John Solomon Interviews President Trump on Current Events

John Solomon and Amanda Head sit down with President Donald Trump for an exclusive interview covering the biggest issues effecting Americans today. {Direct Rumble Link} WATCH:

Ketanji Brown Jackson Is Neither Black Nor a Woman

Precious few on the Left can be saved by arguments or logic. 

It’s time to recognize the power of mockery.

by Josiah Lippincott for American Greatness

Owning liberals with facts and logic is a losing game. The hard-core liberal, like all ideologues, is immune to the power of reason. The future of the American regime, to say nothing of the fate of Western civilization, will not be decided by superior arguments. 

This will sound like heresy to the Ben Shapiros of the world, who have made a name for themselves challenging liberals to open debate in the “marketplace of ideas.” The wisest minds in the history of philosophy from Plato to Locke, by contrast, have known full well that some human beings simply cannot be educated. In Book X of the Nicomachean Ethics, written some 2,500 years ago, Aristotle argues that some people can only learn through beatings. And those who cannot learn at all, he argues, should be deported from the city. A harsh assessment, perhaps, but the fundamental point is well taken. Even being whacked upside the head with literal two-by-fours is not enough to teach the most fervent political fanatics to recognize reality. 

Anyone who has tried debating the most ferocious COVID enforcers or middle-aged liberal wine aunts (but I repeat myself) will swiftly realize how persuasion is lost on a mind warped by ideology. 

Take Ketanji Brown Jackson’s recent insistence that she could not provide a definition of the word “woman” because she is not “a biologist.” If Jackson cannot provide a definition of the word woman, we may also assume that she cannot provide a definition of the word “black” because she is not an ethnologist. Therefore, since we don’t know what a woman is, and we don’t know what being black means, might we reasonably conclude that Judge Jackson is neither of those things?

For all we know, today’s “experts” might very well determine that she is a white male. In which case Ms. Jackson’s (or, more accurately, Mr. Jackson’s) nomination to the Court is not historic at all. She/he will simply join the long pantheon of other white males nominated to the Supreme Court and thereby perpetuate the history of systemic racism and white supremacy. Jackson should check his privilege!

This train of logic is stupid, of course. Jackson isn’t arguing from a principled understanding of nature or reality. She doesn’t have a coherent metaphysics with which anyone must seriously grapple. She knows exactly what it means to be a woman when it comes to sexual harassment cases . . . and affirmative action hiring decisions. 

Trying to piece together how liberals understand gender and sexuality is an exercise in upside-down logic. I am told that liberals believe in materialism. If so, what do we make of transgenderism? If literal flesh and blood genitals don’t determine gender, then liberals must believe in some spiritual reality. A biological man may be born with a female essence or soul. In which case, liberals are not materialists at all. But where does this essence come from if one’s “innermost concept of self as male, female, a blend of both or neither” is the real foundation of gender identity, as the Human Rights Campaign puts it? 

But if choice is the basis of identity, then how do we explain Lady Gaga’s profound philosophical insight that some individuals are simply “born this way”? Is homosexuality therefore genetic? Could homosexuality tests one day be administered in the womb, for instance? Or is a longing for same-sex relations a product of environmental conditions? Are we really to believe that homosexuality is inborn but gender is the result of choice? 

I leave the careful parsing of these byproducts of left-wing word manufacturing to Ben Shapiro and company. Given enough rounds of spritely rhetorical combat, these gifted conservative talmudists will, I’m sure, finally convince the liberals to concede the error of their ways. Fedoras will be tipped by all sides upon the inevitable conservative victory. “You must concede that you have been owned by my superior intellectual powers, my good sir.”

Yes, yes! A winning strategy, indeed!

Or not. The Right needs to recognize that metaphysics and justice are totally separate. Human beings, for the most part, do not choose their political identities through rational argument or because of systematic claims about nature but rather because of deep, subconscious instincts, and peer pressure.

Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn, the famed Soviet dissident, cuts to the core of the problem in his novel In the First Circle. In the chapter titled “The Leading Ideology,” all the members of the sharaska, a concentration camp for intellectuals in the gulag system, attend a lecture on Marxism as part of their reeducation. In a scene reminiscent of a modern American diversity seminar, the enslaved scientists (along with their guards) are subjected to a mandatory 90-minute presentation on the political principles of the regime.

