thebulwark--2020-08-23--How Putin Took Over Russia

How Putin Took Over Russia

Putin ’ s People How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took On the West by Catherine Belton FSG , 624 pp.
, $ 35 A striking thing about the history of modern Russia is how littered it is with the corpses of democrats and friends of open society .
This ominous feature asserted itself early in the era that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union .
In November 1998 , Galina Starovoitova , St. Petersburg ’ s “ leading democrat ” and a persistent thorn in the flank of Russia ’ s corrupt ruling class , was @ @ @ @ @ @ @ would be among the first victims of a burgeoning tyranny , but far from the last .
Within a few years , the list would swell to include Sergei Magnitsky , Natalia Estemirova , Denis Voronenkov , Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya , to name just a few of the regime ’ s murdered adversaries .
Catherine Belton ’ s absorbing new book Putin ’ s People is an insightful primer on this morbid subject .
It is a tale of how a clutch of cynical agents bent on self-enrichment and the restoration @ @ @ @ @ @ @ state capture that would simultaneously advance both of these grandiose objectives .
Belton , a former Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times , detects in today ’ s Russian elite the same will to power that once marked the old Communist commissars , but without the pious Soviet insistence to be working for the betterment of the proletariat .
In time , the vicious mafia tactics employed by select KGB veterans against Russian civil society brought off what Belton calls “ a creeping coup by the security men.
” A cunning and ambitious @ @ @ @ @ @ @ them .
It was less than four months after Putin had become head of the KGB ’ s successor agency , the FSB , that Starovoitova was murdered , and foul play by high-ranking officials was widely suspected though never proved—another disturbing omen of the emerging Russia where state-directed crimes were seldom punished .
On December 31 , 1999 , this former lieutenant colonel of the KGB became president of Russia , a position he still holds uncontested .
The backstory to the restoration of KGB rule in Russia makes for engrossing reading @ @ @ @ @ @ @ eye for pregnant details .
Less than a decade before Starovoitova ’ s murder , in December 1989 , Putin was stationed in Dresden after the fall of the Berlin Wall .
As agitated crowds gathered outside the headquarters of the Stasi , the East German secret police , their KGB partners—the Soviet masters whom the Stasi referred to as “ the friends ” —were holed up inside their villa , burning papers .
“ We destroyed everything , ” recalled Putin .
“ All our communications , our lists of contacts and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ .
We burned so much stuff that the furnace burst.
” Once the crowd turned in the direction of the KGB villa , Putin called the Soviet military command in Dresden to request reinforcements , to no avail .
“ I got the feeling then that the country no longer existed .
That it had disappeared , ” Putin told an interviewer years later .
“ It was clear the union was ailing .
And it had a terminal disease without a cure—a paralysis of power.
” This episode gave Putin a shock @ @ @ @ @ @ @ longer had the means to suppress political revolutions behind the Iron Curtain as it had done so easily in the past .
Within two years , a jubilant crowd in Moscow toppled the statue of “ Iron ” Felix Dzerzhinsky , the fearsome founder of the Soviet secret police , in front of the KGB headquarters .
Their chants were unmistakable : “ Down with the KGB !
” and “ Svo-bo-da !
” the Russian word for freedom .
The iron fist of Soviet totalitarianism had cracked , and Soviet republics raced @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the “ evil empire ” would rank , in Putin ’ s eyes , as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century—a peculiar choice since it was not a century without a surplus of contenders for that title , not excluding the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact .
Democracy would have its day in post-Soviet Russia in the 1990s , but it was not a pretty one and did not last long .
A formerly mighty empire had crumbled , leaving terrible pangs of national depression and loss of respect for Russia on the world @ @ @ @ @ @ @ nurtured democratic institutions amid acute economic distress , a class of oligarchs aligned with him ran riot .
If ever it was true that “ behind every great fortune is a great crime , ” it was true of these kleptocrats who bought and looted former state enterprises with abandon .
By the time they were through , they had plucked the carcass of the old state clean .
Throughout this fleeting and inglorious interregnum , the average Russian had been treated to a spectacle of government corruption , ostentatious plunder , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Moscow .
Nostalgia was the most palpable emotion in Yeltsin ’ s Russia , less for l ’ ancien régime than for the stability and strength of a functioning state .
The freewheeling nouveau riche needed to secure their ill-gotten gains amid social chaos and collapse , and the masses desired a leader untainted by the corruption and financial ruin associated with the Yeltsin administration .
In Vladimir Putin , both conditions were fulfilled .
As Belton relates , the oligarchs believed they had found a shadowy but unscrupulous figure who “ they @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gamble for an elite , and a nation , desperate for a savior .
So it came to be that less than eight years after Russian crowds cheered the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992 , Putin was in command of the Russian state , where he methodically proceeded to dismantle every democratic institution in the country—separate branches of government , fair elections , independent judiciary , free media and other associations of civil society .
Oligarchs were brought to heel and the disobliging ones were jailed or forced into exile .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ move against Mikhail Khodorkovsky with specious legal charges of fraud and tax evasion , the tycoon was the richest citizen of the Russian Federation .
In an instant , Russia ’ s elite was put on notice : pretenses to the contrary notwithstanding , there was no level of wealth that could buy immunity from the ex-KGB officers who ruled the new Russia .
“ Nobody is untouchable , ” as Karinna Moskalenko , Russia ’ s most distinguished human-rights lawyer , once put it .
This new dispensation prompted massive capital flight @ @ @ @ @ @ @ elite unimaginably rich by way of offshore accounts , shell companies , and hidden “ black cash ” funds .
Belton wrote in a previous book that “ by 2012 more than 50 percent of Russia ’ s [ gross domestic product ] was under the direct control of the state and businessmen closely linked the Putin.
” Belton calls the takeover and subordination of Russia ’ s political , economic and legal systems by Putin and other KGB old hands “ hybrid KGB capitalism.
” In point of fact , this fusion @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resembles crony corporatism .
By 2009 , Putin had consolidated all levers of government power , and the country ’ s budding democratic reforms had stalled and then reversed .
Most troubling of all , in the new Russia , the press was brutally punished for reporting the ways the “ security men ” were eroding market freedoms and constructing a mafia state .
Before long , it was clear to shrewd observers that Putin and his KGB entourage were monopolizing power not only in order to fill their own pockets .
They @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , buoyed by the proceeds from soaring energy prices , to contest prevailing liberal norms in an expanding sphere of influence .
Without exaggerating the scale of influence Russia wields in the West , Belton gives an intriguing account of the reactivated “ KGB playbook ” from the Cold War when the Soviet Union deployed “ active measures ” to sow division and discord between and within NATO nations .
Today , the impact of Russian meddling is arguably greater since the cause of democracy finds itself in deep trouble , with extremist @ @ @ @ @ @ @ whom are heads of state ) seeking to undermine the concept of universal human rights and overturn the American-led world order .
Surveys of public opinion even show a frightening degree of moral relativism between the free and unfree world , and between democratic and authoritarian forms of government .
All this has not been Putin ’ s doing , but his methods—including sponsorship of parties that oppose the European Union and NATO , from Marine Le Pen ’ s National Front in France to the British Brexit campaign , from Italy ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Institute in the United States—have exploited and stoked public confusion about the purpose of both American power and liberal principles .
In addition to the feeble state of Western societies , Belton argues that what has made recent Russian influence operations so much more effective than their previous Soviet counterparts is that they “ are funded by a much deeper well of cash.
” A word about the nature of this regime ’ s guiding principles is in order .
The Bolshevik one-party state of the Soviet Union had privileged the working class @ @ @ @ @ @ @ loudly and consistently , belief in the party ) .
But in stark contrast , Russia ’ s contemporary ruling party ( “ United Russia ” ) is guided less by ideology than by identity .
It demands unblinking loyalty to the ruler and his grisly entourage , and its attitude is formed by his own particular mixture of national egoism and private plunder .
The innumerable victims of the new order are proof of the stringent standards for silence expected in this one-party state .
