BLUF: "The second question is in the news because a Kremlin insider, Konstantin Malofeyev, was featured this week in a Financial Times article, saying that Moscow finds the terms of the settlement drafted by General Kellogg to be utterly unacceptable. And then Kellogg responded publicly challenging Malofeyev’s credibility as a voice of the Russian President."
With all respect, but hypothetically, if I were in a position of legal authority in Russia, I would prosecute Gilbert Doctorow for "Treason," and/or "Aiding the Enemy," for his support of Donald Trump! Trump has readily been apparent as the most pro-war, anti-Russian, President, since Ronald Reagan of the U.S. (who got over it, to the chagrin of Conservatives: https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp87m01152r000400500001-7, https://www.cia.gov/readingroom/document/cia-rdp88g01116r000700840022-9, with Trump allied with the same in Poland's President Duda),with this as Ex. A for the prosecution: (I would add some other names to this, all running around with their hair afire a few weeks ago with one-sided fears that if Biden got elected, nuclear war was sure to follow, which it might have, but equally if not more likely, it will under Trump, but they're Americans)
And this Ex. B: Napolitano: 22:58
"Getting back to Ukraine, can a Secretary Rubio, a National Security Advisor Waltz, and a Secretary Hegseth possibly craft an end to the Ukrainian war acceptable to President Putin, while Vladimir Zelensky is still in power or claiming to be in power, Professor Doctorow?
Doctorow:
"Well, I think this will happen, but I wouldn't look just at those three, because it's more than likely that Donald Trump will appoint someone in charge of Putin."
Me: He did, Keith Kellogg, who if anything, is more in favor of war against Russia (which I oppose, but not for the reasons falsely articulated by New Right fanatics like JD Vance, who want to prioritize war against China and Iran, while leaving Russian regime change to the Europeans).
The article below is by Tom Rogan, a far-right, pro-war, Washington Examiner writer, who once Trump won election, is putting aside the successful ruse that Trump was for "Peace." Just one look at his Cabinet should disabuse anyone of that notion, if they can think, and if they're honest. Which excludes a lot of people I once had respect for!
BLUF: "However, Trump has shown an early, tentative signal that he may deny Putin this prized outcome. As the Washington Post details, during a reported call with Putin on Thursday Trump “advised the Russian president not to escalate the war in Ukraine and reminded him of Washington’s sizeable military presence in Europe”. . . . "In a similar vein, by now dangling US military power in Putin’s face, Trump is signalling that his prior campaign rhetoric of needing to make all concessions necessary to prevent World War III was, perhaps, just rhetoric. The Kremlin wants America to cut support for Ukraine so that Kyiv is forced to the negotiating table on its knees. Instead, Trump is at least teasing the prospect that he may put significant pressure on Russia to secure a peace deal that endures."
Here's another post-election article by Rogan, pointing out that Biden did a favor for the "Transition President," acting as President, meaning in actually he could stop any Biden policy, if he actually wanted to: Quote: "When he enters office in January, Trump can now tell Putin that he will keep sending missiles to Ukraine until Russia makes concessions. The President-elect has already indicated that he is aware of the need to impose this pressure on the Kremlin. But by taking this decision now, Biden affords Trump leverage while ensuring that Putin’s anger falls on his outgoing presidency rather than the one set to replace it. "Critics of this decision will warn that it increases the risk of a direct US or Nato confrontation with Russia." Yes it will, and it obviously had Trump's concurrence, if it wasn't in fact his transition team's suggestion! Or listen to it on this podcast:
With this speculation at least partially corroborated by Keith Kellogg making the same point: Quote: "Biden has "actually given President Trump more leverage," Kellogg said. "Now he can pull back. He can go left; he can go right. He can do something." Kellogg added that the decision "does give President Trump more ability to pivot from that." Here's the kicker: "The retired general also said the move should have been made "a long time ago." "They should have been doing this a year ago," said Kellogg. "You do not fight a war allowing other countries to have sanctuaries. "If you're gonna fight a war, you fight a war, and we've basically pulled back on letting [Ukrainian President Volodymyr] Zelensky fight a war that he should have been fighting a long time ago." So here's what a Russia prosecutor could use as evidence that Gilbert Doctorow is presenting false information (a deception active measure) to conceal Trump's plans of aggression against Russia. BTW, I very much recommend Michael Tracey as a reliable source of information on Trump, as opposed to its opposite from QI and TAC. Although Scott Horton put up a lot of resistance as an anti-war, pro-Trump libertarian to Michael Tracey speaking the truth about Trump, Tracey got out a lot of information about Trump's aggressions here:
My final argument as a hypothetical Russian prosecutor against Defendant Doctorow would be, "If a non-Russian like Michael Tracey can speak knowledgeably about Trump's aggressions during his administration (which I heard of too from some Ukrainians speaking to the tour group I was part of in 2018), then surely a Russian living in St. Petersburg should know of them too. So, obfuscating that fact was surely for the purpose of "Aiding the Enemy," by bringing Trump/Vance to power." And would rely on these anti-Russian, war-incitement diatribes of Hegseth's as evidence of that.