The speaker promises to explain all of reality to them in one sitting. Quite a promise! It is all bullshit, of course. The philosophical underpinnings of communism—the “dialectical materialism” of Marx and Engels—is simply a jumble of words that papers over true reality. The claims about historical progress and revolutionary change are simply unprovable assertions. The real basis of communism, as Solzhenitsyn shows, is not rational argument, but a will to power. The fierce resentment of the Marxists against God, against the strong, and against the successful, explains their brutal ideological dictatorship far better than any series of claims about the nature of reality.

“Political philosophy,” for most people, is simply the patina of words that covers their secret longing to dominate. The same hatred—of Christian civilization, of success, and of order—that animated the communists of Solzhenitsyn’s day, motivates the liberals of ours. The same human types, the same weirdos, outcasts, perverts, and losers, gravitate to liberalism as to communism. They do this not out of some great philosophic insight or because they have been persuaded by an argument, but because of their innate psychological, spiritual, and biological drives. 

Mockery, humor, and rhetoric are therefore far more effective weapons against the liberal project than reason and logic. The American Right should rely on appeals to instinct and common sense far more than on complex Socratic treatises. An avalanche of words cannot change a deformed nature. 

It is true, some human beings simply do not know what their genitals mean or where they ought to go. Others want to live in the ever-present shadow of the COVID biomedical security state. Still others want permanent global civil war in the name of human rights. None of these types understand their own self-interest or the human good. They don’t grasp the importance of self-preservation or the connection between a healthy social life and happiness. They don’t know what human life is for. 

A precious few of these ideologues can be saved by arguments. Many more can be discouraged from their wayward path by mockery and a loss of honor. And for those who won’t submit to either? 

Well, there’s always the two-by-four. 

X22, On the Fringe, and more-March 30

 

Small side note: The absolute Season of Hell for an imposter show with the same name has an actual end date:

And it can't come soon enough!! Link to my article from this morning: https://wwwp-lives.blogspot.com/2022/03/ncis-la-hetty-is-hero-of-this-show-and.html

Here's tonight's news:

Biden Is Unfit to Lead in This Perilous Moment

Joe Biden has been modeling just the kind of loose talk and sloppy execution of diplomacy and strategy that, historically, engenders misunderstandings, war, and epic tragedy.

by Nicholas L. Waddy for American Greatness

By no means are Americans in agreement about the degree to which we should support Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. Some believe we should stay well out of it, while others favor much more robust assistance to the Ukrainian people. A growing and vocal minority believes that the time has come to intervene directly in the conflict, despite the inherent risk of World War III, up to and including nuclear war.

We can hope, however, that there is one thing Americans and people throughout the West can agree on: Now is the time to consider our actions and words extremely carefully; to make thoughtful, rational choices; and to articulate our goals with absolute precision. After all, a Russian misreading of our intentions could produce direct confrontation between Russian and American forces which, at this stage, is an outcome most sensible people are still eager to avoid.

Unfortunately, Joe Biden occupies the White House. His recent European tour yielded a litany of rhetorical blunders any one of which, by itself, could destabilize U.S.-Russian relations, could produce unintended and undesirable escalation by the Russians, or could simply exasperate our allies, thus damaging the unity of NATO as it faces down Russian aggression.

First, Biden declared that if the Russians used chemical weapons in Ukraine we would respond “in kind.” U.S. officials had to walk back that statement, since, of course, the United States (theoretically) has no chemical weapons, and we would be prohibited by international law from ever using them even if we did.

Next, Biden told U.S. troops in Poland that they would personally observe the courage of the Ukrainian people “when you’re there.” Many understandably took this to mean that Biden foresaw the deployment of U.S. forces inside Ukraine. American policy, however, is that, while we support Ukraine’s struggle and intend to give weapons to the Ukrainian military, we will not intervene militarily ourselves. Biden’s advisors thus had to explain that, in fact, Biden did not mean what he appears to have said.

