failures of Wilsonian order more than its successes that have dramatically undercut its popularity outside the Euro-American bubble. Take the pandemic. Rich countries protected themselves and their citizens; poor countries scrambled for scraps. This has been largely true during Mr. Putin’s war as well. Mr. Scholz is spending freely to protect German industry and consumers from high energy prices, but he brought Lula no promises of financial aid adequate to the economic disruption that Western sanctions on Russia have brought to Brazil.

As United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said last month in Davos, Switzerland, the world’s rich countries fail to grasp just how alienated from the Western world system the Global South has become. Warning of the “gravest levels of geopolitical division and mistrust in generations,” Mr. Guterres went on to describe an immense gap between what the West is willing to do and what the South wants.

That gap won’t be closed; neither in Europe nor the U.S. is there anything like a political consensus for the kinds of economic concessions and aid that poor countries want. Meanwhile, the one massive benefit that the liberal world order brought the Global South, the opportunity to grow rich through free trade, is being steadily undermined by rising protectionism across the West.

Wilson’s world order-building efforts collapsed because he overestimated the political appeal of his principles in the U.S. and abroad. A similar blindness afflicts his 21st-century heirs. We must hope that their failure will be less consequential than his.

How are those sanctions working out? Have we brought Mother Russia to her knees yet? We have actually strengthened the BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and don't be surprised if Saudi Arabia is next to join. Russia's economy is expected to grow nominally, and in the meantime sectors they dominated, like fertilizer, are causing inflation in the West. We also have a chance of the dollar being replaced as the world's reserve currency. We have met the enemy, and they is us. (h/t Walt Kelly)

[Kismet]

WRM describes how the Biden admin, US body politic, the Western alliance & the global community is dividing over the war in Ukraine.
FTR (if anyone cares) -- I agree with these points.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-world- ... 1675720087

Opinion/Global View

The World Rejects the Wilsonian Order

Global liberals cling to the internationalist vision, but its appeal is fading everywhere.

by Walter Russell Mead, Feb. 6, 2023

Ninety nine years ago this month, Woodrow Wilson, crippled by strokes and humiliated by the Republican landslide of 1920, lay dying in Washington. His dream of a liberal, rules-based world order survived him, however, and the Western response to Vladimir Putin’s attack on Ukraine demonstrates how powerful his legacy remains.

Liberal internationalists around the world believe that global institutions (like Wilson’s ill-fated League of Nations) can replace the anarchic, often deadly, power struggles between nations with a system of orderly management that brings the rule of law to a weary world. Institutions like the United Nations and the International Criminal Court, as well as agreements like the Paris climate accords, reflect efforts by diplomats and politicians in the U.S. and abroad to create the kind of world that Wilson sought.

For Wilson’s modern heirs, technocratic governance through rules-based international institutions represents humanity’s last, best hope to avoid cataclysmic disruptions ranging from world wars to climate change. From this perspective, Mr. Putin’s defiant international rule-breaking threatens the foundations of Wilsonian order. If a great power gets away with breaking the rules this egregiously, humanity falls back into a nuclear jungle.

Mr. Putin’s challenge to Wilsonian order is why so many liberals, especially in the U.S. and Europe, have become uber-interventionist on Ukraine. Many expected traditional national-security hawks would rally to oppose Mr. Putin’s assault on his neighbor. What was more surprising and, given the politics of the Democratic Party and the Biden administration, more consequential for American foreign policy, was the response of Wilsonian liberals to the war. Normally dovish columnists and members of Congress now cry “praise the Lord and pass the ammunition!” as they urge Western governments to step up shipments of advanced weaponry and supplies to Ukraine.

Within the Biden administration, the struggle is among three groups: liberal internationalists, who want America and the West to do what it takes to ensure that Russia loses the war; pragmatists who want to check Russia but fear Russian escalation and believe that the war will inevitably end in a compromise peace that falls short of Wilsonian hopes; and Asia-firsters who worry that U.S. support for Ukraine reduces America’s ability to face the more consequential and long-term threat from China. President Biden has tried to stay in the middle, giving Ukraine more support than the pragmatists and Asia hands prefer, but dribbling it out more slowly than the Wilsonians would like.