Boris Nemtsov , formerly the leading opposition @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of the Kremlin in 2015 .
His successor , Alexei Navalny , who has been unjustly imprisoned and subjected to repeated attacks by “ unknown chemicals ” was , as this was going to press , in a poison-induced coma .
Putin was never mistaken for being a political idealist , and certainly not a true-believing Marxist pursuing the “ ultimate triumph of justice for the proletariat , ” as Masha Gessen suggests in her superb biography “ The Man Without a Face.
” As a zealous nationalist , though , Putin ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Russian state , and the organization that defended it with unsleeping devotion : the KGB .
To this way of thinking , the eternal enemy will always be the liberal great powers and the liberal political movements they seek to foster and defend , including in Russia , which explains why Putin is so desperate to denounce and discredit democratic institutions at home and abroad .
Belton argues convincingly that the hinge event in Putin ’ s strategic thinking took place in 2005 , when a Western-oriented president , Viktor Yushchenko , came @ @ @ @ @ @ @ uprising .
Putin fingered the CIA for this obnoxious revolution .
“ It was the worst nightmare of Putin ’ s KGB men that , inspired by events in neighboring countries , Russian oppositionists funded by the West would seek to topple Putin ’ s regime too , ” Belton writes .
“ This was the dark paranoia that colored and drove many of the actions they were to take from then on.
” It should not escape readers ’ notice that this episode—pro-democracy protesters overthrowing a venal and autocratic regime—bears a strong @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Dresden that had mortally wounded Putin ’ s confidence in the Soviet model .
Putin ’ s People gathers a wealth of previously undisclosed material from interviews with a bevy of former KGB operatives , Kremlin officials , and bankers in suggestive locales from Switzerland to Cyprus .
What emerges is a devastating portrait of the deep and broad alliance between the FSB and organized crime in modern Russia .
It establishes beyond reasonable doubt the future Russian president ’ s malice aforethought in setting up this mafia regime that has spawned unprecedented @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only Russia ’ s neighbors but its internal critics and rivals .
Belton ’ s concluding chapter , “ The Network and Donald Trump , ” will garner much attention from the American president ’ s critics ahead of this November ’ s election , and not just from the hawks .
Even at this late date , Trump ’ s shady contacts with alleged associates of the Russian mob have been poorly excavated , though not from any want of journalistic effort .
Trump ’ s intense devotion to keeping his financial @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in Congress—has kept this improper connection in the dark .
From cash transfers through his real estate developments , however , Trump has clearly been tied to the nexus of Russian intelligence services and organized crime for three decades .
In the 1990s , a spate of bad investments made Trump desperate for capital .
While the vast majority of banks shunned the future president , who had already defaulted on considerable payments , Deutsche Bank , which Belton says had “ a special relationship with Putin ’ s Kremlin , ” became @ @ @ @ @ @ @ resort.
” This was not a trivial matter .
In a single 2011 transaction , DB provided Trump more than $ 300 million .
The precise nature of this relationship is still not known , though the smell emanating from the evidence as we know it is unmistakably fetid .
And the charitable reading of Trump ’ s behavior doesn ’ t have the ring of near-truth that such a grave case demands .
Over many years , Trump has showered Putin and his government with unalloyed praise .
Entirely exculpating Putin , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s hands are no more dirty than those of American leaders .
As president , Trump has only continued this deplorable habit .
Against the consensus view of his own intelligence agencies , he has credited Putin ’ s denials of meddling in the U.S. presidential election .
Trump has also inadvertently disclosed at least one high-level U.S. secret to the Russian foreign minister in the Oval Office .
But even more damningly , he has subverted America ’ s precious alliances and eroded American prestige—longstanding objectives of the Kremlin .
What @ @ @ @ @ @ @ an American president in thrall—and most probably in hock—to a malevolent foreign authoritarian has led to growing admiration for authoritarianism as well as diminished commitment to national security in the once-stalwart Republican Party .
Although Trump ’ s corruption and perfidy enabled Putin ’ s people , his predecessors in the Oval Office were also guilty of grave misjudgments .
Around the time Putin was first learning his way around the Kremlin , the Bush administration greeted the new Russian leader with cautious optimism , at times cringingly so .
Perhaps this naive @ @ @ @ @ @ @ days of Putin ’ s reign , before he had abolished key institutions of Russian democracy , but the policy of accommodation continued long after it became clear that Russia was devolving into a dictatorship out to restore its great power status at the expense of its neighbors .
The Obama administration , for its part , treated Putin ’ s Russia as a place that could be safely ignored , dismissing it as a mere “ regional power.
” This was doubly wrong .
In the first place , it was an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ that straddles two vast continents that provided the setting of the bloodiest havoc wrecked in the course of the twentieth century .
Russia ’ s “ near abroad ” is a profoundly consequential space since Europe stands as a vital pillar of the liberal order .
Its sovereignty and security , to say nothing of its democratic character—all of which have come under vigorous challenge by Putin—is crucial to the fate of liberal civilization .
For those who ’ ve forgotten , Russia has attacked Ukraine and annexed Crimea , becoming the first @ @ @ @ @ @ @ force since Saddam Hussein in Kuwait .
It has also molested Moldova and the Baltic states of Estonia , Latvia , and Lithuania , while lately defending the fraudulent elections and blatant vote rigging of Europe ’ s last dictatorship in Belarus .
The conceit that Russia is a regional concern is wrong for another reason , evident to all those who have taken the measure of the enormous scope of Russian foreign policy .
Putin has flexed Russian muscle well beyond the European landmass , projecting power into the Caucasus and Central @ @ @ @ @ @ @ first time since Kissingerian diplomacy expelled the Soviets in the 1970s ) the Levant .
Russia has invaded the Republic of Georgia and shored up the odious Assad dynasty in Syria .
This muscular interventionism has earned Russia many high-minded critics , but it has also accrued immense credit toward its claim as a great power .
Putin ’ s objective of overturning the post-Cold War settlement in Europe and expanding the Russian sphere of influence reflects the calculations of an aspiring great power , if not a superpower .
Just as Russian @ @ @ @ @ @ @ neither should its weakness .
In terms of what the Chinese call “ comprehensive national power ” —its combined economic , military , and diplomatic strength—Russia ranks behind only the United States and China as the mightiest power on earth .
And it was this surge in power that , as so often before in the history of empires , has been attended by a new conception of national interest .
Russia is no longer the insular and contented nation that it appeared to be in the 1990s .
Despite its energy-driven rise @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of that rise to prominence , Russia appears to be increasingly dissatisfied .
Its restless pursuit of regional dominance has coincided with a growing intolerance for interference from other great powers .
Russian greatness remains weighed down by its squalid domestic situation , however .
As recently as 2018 , almost a third of medical facilities in Russia lacked running water , 40 percent lacked central heating , and more than half lacked hot water .
The state that once formed the basis of the now-defunct “ second world ” is bidding for @ @ @ @ @ @ @ position of an almost third-world country .
With a smaller economy than Italy or even Canada but whose military spending dwarfs most other countries , Russia isn ’ t far from meeting Dean Acheson ’ s description of its impoverished Soviet predecessor : “ Upper Volta with ICBMs.
” A formidable nuclear arsenal—and well-financed intelligence networks to extend Russian influence abroad .
In 2016 , Russia ’ s clandestine influence operations saw their greatest harvest yet when they helped elect a feeble and pliant American president who regarded America ’ s traditional friends @ @ @ @ @ @ @ as his actual or potential partners .
Little wonder that at the Helsinki summit of the two leaders , Putin freely admitted that he had wished to see Trump elected .
Russia ’ s malign influence will undoubtedly intrude again in this autumn ’ s presidential campaign , but in all likelihood it will fail to preserve its client president in office .
At which point , the incoming Biden administration could take an important first step toward cleaning up the geopolitical mess bequeathed to it by working to disclose the true extent @ @ @ @ @ @ @ With any luck , this and other measures to roll back the Kremlin ’ s prestige might speed the day when Putin faces another Dresden moment , with the main difference being that this time the vulnerable regime would be his own .