Finally, Biden declared in a fiery speech that Russian President Putin “cannot remain in power.” The Russians, and many in the West, took this as a direct call for regime change, which, once again, is in direct contradiction of U.S. policy which does not seek to alter Russia’s government or infringe on its sovereignty, but only to dissuade it from current and future aggression.

Biden, of course, has a well-known history of making gaffes and blunders. Presumably, therefore, many world leaders, including those in Russia, are inclined to shrug off these clumsy remarks as the ravings of a buffoon, whose mental acuity is simply way overtaxed by the demands of the presidency. At least, this is the best-case scenario.

The worst-case scenario is that Biden’s confrontational, interventionist rhetoric will be taken seriously—that it will be assumed that Biden is telegraphing a clear intention to escalate U.S. involvement in Ukraine and eventually to confront Russia directly on a battlefield of his choosing, perhaps after U.S. and Western public opinion has been adequately prepared by rousing Russophobic speeches like the ones he is now delivering.

Let us reflect, briefly, on the possibility that Biden’s statements should be taken seriously and do reflect his actual intentions—even if he did not mean to tip his hand so clearly. What might be the consequences of a decision at the highest levels of the U.S. government to “take on” Putin’s Russia?

For one thing, the more America confronts Russia, the more we risk World War III and nuclear combat which, in turn, means the unity of NATO is likely to fracture as the hazards multiply. NATO is currently united around a strategy that involves redeploying some NATO forces eastward, but not into Ukraine; sending Ukraine weapons of moderate effectiveness, but not other weapons which might provoke Russia; and imposing sanctions on Russia, but not energy-related sanctions that could damage Europe’s economy. That is the most unity NATO and the West have been able to muster as of yet. Biden’s provocative statements, and perhaps his aggressive intentions, threaten that fragile consensus and could fracture the Western alliance altogether.

The bigger risk is that Russia will take Biden seriously. If so, Russia may conclude that it had better gird its loins and complete the destruction of Ukraine’s military and the occupation of its territory. Russia might decide that the urgent completion of these tasks, moreover, requires it to use weapons of mass destruction to neutralize enemy forces. Were that to happen, then the West is already committed to inflicting dire (although completely unspecified) consequences on Russia—consequences that undoubtedly would bring us closer to World War III than at any time since the Cuban Missile Crisis.

This, then, is the mess Joe Biden has gotten us into. The irony is that he ran for president as a man who could bring experience, maturity, and sound judgment back into the White House. Instead, he has been modeling just the kind of loose talk and sloppy execution of diplomacy and strategy that, historically, engenders misunderstandings, war, and epic tragedy.

Sadly, it’s too late to change presidents in the midst of this terrible crisis. It may not be too late, however, to ask Joe Biden politely to go back to his basement where he belongs—and where he’s unlikely, or at least less likely, to get us all killed.

Here’s How Much ‘Bidenflation’ Is Really Taking Out Of Your Bank Account

Here's How Much 'Bidenflation' Is Really Taking Out Of Your Bank Account

Elle Reynolds- The Federalist

Our era is known for deluging consumers in more information than they can thoughtfully intake, and the Biden White House is counting on you to glance past the record-breaking bad inflation numbers that keep revealing the dangers of Congress’s high-dollar spending. You might give only a cursory look to a list of percentages from the Labor Department, but apply those numbers to your own paycheck, savings, and expenses, and the numbers start to sound a lot bigger and more painful.

The average annual wage earned by American workers was $53,383 for the year 2020, according to the Social Security Administration. Take 7.9 percent of that — the year-over-year inflation rate for February — and you have $4,217. So, for that average American salary to maintain the same value it had a year ago, it would have to increase by just over $4,200; if it hasn’t, inflation has cost you roughly $4,200 in depreciation of your salary’s value.

To compare, the average annual pay raise employees are expected to receive in 2022 is 3.4 percent — less than half of the past year’s inflation rate. Using the previous average wage, even if you got a 3.4 percent raise (adding $1,815 to your yearly income), you’d still be down more than $2,400. And that’s with an average raise that’s already higher than pay bumps in previous years; in 2021, the average employer gave out 2.8 percent raises.