Will Cain and Pete Hegseth break down the Russia-China relationship
Pete Hegseth blasts Obama's 'hope' strategy with Russia
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxDe0KtJJio
"While Trump did campaign on ending the war in Ukraine, the president elect has given multiple cabinet appointments to strategists who say that the way to achieve that peace is to substantially escalate aggressions against Russia. Michael Tracey has been doing a great job compiling footage of Trump’s recent cabinet picks advocating extreme measures which happen to be in perfect alignment with the nuclear brinkmanship of the demented outgoing president and his handlers."
Quote: "Virulent Iran hawk Brian Hook has reportedly been chosen by Donald Trump to help staff the State Department of the incoming administration, just in case you were still holding out hope that this time might be different and Trump really would end the wars and fight the deep state."
Me: He's supplanting the existing deep state, with his own, owing loyalty to Trump, and hand-picked by Heritage Foundation and Netanyahu!
How can people be so stupid as not to see this?
Trump: I Will Regain Control of Bagram Air BaseFormer US President and current presidential candidate Donald Trump once again addressed the US withdrawal from Afghanistan during a speech to his supporters, stating that if he wins the upcoming election, he will regain control of Bagram Air Base. Trump linked America's presence in Afghanistan to its proximity to China, highlighting that Afghanistan's location near China makes it important for the US. According to the Republican Party candidate, losing Bagram Air Base was an irreparable loss for the United States. Speaking to his supporters, Trump said: “You take a look at the kind of things that we've given up, uh, we should be, we should have that air base we should have that oil, we should have, we would have had a whole different country, but to give up ... to give up the biggest airbase military airbase in the world, and they left it — behind but we would have been, we would have been, we would have been a much different country right now but we're going to get it back and I promise you we're going to get it back.”
On Dec 5, 2024, at 12:39 PM, xxxxxxx@listserve.com> wrote:
“Judging
Freedom” edition of 5 December 2024 In this
session our discussion focused on two of the most important questions of the
day: 1. what damage can the Oreshnik hypersonic
missile do to justify its description as a game-changer in the Ukraine war and 2. whether the proposals to end the war
in Ukraine put forward by Trump’s designated emissary, General Kellogg, will be
accepted by the Russians and lead to an early cease-fire once Trump is
inaugurated in January The first question is so important because
Vladimir Putin’s plans for responding to any further U.S., British and French
provocations is now to concentrate his firepower on Ukraine, threatening to
destroy its decision-making centers, meaning to kill Zelensky and his
confederates by Oreshkin strikes, rather than to attack military installations
in the United States or other NATO countries. We should assume that he knows
the capability of his weapons when he takes such strategic decisions, but some
of our experts, including MIT Professor emeritus Ted Postol are saying that
Putin does not know what he is talking about, has been misled by his advisers. The second question is in the news because a
Kremlin insider, Konstantin Malofeyev, was featured this week in a Financial
Times article, saying that Moscow finds the terms of the settlement drafted
by General Kellogg to be utterly unacceptable. And then Kellogg responded
publicly challenging Malofeyev’s credibility as a voice of the Russian
President. Of course, in our 30 minutes we covered several
other key issues in the international news of the past week, in particular, what
Russia is saying about who is the mastermind behind the Islamic ‘rebels’
storming of Aleppo and threatening the Assad regime; and whether Moscow will
fight to save Bashar al-Assad as it did during 2015-2017. See Dr. Gilbert Doctorow : Russia’s Next Moves.
| ![]() | Dr. Gilbert Doctorow : Russia’s Next Moves. |
|
|
|