Putin’s People
How the KGB Took Back Russia and Then Took On the West
by Catherine Belton
FSG, 624 pp., $35
A striking thing about the history of modern Russia is how littered it is with the corpses of democrats and friends of open society. This ominous feature asserted itself early in the era that followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. In November 1998, Galina Starovoitova, St. Petersburg’s “leading democrat” and a persistent thorn in the flank of Russia’s corrupt ruling class, was murdered outside of her apartment. She would be among the first victims of a burgeoning tyranny, but far from the last. Within a few years, the list would swell to include Sergei Magnitsky, Natalia Estemirova, Denis Voronenkov, Alexander Litvinenko and Anna Politkovskaya, to name just a few of the regime’s murdered adversaries.
Catherine Belton’s absorbing new book Putin’s People is an insightful primer on this morbid subject. It is a tale of how a clutch of cynical agents bent on self-enrichment and the restoration of Russian amour propre initiated a scheme of state capture that would simultaneously advance both of these grandiose objectives. Belton, a former Moscow correspondent for the Financial Times, detects in today’s Russian elite the same will to power that once marked the old Communist commissars, but without the pious Soviet insistence to be working for the betterment of the proletariat.
In time, the vicious mafia tactics employed by select KGB veterans against Russian civil society brought off what Belton calls “a creeping coup by the security men.” A cunning and ambitious figure named Vladimir Putin was foremost among them. It was less than four months after Putin had become head of the KGB’s successor agency, the FSB, that Starovoitova was murdered, and foul play by high-ranking officials was widely suspected though never proved—another disturbing omen of the emerging Russia where state-directed crimes were seldom punished. On December 31, 1999, this former lieutenant colonel of the KGB became president of Russia, a position he still holds uncontested.
The backstory to the restoration of KGB rule in Russia makes for engrossing reading, and Belton tells it with an eye for pregnant details. Less than a decade before Starovoitova’s murder, in December 1989, Putin was stationed in Dresden after the fall of the Berlin Wall. As agitated crowds gathered outside the headquarters of the Stasi, the East German secret police, their KGB partners—the Soviet masters whom the Stasi referred to as “the friends”—were holed up inside their villa, burning papers. “We destroyed everything,” recalled Putin. “All our communications, our lists of contacts and our agents’ networks. . . . We burned so much stuff that the furnace burst.”
Once the crowd turned in the direction of the KGB villa, Putin called the Soviet military command in Dresden to request reinforcements, to no avail. “I got the feeling then that the country no longer existed. That it had disappeared,” Putin told an interviewer years later. “It was clear the union was ailing. And it had a terminal disease without a cure—a paralysis of power.”
This episode gave Putin a shock of recognition. The Soviet imperium no longer had the means to suppress political revolutions behind the Iron Curtain as it had done so easily in the past. Within two years, a jubilant crowd in Moscow toppled the statue of “Iron” Felix Dzerzhinsky, the fearsome founder of the Soviet secret police, in front of the KGB headquarters. Their chants were unmistakable: “Down with the KGB!” and “Svo-bo-da!” the Russian word for freedom. The iron fist of Soviet totalitarianism had cracked, and Soviet republics raced to declare independence. This unraveling of the “evil empire” would rank, in Putin’s eyes, as the greatest geopolitical catastrophe of the twentieth century—a peculiar choice since it was not a century without a surplus of contenders for that title, not excluding the Molotov-Ribbentrop Pact.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Democracy would have its day in post-Soviet Russia in the 1990s, but it was not a pretty one and did not last long. A formerly mighty empire had crumbled, leaving terrible pangs of national depression and loss of respect for Russia on the world stage. While President Boris Yeltsin earnestly nurtured democratic institutions amid acute economic distress, a class of oligarchs aligned with him ran riot. If ever it was true that “behind every great fortune is a great crime,” it was true of these kleptocrats who bought and looted former state enterprises with abandon. By the time they were through, they had plucked the carcass of the old state clean. Throughout this fleeting and inglorious interregnum, the average Russian had been treated to a spectacle of government corruption, ostentatious plunder, and even pitched street battles between gangsters in Moscow.
Nostalgia was the most palpable emotion in Yeltsin’s Russia, less for l’ancien régime than for the stability and strength of a functioning state. The freewheeling nouveau riche needed to secure their ill-gotten gains amid social chaos and collapse, and the masses desired a leader untainted by the corruption and financial ruin associated with the Yeltsin administration. In Vladimir Putin, both conditions were fulfilled. As Belton relates, the oligarchs believed they had found a shadowy but unscrupulous figure who “they could control.” It was a mammoth gamble for an elite, and a nation, desperate for a savior.
So it came to be that less than eight years after Russian crowds cheered the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1992, Putin was in command of the Russian state, where he methodically proceeded to dismantle every democratic institution in the country—separate branches of government, fair elections, independent judiciary, free media and other associations of civil society. Oligarchs were brought to heel and the disobliging ones were jailed or forced into exile.
In 2003, when Putin decided to move against Mikhail Khodorkovsky with specious legal charges of fraud and tax evasion, the tycoon was the richest citizen of the Russian Federation. In an instant, Russia’s elite was put on notice: pretenses to the contrary notwithstanding, there was no level of wealth that could buy immunity from the ex-KGB officers who ruled the new Russia. “Nobody is untouchable,” as Karinna Moskalenko, Russia’s most distinguished human-rights lawyer, once put it. This new dispensation prompted massive capital flight, but not before making the ruling elite unimaginably rich by way of offshore accounts, shell companies, and hidden “black cash” funds.
Belton writes that “by 2012 more than 50 percent of Russia’s [gross domestic product] was under the direct control of the state and businessmen closely linked the Putin.” Belton calls the takeover and subordination of Russia’s political, economic and legal systems by Putin and other KGB old hands “hybrid KGB capitalism.” In point of fact, this fusion of private and public capital more closely resembles crony corporatism.
By 2009, Putin had consolidated all levers of government power, and the country’s budding democratic reforms had stalled and then reversed. Most troubling of all, in the new Russia, the press was brutally punished for reporting the ways the “security men” were eroding market freedoms and constructing a mafia state. Before long, it was clear to shrewd observers that Putin and his KGB entourage were monopolizing power not only in order to fill their own pockets. They were also determined to use state coffers, buoyed by the proceeds from soaring energy prices, to contest prevailing liberal norms in an expanding sphere of influence.
Without exaggerating the scale of influence Russia wields in the West, Belton gives an intriguing account of the reactivated “KGB playbook” from the Cold War when the Soviet Union deployed “active measures” to sow division and discord between and within NATO nations. Today, the impact of Russian meddling is arguably greater since the cause of democracy finds itself in deep trouble, with extremist candidates of illiberal parties (some of whom are heads of state) seeking to undermine the concept of universal human rights and overturn the American-led world order. Surveys of public opinion even show a frightening degree of moral relativism between the free and unfree world, and between democratic and authoritarian forms of government.
All this has not been Putin’s doing, but his methods—including sponsorship of parties that oppose the European Union and NATO, from Marine Le Pen’s National Front in France to the British Brexit campaign, from Italy’s Northern League to the Ron Paul Institute in the United States—have exploited and stoked public confusion about the purpose of both American power and liberal principles. In addition to the feeble state of Western societies, Belton argues that what has made recent Russian influence operations so much more effective than their previous Soviet counterparts is that they “are funded by a much deeper well of cash.”
A word about the nature of this regime’s guiding principles is in order. The Bolshevik one-party state of the Soviet Union had privileged the working class (at least those who professed, loudly and consistently, belief in the party). But in stark contrast, Russia’s contemporary ruling party (“United Russia”) is guided less by ideology than by identity. It demands unblinking loyalty to the ruler and his grisly entourage, and its attitude is formed by his own particular mixture of national egoism and private plunder. The innumerable victims of the new order are proof of the stringent standards for silence expected in this one-party state. Boris Nemtsov, formerly the leading opposition figure, was murdered in the shadow of the Kremlin in 2015. His successor, Alexei Navalny, who has been unjustly imprisoned and subjected to repeated attacks by “unknown chemicals” was, as this was going to press, in a poison-induced coma.