Not only does inflation mean you’re effectively getting paid less, it also means that in many sectors, you have to spend even more of those dollars to purchase the same amount and quality of goods. Some goods, like the cost of food, have a comparable rate of inflation to the overall rate of 7.9 percent, but other commodities have jumped far more drastically.

According to the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the cost of fuel oil in the past year jumped 43.6 percent from February 2021 to February 2022. 

In February 2021, the cost of gas was approximately $2.50 per gallon. Divide that by the average American’s vehicle mileage of 24 miles per gallon and multiply by the average 14,263 Americans drove in 2019, and that’s roughly $1,486 spent on fuel in a year. (2020 and 2021 saw skewed averages due to politicians’ Covid lockdowns, so 2019 is a more reliable average.) The cost of gasoline fluctuates over the course of a year, of course, but the static February number works for the purpose of comparison. 

If your car’s mileage and the number of miles you travel stay the same, what can you expect 43.6 percent inflation of gas prices to do to your wallet? Multiply that percentage by the rough annual fuel cost of $1,486, and at this rate you’re going to be spending nearly $650 more to keep your tank filled over the year.

Rising gas prices aren’t going to make up your largest jump in expenses, either. Housing is by far most Americans’ biggest expense, and the rising costs of rents and mortgages in the past year have also outpaced the already record-breaking overall inflation rate.

According to a Redfin analysis, February saw a 15 percent year-over-year increase in asking rent, and a 31 percent jump in the national homebuyers’ median monthly mortgage rate.

Monthly asking rent jumped to $1,901, compared to $1,646 last February. Just multiply that $255 difference by 12 months and you’re spending an extra $3,060 on rent over one year.

Mortgage payments rose even more dramatically, from $1,311 in February 2021 to $1,716 in February of this year. That $405 difference adds up to spending an extra $4,860 for the same mortgage, thanks to the rapid inflation of the past year.

Additionally, Americans in the market to buy used vehicles have also seen a far higher price spike than the overall inflation rate in the past year, at a whopping 41.2 percent. The Kelley Blue Book reported the average used car selling for $27,608 last month (a number likely higher than the average used car sticker price, as Americans look to offset inflation by buying cheaper cars). 

If that number is 41.2 percent higher than a year ago, that means you’d have spent $8,056 more on the same car last month than in February 2021. The inflation rate for new vehicles, while not as high, has also risen faster than the overall inflation rate, at 12.4 percent.

With all of these rising costs and depreciating wages, thank goodness for savings, right? That’s another thing; the average American who had savings had $41,600 put away in 2019. If you had a similar amount saved away in February 2021, the value depreciation caused by the past year’s 7.9 percent inflation rate means your savings have been drained of $3,286 in value in just one year.

Just looking at housing and fuel costs — not counting utility bills, which have also outpaced overall inflation, or any other commodities and services — you might find yourself spending an extra $3,500 to $5,500 in a year, while your salary depreciates by about the same amount and your savings likewise see a value loss of $3,000 and change.

Near-8 percent inflation already sounds high, but look at the actual drain on your paycheck and simultaneous spike in your expenses, and that number suddenly feels a whole lot higher.

---

Official Joe Biden White House Position, Kindergartners Must Be Taught About Gender Reassignment and Sexuality

White House Communications Director Kate Bedingfield said it is “tragic” that Florida passed a law prohibiting young kids from being taught sex and gender theory, during the White House press briefing today. WATCH:

Florida Governor Ron DeSantis spoke about the ridiculous backlash from the far-left woke Democrats and their corporate media sycophants yesterday.

Disney President of Entertainment Shares Corporate Objective to Promote LGBTQIA Issues Targeting Children

Put this in the things that make other things make sense file. As the Disney corporation publicly says they will “work as a company” to advance gender sexualization for young children in Florida elementary schools, one of the top Disney executives explains why. {Direct Rumble Link)

During a conference call to explain the corporate intents of the company, Disney entertainment president Karey Burke says, “As the mother [of] one transgender child and one pansexual child,” she supports having “many, many, many LGBTQIA characters in our stories” and wants a minimum of 50 percent of characters to be LGBTQIA and racial minorities.  WATCH:

How One Progressive Prosecutor Paved the Way for an East Coast Shooting Spree

How One Progressive Prosecutor Paved the Way for an East Coast Shooting Spree

Josh Christenson - Washington Free Beacon

Fairfax County, Va., commonwealth's attorney Steve Descano (D.) / Twitter

A gunman suspected of killing two homeless men and wounding others in two East Coast cities in March would have been in prison at the time of the shootings if not for the work of one progressive Virginia prosecutor.