For Wilsonians, world politics today is less about great-power rivalries between the U.S. and rivals like China and Russia and more about the struggle between principles and selfishness, order and chaos, democracy and authoritarianism. Wilsonians hailed the recent wins of a pro-Western candidate in the Czech election and of Lula da Silva over Trump ally Jair Bolsonaro in Brazil as victories in the global struggle for liberal order.

Last week German chancellor Olaf Scholz visited Lula to celebrate his victory over Mr. Bolsonaro—and to ask Brazil to send ammunition to Ukraine. Lula accepted the congratulations but turned down the request. Brazil, like India, South Africa and much of the rest of the world, wants nothing to do with Wilsonian crusades.

Lula’s skepticism reflects decades of wariness in the Global South about the Wilsonian agenda. To the degree that Wilsonian institutions work, much of the Global South sees them as instruments of Western domination that should be feared and resisted.

But it is the failures of Wilsonian order more than its successes that have dramatically undercut its popularity outside the Euro-American bubble. Take the pandemic. Rich countries protected themselves and their citizens; poor countries scrambled for scraps. This has been largely true during Mr. Putin’s war as well. Mr. Scholz is spending freely to protect German industry and consumers from high energy prices, but he brought Lula no promises of financial aid adequate to the economic disruption that Western sanctions on Russia have brought to Brazil.

As United Nations Secretary-General António Guterres said last month in Davos, Switzerland, the world’s rich countries fail to grasp just how alienated from the Western world system the Global South has become. Warning of the “gravest levels of geopolitical division and mistrust in generations,” Mr. Guterres went on to describe an immense gap between what the West is willing to do and what the South wants.

That gap won’t be closed; neither in Europe nor the U.S. is there anything like a political consensus for the kinds of economic concessions and aid that poor countries want. Meanwhile, the one massive benefit that the liberal world order brought the Global South, the opportunity to grow rich through free trade, is being steadily undermined by rising protectionism across the West.

Wilson’s world order-building efforts collapsed because he overestimated the political appeal of his principles in the U.S. and abroad. A similar blindness afflicts his 21st-century heirs. We must hope that their failure will be less consequential than his.

How are those sanctions working out? Have we brought Mother Russia to her knees yet? We have actually strengthened the BRICS alliance (Brazil, Russia, India, China and South Africa) and don't be surprised if Saudi Arabia is next to join. Russia's economy is expected to grow nominally, and in the meantime sectors they dominated, like fertilizer, are causing inflation in the West. We also have a chance of the dollar being replaced as the world's reserve currency. We have met the enemy, and they is us. (h/t Walt Kelly)

Please enlighten us with your opinions on what should or should not being done.

The Wilsoninan comparisons are fine but also need to include Chamberlain and the other Europeans who attempted to appease Hitler's territorial grabs which only led to more grabs of more territory and ultimately World War.

Would not bet the ranch on the Indians and Chinese going all in with Russia on this - certainly taking advantage of buying discounted Russian oil for now. The Saudis don't need the fossil fuels and I would not expect them to make a big move here - they need us more than the Russians.

The correct Kelly POGO quote is - “We Have Met the Enemy and He Is Us” - would never fly today and does your incorrectly substituted word make you WOKE??

Alarmists have been talking the reserve currency shtick for YEARS. Obviously a potential concern but the chicken littles of the world likely should relax a bit.

[MDlaxfan76]

As to the technical aspect of your post, "listening as well as looking", that the same thing...if you ain't specifically seeking to detect a particular capability, at the right time, you're very likely not to pick it up...regardless of detection methodology. We simply don't see, hear, detect everything, all the time, everywhere.

In several critical areas (hint, hint), we listen & record continuously for real time acoustic data, for tracking, classification & post-analysis, when needed.

yes, if one is 'looking' (which in some instances we may very well be, given known possibilities)... though not perfect; But yes, when something is 'heard' and recorded, it can enable forensic analysis. However, identification of a particular sound as a specific, let's say, 'vehicle' can only potentially be dispositive as to the vehicle, not who is controlling it. For instance, in a throwback example, in Red October the identification of the Russian sub type is possible, but not who is in control and what the intentions are. Technologies are more sophisticated, but we still have the difficulty of determining who the humans actually are and what their intentions may be.

Again, a smart 'spook' would not make this easy by using the vehicle type exclusively available to a particular country, indeed, the smart spook would use a vehicle identifiable as more likely to be their adversary's. But no guarantee either way.