Putin was never mistaken for being a political idealist, and certainly not a true-believing Marxist pursuing the “ultimate triumph of justice for the proletariat,” as Masha Gessen suggests in her superb biography “The Man Without a Face.” As a zealous nationalist, though, Putin’s allegiance had always been to the Russian state, and the organization that defended it with unsleeping devotion: the KGB. To this way of thinking, the eternal enemy will always be the liberal great powers and the liberal political movements they seek to foster and defend, including in Russia, which explains why Putin is so desperate to denounce and discredit democratic institutions at home and abroad.
Belton argues convincingly that the hinge event in Putin’s strategic thinking took place in 2005, when a Western-oriented president, Viktor Yushchenko, came to power in Ukraine after a popular uprising. Putin fingered the CIA for this obnoxious revolution. “It was the worst nightmare of Putin’s KGB men that, inspired by events in neighboring countries, Russian oppositionists funded by the West would seek to topple Putin’s regime too,” Belton writes. “This was the dark paranoia that colored and drove many of the actions they were to take from then on.” It should not escape readers’ notice that this episode—pro-democracy protesters overthrowing a venal and autocratic regime—bears a strong resemblance to the one years before in Dresden that had mortally wounded Putin’s confidence in the Soviet model.
Putin’s People gathers a wealth of previously undisclosed material from interviews with a bevy of former KGB operatives, Kremlin officials, and bankers in suggestive locales from Switzerland to Cyprus. What emerges is a devastating portrait of the deep and broad alliance between the FSB and organized crime in modern Russia. It establishes beyond reasonable doubt the future Russian president’s malice aforethought in setting up this mafia regime that has spawned unprecedented corruption and ferocious state violence against not only Russia’s neighbors but its internal critics and rivals.
Belton’s concluding chapter, “The Network and Donald Trump,” will garner much attention from the American president’s critics ahead of this November’s election, and not just from the hawks. Even at this late date, Trump’s shady contacts with alleged associates of the Russian mob have been poorly excavated, though not from any want of journalistic effort. Trump’s intense devotion to keeping his financial records opaque—enabled by his servile Republican allies in Congress—has kept this improper connection in the dark. From cash transfers through his real estate developments, however, Trump has clearly been tied to the nexus of Russian intelligence services and organized crime for three decades.
In the 1990s, a spate of bad investments made Trump desperate for capital. While the vast majority of banks shunned the future president, who had already defaulted on considerable payments, Deutsche Bank, which Belton says had “a special relationship with Putin’s Kremlin,” became “Trump’s lender of last resort.” This was not a trivial matter. In a single 2011 transaction, DB provided Trump more than $300 million.
The precise nature of this relationship is still not known, though the smell emanating from the evidence as we know it is unmistakably fetid. And the charitable reading of Trump’s behavior doesn’t have the ring of near-truth that such a grave case demands. Over many years, Trump has showered Putin and his government with unalloyed praise. Entirely exculpating Putin, he has asserted that the Russian despot’s hands are no more dirty than those of American leaders. As president, Trump has only continued this deplorable habit. Against the consensus view of his own intelligence agencies, he has credited Putin’s denials of meddling in the U.S. presidential election. Trump has also inadvertently disclosed at least one high-level U.S. secret to the Russian foreign minister in the Oval Office. But even more damningly, he has subverted America’s precious alliances and eroded American prestige—longstanding objectives of the Kremlin. What’s more, the sight of an American president in thrall—and most probably in hock—to a malevolent foreign authoritarian has led to growing admiration for authoritarianism as well as diminished commitment to national security in the once-stalwart Republican Party.
Although Trump’s corruption and perfidy enabled Putin’s people, his predecessors in the Oval Office were also guilty of grave misjudgments. Around the time Putin was first learning his way around the Kremlin, the Bush administration greeted the new Russian leader with cautious optimism, at times cringingly so. Perhaps this naive policy was more forgivable in the early days of Putin’s reign, before he had abolished key institutions of Russian democracy, but the policy of accommodation continued long after it became clear that Russia was devolving into a dictatorship out to restore its great power status at the expense of its neighbors.
The Obama administration, for its part, treated Putin’s Russia as a place that could be safely ignored, dismissing it as a mere “regional power.” This was doubly wrong. In the first place, it was an odd claim of a uniquely Eurasian power that straddles two vast continents that provided the setting of the bloodiest havoc wrecked in the course of the twentieth century. Russia’s “near abroad” is a profoundly consequential space since Europe stands as a vital pillar of the liberal order. Its sovereignty and security, to say nothing of its democratic character—all of which have come under vigorous challenge by Putin—is crucial to the fate of liberal civilization.
For those who’ve forgotten, Russia has attacked Ukraine and annexed Crimea, becoming the first state to claim sovereign foreign territory by force since Saddam Hussein in Kuwait. It has also molested Moldova and the Baltic states of Estonia, Latvia, and Lithuania, while lately defending the fraudulent elections and blatant vote rigging of Europe’s last dictatorship in Belarus.
The conceit that Russia is a regional concern is wrong for another reason, evident to all those who have taken the measure of the enormous scope of Russian foreign policy. Putin has flexed Russian muscle well beyond the European landmass, projecting power into the Caucasus and Central Asia, and also (for the first time since Kissingerian diplomacy expelled the Soviets in the 1970s) the Levant. Russia has invaded the Republic of Georgia and shored up the odious Assad dynasty in Syria. This muscular interventionism has earned Russia many high-minded critics, but it has also accrued immense credit toward its claim as a great power.
Putin’s objective of overturning the post-Cold War settlement in Europe and expanding the Russian sphere of influence reflects the calculations of an aspiring great power, if not a superpower. Just as Russian might shouldn’t be exaggerated, neither should its weakness. In terms of what the Chinese call “comprehensive national power”—its combined economic, military, and diplomatic strength—Russia ranks behind only the United States and China as the mightiest power on earth. And it was this surge in power that, as so often before in the history of empires, has been attended by a new conception of national interest. Russia is no longer the insular and contented nation that it appeared to be in the 1990s. Despite its energy-driven rise and geopolitical prominence, and perhaps because of that rise to prominence, Russia appears to be increasingly dissatisfied. Its restless pursuit of regional dominance has coincided with a growing intolerance for interference from other great powers.
Russian greatness remains weighed down by its squalid domestic situation, however. As recently as 2018, almost a third of medical facilities in Russia lacked running water, 40 percent lacked central heating, and more than half lacked hot water. The state that once formed the basis of the now-defunct “second world” is bidding for regional hegemony, but from the economic position of an almost third-world country. With a smaller economy than Italy or even Canada but whose military spending dwarfs most other countries, Russia isn’t far from meeting Dean Acheson’s description of its impoverished Soviet predecessor: “Upper Volta with ICBMs.” A formidable nuclear arsenal—and well-financed intelligence networks to extend Russian influence abroad.
In 2016, Russia’s clandestine influence operations saw their greatest harvest yet when they helped elect a feeble and pliant American president who regarded America’s traditional friends as veritable foes and its legitimate foes as his actual or potential partners. Little wonder that at the Helsinki summit of the two leaders, Putin freely admitted that he had wished to see Trump elected.
Russia’s malign influence will undoubtedly intrude again in this autumn’s presidential campaign, but in all likelihood it will fail to preserve its client president in office. At which point, the incoming Biden administration could take an important first step toward cleaning up the geopolitical mess bequeathed to it by working to disclose the true extent of Putin’s debauched wealth. With any luck, this and other measures to roll back the Kremlin’s prestige might speed the day when Putin faces another Dresden moment, with the main difference being that this time the vulnerable regime would be his own.


thebulwark--2020-08-23--Trump’s Self-Defeating Attacks on the FDA

After distinguishing himself this week by his embrace of the conspiracy theorists at QAnon , President Trump posited early Saturday morning that the “ deep state , or whoever ” may also be hard at work at the FDA , determined to thwart his re-election by slowing down recruitment of patients to test promising new COVID-19 medicines .
Contributing to his ire , apparently : the FDA ’ s withdrawal of the Emergency Use Authorization for hydoroxychloroquine , announced in June , and the agency ’ s recent decision , reported by the New York Times last week , to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ data .
According to the Times , top federal health officials—including top infectious-disease doctor Anthony Fauci , National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins , and H. Clifford Lane , the clinical director at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases—regarded the data generated to date , from over 35,000 COVID-19 patients , as “ too weak ” to justify authorization .
Hydroxychloroquine , a medicine that ’ s been used for decades in the treatment of malaria and some autoimmune conditions , has been championed by Trump and his trade advisor @ @ @ @ @ @ @ quarreled with Fauci about it .
Trump , controversially , has also cited the testimony of Dr. Stella Immanuel , roundly ridiculed for her reported belief in alien DNA , sex with demons , and a government partially run by reptiles and other aliens disguised as humans .
The idea of convalescent sera—using the blood of recovered patients to treat new patients fighting the same infection—has been around even longer .
Emil von Behring received the Nobel Prize in 1901 for pioneering studies in this area .
A number of groups are now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ on this approach , and thousands of patients who have recovered from COVID-19 have contributed their blood to this effort .
What ’ s especially striking about Trump ’ s tweet is how profoundly counterproductive it likely is to both his own interests and those of the country .
His intuition that science ( like all other human activity ) doesn ’ t exist in the realm of pure objectivity , completely insulated from personal bias and political impulse , is of course correct .
Academic physicians , data suggest , tend to @ @ @ @ @ @ @ areas like pediatrics and infectious disease , a trend that seems to be accelerating .
University medical researchers also , and understandably , tend to be the experts to whom the FDA , medical journal editors , and the media all turn to for input and advice , and it can be difficult at times to determine with certainty where the science expertise ends and the personal beliefs begins .
The extreme and highly personal attacks visited upon Moncef Slaoui , a highly respected former pharma R & D executive tapped to lead @ @ @ @ @ @ @ ’ s effort to accelerate vaccine development , highlights the degree of animus in the current political climate , impacting scientists and health officials across the political spectrum .
Many public health officials have resigned or considered quitting after being threatened for simply doing their job .
I ’ m aware of at least one academic researcher ( who happens to be left-leaning ) who was the subject of vicious , personal attack ( including doxing ) after reporting scientific data that were regarded as supportive of Trump .
A flawed if intriguing @ @ @ @ @ @ @ may have been unduly critiqued precisely because it was so ardently championed by Trump , though the author also notes that the president certainly didn ’ t help matters by overhyping preliminary early studies .
One conspicuous concern with Trump ’ s latest attack on the FDA is that it represents an attempt to work the ref , and make it more likely that future decisions will resolve in fashion he regards as more favorable to him—ideally in time for him to incorporate the news into his reelection campaign .
But perhaps less @ @ @ @ @ @ @ well to recognize the urgent need for COVID-related drug and vaccine approvals and authorizations to be regarded as credible .
After all , drugs will only be used if prescribing doctors believe the products could be helpful , and vaccines will only be accepted if both doctors and patients believe they are likely to be safe and effective .
As former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb has repeatedly emphasized , the pandemic ’ s impact on the economy is , and is likely to continue to be , driven in large measure by the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ concerned about their safety .
The more Trump is seen to be putting his finger on the scale , the less credible new treatments will likely be seen by doctors and patients alike—including those that might truly be effective .
This means delayed adoption of potentially valuable therapeutics , and a longer time to capture both the medical and economic benefit at the population level .
Administration officials could help this effort , and themselves , in two ways .
First , they should continue to support the aggressive development and evaluation of @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the management of COVID-19 ; the Warp Speed effort , for example , seems to have catalyzed remarkable , substantive progress in a remarkably short period of time , and Trump arguably hasn ’ t received adequate credit for this effort .
Second , critically , Trump should let the evaluation of research data play out , and not interfere with this process .
This is , of course , the right thing to do , both scientifically and ethically .
But even from a craven political perspective , it ’ s hard @ @ @ @ @ @ @ evaluation process not backfiring in a way that inhibits progress .
It ’ s more than a little disconcerting to consider that scientific deliverance from this pandemic may hinge at least in part on the president ’ s ability to defer gratification by stepping away from his favorite outlet .
It ’ s like Trump ’ s very own , very personal marshmallow test .
How long can he resist ?
On Sunday afternoon , President Trump , flanked by HHS Secretary Alex Azar and FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn , announced that an @ @ @ @ @ @ @ been granted for the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19 .
This comes only several days after senior federal health officials counseled against approval , according to the New York Times , viewing the data as insufficient .
On Saturday , Trump suggested on Twitter that a “ deep state ” conspiracy might be at work within the FDA , inhibiting the development of COVID-related treatments ; he tagged Commissioner Hahn in his tweet .
As Politico drolly observed on Sunday afternoon , “ It is not clear whether the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ in the last week that would support the therapy ’ s use.
” According to CNN , a source “ close to the White House Coronavirus Task Force ” says that “ the FDA had reviewed additional data to inform its impending EUA decision.
” Perhaps the review of recently received data contributed to the FDA ’ s change of heart , though the timing , following closely on the heels of Trump ’ s tweet , feels more than a little suspicious—and concerning .
Will the FDA authorization of COVID-related medications now @ @ @ @ @ @ @ , based on his political needs , rather than by the medical researchers evaluating the data ?
This would dramatically lower the credibility of the agency , and the confidence associated with FDA reviews .
This would also prove especially problematic in the context of a potential vaccine , where success critically depends upon both an intrinsically effective product and the embrace of it by enough people .
If the lesson from the last 24 hours is that the FDA has surrendered its historical independence , and like so many others in this @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the knee in response to presidential tweets , then future COVID-related FDA authorizations and approvals , and the products that receive them , deserve to be viewed with profound skepticism , as would befit a process corrupted by presidential interference .
COVID research is too important—for the nation , which awaits safe and effective treatments , and for the president , who has fought so hard to accelerate the development of these therapies—to meet with this fate .

After distinguishing himself this week by his embrace of the conspiracy theorists at QAnon, President Trump posited early Saturday morning that the “deep state, or whoever” may also be hard at work at the FDA, determined to thwart his re-election by slowing down recruitment of patients to test promising new COVID-19 medicines.
Contributing to his ire, apparently: the FDA’s withdrawal of the Emergency Use Authorization for hydoroxychloroquine, announced in June, and the agency’s recent decision, reported by the New York Times last week, to withhold authorization of plasma therapy pending further data. According to the Times, top federal health officials—including top infectious-disease doctor Anthony Fauci, National Institutes of Health Director Francis Collins, and H. Clifford Lane, the clinical director at the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases—regarded the data generated to date, from over 35,000 COVID-19 patients, as “too weak” to justify authorization.
Hydroxychloroquine, a medicine that’s been used for decades in the treatment of malaria and some autoimmune conditions, has been championed by Trump and his trade advisor, Peter Navarro, who has famously quarreled with Fauci about it. Trump, controversially, has also cited the testimony of Dr. Stella Immanuel, roundly ridiculed for her reported belief in alien DNA, sex with demons, and a government partially run by reptiles and other aliens disguised as humans.
The idea of convalescent sera—using the blood of recovered patients to treat new patients fighting the same infection—has been around even longer. Emil von Behring received the Nobel Prize in 1901 for pioneering studies in this area. A number of groups are now working on developing therapies for SARS-CoV-2 based on this approach, and thousands of patients who have recovered from COVID-19 have contributed their blood to this effort.
What’s especially striking about Trump’s tweet is how profoundly counterproductive it likely is to both his own interests and those of the country.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
His intuition that science (like all other human activity) doesn’t exist in the realm of pure objectivity, completely insulated from personal bias and political impulse, is of course correct. Academic physicians, data suggest, tend to lean strongly left, especially those in areas like pediatrics and infectious disease, a trend that seems to be accelerating. University medical researchers also, and understandably, tend to be the experts to whom the FDA, medical journal editors, and the media all turn to for input and advice, and it can be difficult at times to determine with certainty where the science expertise ends and the personal beliefs begins.
The extreme and highly personal attacks visited upon Moncef Slaoui, a highly respected former pharma R&D executive tapped to lead Operation Warp Speed, the Trump administration’s effort to accelerate vaccine development, highlights the degree of animus in the current political climate, impacting scientists and health officials across the political spectrum. Many public health officials have resigned or considered quitting after being threatened for simply doing their job. I’m aware of at least one academic researcher (who happens to be left-leaning) who was the subject of vicious, personal attack (including doxing) after reporting scientific data that were regarded as supportive of Trump.
A flawed if intriguing recent perspective on hydroxychloroquine suggests the medicine may have been unduly critiqued precisely because it was so ardently championed by Trump, though the author also notes that the president certainly didn’t help matters by overhyping preliminary early studies.
One conspicuous concern with Trump’s latest attack on the FDA is that it represents an attempt to work the ref, and make it more likely that future decisions will resolve in fashion he regards as more favorable to him—ideally in time for him to incorporate the news into his reelection campaign.
But perhaps less obviously, the president might also do well to recognize the urgent need for COVID-related drug and vaccine approvals and authorizations to be regarded as credible. After all, drugs will only be used if prescribing doctors believe the products could be helpful, and vaccines will only be accepted if both doctors and patients believe they are likely to be safe and effective.
As former FDA commissioner Scott Gottlieb has repeatedly emphasized, the pandemic’s impact on the economy is, and is likely to continue to be, driven in large measure by the behavior and personal choices of anxious citizens concerned about their safety.
The more Trump is seen to be putting his finger on the scale, the less credible new treatments will likely be seen by doctors and patients alike—including those that might truly be effective. This means delayed adoption of potentially valuable therapeutics, and a longer time to capture both the medical and economic benefit at the population level.
Administration officials could help this effort, and themselves, in two ways.
First, they should continue to support the aggressive development and evaluation of new medical products that could contribute to the management of COVID-19; the Warp Speed effort, for example, seems to have catalyzed remarkable, substantive progress in a remarkably short period of time, and Trump arguably hasn’t received adequate credit for this effort.
Second, critically, Trump should let the evaluation of research data play out, and not interfere with this process. This is, of course, the right thing to do, both scientifically and ethically. But even from a craven political perspective, it’s hard to imagine any effort to influence the evaluation process not backfiring in a way that inhibits progress.
It’s more than a little disconcerting to consider that scientific deliverance from this pandemic may hinge at least in part on the president’s ability to defer gratification by stepping away from his favorite outlet. It’s like Trump’s very own, very personal marshmallow test. How long can he resist?
Update (August 23, 2020, 6:30 p.m. EDT):
On Sunday afternoon, President Trump, flanked by HHS Secretary Alex Azar and FDA Commissioner Stephen Hahn, announced that an Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) has been granted for the use of convalescent plasma for the treatment of COVID-19. This comes only several days after senior federal health officials counseled against approval, according to the New York Times, viewing the data as insufficient. On Saturday, Trump suggested on Twitter that a “deep state” conspiracy might be at work within the FDA, inhibiting the development of COVID-related treatments; he tagged Commissioner Hahn in his tweet.
As Politico drolly observed on Sunday afternoon, “It is not clear whether the FDA has received additional clinical trial data in the last week that would support the therapy’s use.” According to CNN, a source “close to the White House Coronavirus Task Force” says that “the FDA had reviewed additional data to inform its impending EUA decision.”
Perhaps the review of recently received data contributed to the FDA’s change of heart, though the timing, following closely on the heels of Trump’s tweet, feels more than a little suspicious—and concerning.
Will the FDA authorization of COVID-related medications now be viewed as driven by the president, based on his political needs, rather than by the medical researchers evaluating the data? This would dramatically lower the credibility of the agency, and the confidence associated with FDA reviews. This would also prove especially problematic in the context of a potential vaccine, where success critically depends upon both an intrinsically effective product and the embrace of it by enough people.
If the lesson from the last 24 hours is that the FDA has surrendered its historical independence, and like so many others in this government, is now prepared to bend the knee in response to presidential tweets, then future COVID-related FDA authorizations and approvals, and the products that receive them, deserve to be viewed with profound skepticism, as would befit a process corrupted by presidential interference.
COVID research is too important—for the nation, which awaits safe and effective treatments, and for the president, who has fought so hard to accelerate the development of these therapies—to meet with this fate.


thebulwark--2020-08-24--Trump’s Bad Bet on the Politics of Fear

Trump’s Bad Bet on the Politics of Fear

Given President Trump ’ s inability to run a positive campaign based on his record over the last four years , he only has one chance of winning re-election : scaring the ever-living crap out of the Republican base .
Sure , his campaign is signaling for the millionth time that they ’ ll have a “ new tone ” and saying they ’ ll produce an “ optimistic , hopeful ” convention .
And maybe there really will be some attempt , now and then during this week ’ s RNC , to reach out to undecided voters .
@ @ @ @ @ @ @ will be “ surprises , ” and positivity would certainly count as an unexpected change .
But don ’ t expect much of it : What Trump is really pitching is a bonanza of political and medical disinformation designed to confirm the fears of his army of internet trolls , who already think he ’ s some kind of deep-state avenging superhero who is saving the world from a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping , pedophiliacs who drink children ’ s blood .
Aside from hawking miracle coronavirus cures and pretending the election is @ @ @ @ @ @ @ only one play .
He ’ s asking housewives who aren ’ t yet brainwashed by QAnon wellness influencers on Instagram to believe the suburbs will be pillaged and looted by a roving mob of Black Lives Matter socialists led by .
.
.
Cory Booker .
( Heaven forbid , the hug-it-out New Jersey senator might bring you over some vegan cupcakes while he ’ s spreading “ radical love ” through the neighborhood .
Yikes ! )
But Trump has four days of programming during the convention this week to frighten @ @ @ @ @ @ @ move : If there ’ s one theme Trump has stuck with during his presidency , it ’ s the one that began with his inauguration speech—American carnage .
Once again , he ’ s putting all his bets on the politics of fear .
On its face , it seems to be a losing strategy .
Trump tried to terrify America about migrant caravans coming over the border before the 2018 midterm elections .
He told his supporters at pre-election rallies that “ the crisis on our border—right now , as we @ @ @ @ @ @ @ and activist Democrat judges.
” As a gesture of his commitment to keeping law and order , he deployed nearly 6,000 National Guard troops to the border .
How did that work out ?
Democrats took control of the House by flipping 41 Republican seats and notching the largest all-time margin of victory in history .
And then Trump promptly forgot about the caravan .
Now he ’ s going back to that same playbook .
All you have to do is swap out “ border ” and “ judges ” with “ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ is even vowing to bring in the troops , this time in the form of sheriffs and law enforcement , whom he says he ’ ll send to polling locations .
Got ta monitor those voting caravans !
As we near the last two months of the campaign , though , who are voters really afraid of ?
If Trump has it his way , every Fox News-watching grandma will be up all night shaking in her curlers that Booker and his Antifa buddies will break into her house , and she ’ @ @ @ @ @ @ @ police to call .
We know that because the Trump campaign spent $ 18 million running that ad through the month of July .
For those of us outside of the Fox News bubble of doom , however , what ’ s more frightening ?
Trump—and his utter failure in containing the coronavirus , authoritarian response to summer protests , and continued reign of chaos—or Biden ?
One guy presided over the deaths of 176,000 Americans , killed the economy , and gassed peaceful protesters .
The other guy ’ s main risk @ @ @ @ @ @ @ gives his phone number out to random people too much .
There ’ s been a lot of talk about hoaxes lately and by now , it ’ s pretty clear that the person who suggested that ingesting bleach could be a good way to treat coronavirus is helping to perpetuate them .
( That is , for those of us who aren ’ t members of the Bleach Cures and Anti-Vaxxer Facebook communities . )
Trump ’ s conspiracy-laden , fear-based campaign may very well be successful , just not in the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ voters see in the run-up to the November elections is more American carnage under the Trump presidency , they most likely will be scared right into the arms of Democrats .
This time around , it ’ s Trump who is the boogeyman starring in our national political nightmare .

Given President Trump’s inability to run a positive campaign based on his record over the last four years, he only has one chance of winning re-election: scaring the ever-living crap out of the Republican base.
Sure, his campaign is signaling for the millionth time that they’ll have a “new tone” and saying they’ll produce an “optimistic, hopeful” convention. And maybe there really will be some attempt, now and then during this week’s RNC, to reach out to undecided voters. Trump’s surrogates have said there will be “surprises,” and positivity would certainly count as an unexpected change. But don’t expect much of it: What Trump is really pitching is a bonanza of political and medical disinformation designed to confirm the fears of his army of internet trolls, who already think he’s some kind of deep-state avenging superhero who is saving the world from a secret cabal of Satan-worshipping, pedophiliacs who drink children’s blood.
Aside from hawking miracle coronavirus cures and pretending the election is already rigged against him, Trump has only one play. He’s asking housewives who aren’t yet brainwashed by QAnon wellness influencers on Instagram to believe the suburbs will be pillaged and looted by a roving mob of Black Lives Matter socialists led by . . . Cory Booker. (Heaven forbid, the hug-it-out New Jersey senator might bring you over some vegan cupcakes while he’s spreading “radical love” through the neighborhood. Yikes!)
But Trump has four days of programming during the convention this week to frighten voters. It’s his go-to move: If there’s one theme Trump has stuck with during his presidency, it’s the one that began with his inauguration speech—American carnage. Once again, he’s putting all his bets on the politics of fear.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
On its face, it seems to be a losing strategy. Trump tried to terrify America about migrant caravans coming over the border before the 2018 midterm elections. He told his supporters at pre-election rallies that “the crisis on our border—right now, as we speak—is the sole result of Democrat laws and activist Democrat judges.” As a gesture of his commitment to keeping law and order, he deployed nearly 6,000 National Guard troops to the border.
How did that work out? Democrats took control of the House by flipping 41 Republican seats and notching the largest all-time margin of victory in history. And then Trump promptly forgot about the caravan.
Now he’s going back to that same playbook. All you have to do is swap out “border” and “judges” with “suburbs” and “mayors.” Trump is even vowing to bring in the troops, this time in the form of sheriffs and law enforcement, whom he says he’ll send to polling locations. Gotta monitor those voting caravans!
As we near the last two months of the campaign, though, who are voters really afraid of? If Trump has it his way, every Fox News-watching grandma will be up all night shaking in her curlers that Booker and his Antifa buddies will break into her house, and she’ll have no one but the defunded police to call. We know that because the Trump campaign spent $18 million running that ad through the month of July.
For those of us outside of the Fox News bubble of doom, however, what’s more frightening? Trump—and his utter failure in containing the coronavirus, authoritarian response to summer protests, and continued reign of chaos—or Biden? One guy presided over the deaths of 176,000 Americans, killed the economy, and gassed peaceful protesters. The other guy’s main risk to our national security is that he gives his phone number out to random people too much.
There’s been a lot of talk about hoaxes lately and by now, it’s pretty clear that the person who suggested that ingesting bleach could be a good way to treat coronavirus is helping to perpetuate them. (That is, for those of us who aren’t members of the Bleach Cures and Anti-Vaxxer Facebook communities.)
Trump’s conspiracy-laden, fear-based campaign may very well be successful, just not in the way he expects. If all that voters see in the run-up to the November elections is more American carnage under the Trump presidency, they most likely will be scared right into the arms of Democrats. This time around, it’s Trump who is the boogeyman starring in our national political nightmare.


thebulwark--2020-08-24--Get Ready for a Week of Unhinged Attacks on Biden and Harris

While the left is showing signs of dissatisfaction with the Democratic party ’ s candidate for president and arguing that the party ’ s program is not progressive enough , the right has become positively unhinged , warning that the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris ticket will lead to full-blown Soviet-style socialism , or even the collapse and destruction of the United States .
For his part , Biden ’ s policy proposals are solidly within the center-left mainstream .
He has proclaimed his opposition to Medicare for All , calling instead for an expansion of health coverage through a public option @ @ @ @ @ @ @ has taken place during protests , particularly on the West Coast ; and his campaign publicly repudiated and condemned Linda Sarsour ’ s stance on Israel after the left-wing activist ’ s appearance at a “ virtual assembly ” associated with the convention .
The right , however , is not buying into John Kasich ’ s claim that Biden will not capitulate to the left .
On the contrary , they are certain that if Biden is elected , he not only will move the United States to socialism but will implement @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Deal to socialized medicine .
If Biden should win , they predict , Americans can expect Portland-style violence to be America ’ s future .
On the Commentary website , senior editor Abe Greenwald writes that “ What we ’ re witnessing , day after day , is revolutionary violence—and it is tearing up the country at a furious pace.
” We can not dismiss the violence because the rioters are young , Greenwald writes in the magazine ’ s September issue , because so were Mao ’ s Red Guards , and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ preceded by 12 days of protests kicked off by a Women ’ s Day March.
” The stakes are as high as they come : “ The battle for the survival of the United States of America is upon us , ” Greenwald says .
“ This is .
.
.
most fundamentally a revolution against the United States of America and all it stands for.
” Why should we take this seriously ?
His argument is as sane as when Attorney General John Mitchell looked out his window at protesters against the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ s looks like the Russian Revolution.
” Greenwald ’ s unstated conclusion is that , since the “ tyrannical mob ” poses the most danger to the nation , Donald Trump can not be as dangerous as the Democrats want you to believe .
Others are even less sanguine .
In David Horowitz ’ s Frontpagemag website , scholar Bruce Thornton says boldly : “ the president has a faithful and energized base and a record of accomplishment compared to the Dems ’ lunge to the lunatic left.
” Thornton agrees with the @ @ @ @ @ @ @ the Democrats have abandoned their traditional center-left governing philosophy and embraced a socialist ideology that for over a century has serially failed everywhere it has been tried.
” Don ’ t actually listen to what Biden says , Thornton implies ; just proclaim Biden believes the opposite .
When Trump says something outrageous , the response from his defenders usually is ignore what he says , followed by look at what he does .
When Trump then actually does something extremely dangerous , the same Trumpists just say to let it pass , @ @ @ @ @ @ @ steps were correct .
David Horowitz himself is even more vehement than his group of writers , claiming that “ Our cities are under siege by communists like Bernie and other self-declared enemies of America who have made eminently clear that they are Marxists and their goal is the destruction of our democracy , which they hope to replace with a communist gulag.
” The destructive and violent events in Portland , he writes , are “ acts of treason [ that ] have had the full support of the Democrat Party not @ @ @ @ @ @ @ Washington.
” That is why , he knows , that “ Portland is the issue that will re-elect Donald Trump in November.
” As for Obama ’ s powerful convention speech warning about the potential end of American democracy should Trump be re-elected , Horowitz has already argued that Obama ’ s White House engaged in “ acts of treason.
” These took place supposedly when the Obama team attempted to “ block and then overthrow the Trump presidency ” by falsely accusing it of “ collusion with Russia against the president and @ @ @ @ @ @ @ him.
” He quotes former Mayor Rudy Giuliani , who said that Obama and his team tried to stage a “ coup , ” which is nothing but “ treason.
” Obama , Horowitz writes , waged “ a direct attack on the most fundamental institution of our democracy—elections.
” As to the current president ’ s war on free elections , Horowitz has nothing to say .
This is tame compared to the attacks aimed at Kamala Harris , whom Trumpists claim will be the real president should Biden win .
Thornton @ @ @ @ @ @ @ progressive and aggressively ‘ woke ’ members of the Senate .
She has endorsed the far-left policies of the Sanders-AOC wing.
” Horowitz himself calls her “ a political opportunist and serial liar.
” Writing for Breitbart , Jim Pinkerton calls her a representative of “ the ‘ woke ’ left-libertarianism ” of the San Francisco Democrats once put in their place by the late Jeane Kirkpatrick .
Harris stands with a group , he writes , that is “ a part Karl Marx , one part MSNBC , one part Michel Foucault @ @ @ @ @ @ @ of Ayn Rand.
” She is part of a “ leftism that mostly leaves billionaires alone , free to further build their fortunes.
” To this reader , his complaint sounds like he ’ s talking about Donald Trump .
If possible , American Greatness , the Trumpist website , takes this hyperbole and hysteria to new heights .
Matthew Boose writes that the “ Kamala Coup ” that the Biden-Harris ticket has orchestrated is a “ swindle.
” In Harris we will have a “ regentess ” who is Do not be @ @ @ @ @ @ @ be presented sympathetically by the Democratic party machine and the mainstream media will do everything they can to make her look “ benign , ‘ authentic , ’ and ‘ moderate ’ ” when in reality she does not believe in anything and “ wears her thirst for power on her sleeve.
” Harris and Biden are “ actual tyrants in waiting.
” ( Note , of course , that Boose ’ s argument contradicts the arguments that Biden and Harris secretly stand for socialist revolution . )
So , as this week @ @ @ @ @ @ @ yourself for this sort of vicious attack on Joe Biden and Kamala Harris .
Trump will go lower than his lowest point of attack yet .
And his base , he hopes , will eat it up and come out to re-elect him .

While the left is showing signs of dissatisfaction with the Democratic party’s candidate for president and arguing that the party’s program is not progressive enough, the right has become positively unhinged, warning that the Joe Biden-Kamala Harris ticket will lead to full-blown Soviet-style socialism, or even the collapse and destruction of the United States.
For his part, Biden’s policy proposals are solidly within the center-left mainstream. He has proclaimed his opposition to Medicare for All, calling instead for an expansion of health coverage through a public option; he has condemned the violence that has taken place during protests, particularly on the West Coast; and his campaign publicly repudiated and condemned Linda Sarsour’s stance on Israel after the left-wing activist’s appearance at a “virtual assembly” associated with the convention.
The right, however, is not buying into John Kasich’s claim that Biden will not capitulate to the left. On the contrary, they are certain that if Biden is elected, he not only will move the United States to socialism but will implement every far-left proposal from the Green New Deal to socialized medicine.
If Biden should win, they predict, Americans can expect Portland-style violence to be America’s future. On the Commentary website, senior editor Abe Greenwald writes that “What we’re witnessing, day after day, is revolutionary violence—and it is tearing up the country at a furious pace.” We cannot dismiss the violence because the rioters are young, Greenwald writes in the magazine’s September issue, because so were Mao’s Red Guards, and besides, “the Russian Revolution was preceded by 12 days of protests kicked off by a Women’s Day March.” The stakes are as high as they come: “The battle for the survival of the United States of America is upon us,” Greenwald says. “This is . . . most fundamentally a revolution against the United States of America and all it stands for.”
Why should we take this seriously? His argument is as sane as when Attorney General John Mitchell looked out his window at protesters against the Vietnam War and said “It’s looks like the Russian Revolution.” Greenwald’s unstated conclusion is that, since the “tyrannical mob” poses the most danger to the nation, Donald Trump cannot be as dangerous as the Democrats want you to believe.
Podcast · August 15 2023 A.B. Stoddard: All the Ex-President’s Conspirators Donald Trump has been a low-rent mobster for his entire career, and now he’s getting…
Others are even less sanguine. In David Horowitz’s Frontpagemag website, scholar Bruce Thornton says boldly: “the president has a faithful and energized base and a record of accomplishment compared to the Dems’ lunge to the lunatic left.” Thornton agrees with the rest of the Trumpist right that “the Democrats have abandoned their traditional center-left governing philosophy and embraced a socialist ideology that for over a century has serially failed everywhere it has been tried.” Don’t actually listen to what Biden says, Thornton implies; just proclaim Biden believes the opposite. When Trump says something outrageous, the response from his defenders usually is ignore what he says, followed by look at what he does. When Trump then actually does something extremely dangerous, the same Trumpists just say to let it pass, or offer apologias and argue that his steps were correct.
David Horowitz himself is even more vehement than his group of writers, claiming that “Our cities are under siege by communists like Bernie and other self-declared enemies of America who have made eminently clear that they are Marxists and their goal is the destruction of our democracy, which they hope to replace with a communist gulag.” The destructive and violent events in Portland, he writes, are “acts of treason [that] have had the full support of the Democrat Party not only in the cities themselves but in Washington.” That is why Portland, he knows, “is the issue that will re-elect Donald Trump in November.”
As for Obama’s powerful convention speech warning about the potential end of American democracy should Trump be re-elected, Horowitz has already argued that Obama’s White House engaged in “acts of treason.” These took place supposedly when the Obama team attempted to “block and then overthrow the Trump presidency” by falsely accusing it of “collusion with Russia against the president and then to obstruct his administration and overthrow him.” He quotes former Mayor Rudy Giuliani, who said that Obama and his team tried to stage a “coup,” which is nothing but “treason.” Obama, Horowitz writes, waged “a direct attack on the most fundamental institution of our democracy—elections.” As to the current president’s war on free elections, Horowitz has nothing to say.
This is tame compared to the attacks aimed at Kamala Harris, whom Trumpists claim will be the real president should Biden win. Thornton calls her “one of the most progressive and aggressively ‘woke’ members of the Senate. She has endorsed the far-left policies of the Sanders-AOC wing.” Horowitz himself calls her “a political opportunist and serial liar.”
Writing for Breitbart, Jim Pinkerton calls her a representative of “the ‘woke’ left-libertarianism” of the San Francisco Democrats once put in their place by the late Jeane Kirkpatrick. Harris stands with a group, he writes, that is “a part Karl Marx, one part MSNBC, one part Michel Foucault, and maybe even a little bit of Ayn Rand.” She is part of a “leftism that mostly leaves billionaires alone, free to further build their fortunes.” To this reader, his complaint sounds like he’s talking about Donald Trump.
If possible, American Greatness, the Trumpist website, takes this hyperbole and hysteria to new heights. Matthew Boose writes that the “Kamala Coup” that the Biden-Harris ticket has orchestrated is a “swindle.” In Harris we will have a “regentess” who is
merciless. If she is successful, the revenge will be merciless too, not only against Trump, but against his supporters. The country will suffer as a result. . . . [Harris and Biden] will give amnesty to millions of illegal immigrants . . . disarm Americans, even as they defund police . . . and leave citizens vulnerable to criminals and mobs. They have demonstrated that they have no sympathy for this country, its people, or its borders.” There is no reason to suppose that their talking points on these questions are mere rhetoric. They will do these things.
Do not be fooled, Boose warns: Harris will be presented sympathetically by the Democratic party machine and the mainstream media will do everything they can to make her look “benign, ‘authentic,’ and ‘moderate’” when in reality she does not believe in anything and “wears her thirst for power on her sleeve.” Harris and Biden are “actual tyrants in waiting.” (Note, of course, that Boose’s argument contradicts the arguments that Biden and Harris secretly stand for socialist revolution.)
So, as this week’s Republican convention proceeds, steel yourself for this sort of vicious attack on Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. Trump will go lower than his lowest point of attack yet. And his base, he hopes, will eat it up and come out to re-elect him.