The office of Fairfax County commonwealth's attorney Steve Descano (D.) in December 2020 charged the shooter, Gerald Brevard III, with three felonies related to his attempt to abduct a hotel housekeeper and later break into a nearby apartment. The felonies—abduction with attempt to defile, burglary, and possession of burglarious tools—together would carry a minimum of 26 years in prison and up to a life sentence.

But six months later in June 2021 Brevard was a free man. Descano's office reduced the first two felonies to misdemeanors, and dropped the third entirely, the case file shows, allowing him to leave prison after just five months. Less than a year later in March, Brevard opened fire on the first victim of his shooting spree. In the course of the nine-day spree, he is alleged to have killed two homeless men and wounded three others in Washington, D.C., and New York City.

The reduced charges Descano's office placed on Brevard were not the first in his criminal history—his rap sheet stretches back to at least 2010 and includes malicious destruction of property, drug possession, armed robbery, assault with a firearm, and assaulting a police officer. A policy memo that Descano distributed the day before Brevard's 2020 arrest urged assistant commonwealth's attorneys to seek misdemeanor charges over felonies whenever appropriate. And according to sources who spoke with the Washington Free Beacon, including former members of the commonwealth's attorney's office, such criminal justice reform policies promulgated by Descano allowed Brevard to evade justice.

Descano was among a coterie of left-wing prosecutors—along with Loudoun County's Buta Biberaj and Arlington County's Parisa Dehghani-Tafti—swept into office in 2019 by six-figure donations from George Soros. The Democratic megadonor's Justice and Public Safety PAC donated more than half-a-million dollars to Descano's campaign, helping him oust a 35-year veteran prosecutor in the Democratic primary before capturing office in deep-blue Fairfax County.

Police interviews with Brevard's abduction victim reveal he approached the housekeeper from behind when she was alone in a hallway, shoved her head into a wall, then covered her mouth and tried to drag her into an adjacent room. The victim was able to cry for help and escape after a short scuffle, suffering only minor injuries. She informed police she would be able to identify Brevard if she saw him again. Three weeks later, Brevard broke into a nearby apartment and was arrested.

Police records show Brevard also disposed of a fully loaded pistol magazine in the back of a squad car as he was transported to jail on the night of his arrest—a felony Descano's office never charged him for.

Descano's office did not respond to a request for comment.

Virginia's top prosecutor Jason Miyares (R.) told the Free BeaconDescano's light sentencing for violent criminals enabled Brevard's violent rampage.

"This is an example of his criminal-first, victim-last mindset," Miyares told the Free Beacon, adding that Descano has conducted himself more like a defense attorney than a prosecutor. "You want to be a defense attorney—great, resign. You're not prosecuting. You're acting as an advocate for violent criminals."

Descano has said Brevard's abduction and burglary charges were hamstrung by lack of evidence. But conversations with former members of the Fairfax County commonwealth's attorney's office reveal a pattern of failing to prosecute violent criminals. During his tenure, Descano has abolished cash bail, told his attorneys to avoid mandatory minimum jail sentencing, and declined to prosecute many misdemeanors. He has reportedly told his staff that they "will never get in trouble for prosecuting light."

Former attorneys from the office told the Free Beacon such policies are "completely beyond the pale" of ordinary prosecutorial discretion.

"It is a total abandonment of his responsibility to seek justice and protect the public in his role as commonwealth's attorney," one said.

Reports show the Brevard case is not an outlier. In the first homicide case of this year, a Fairfax County man in January killed an 18-year-old and shot another man in the eye while waiting at a bus stop. Descano had pleaded the shooter out on misdemeanors in 2020 after he carried a concealed weapon with its serial number scratched off to a high school basketball game. The gunman had originally been charged with a felony.

Descano has cited last year's 10 percent decrease in crime in Fairfax County as proof of the effectiveness of his policies. Critics have pointed out, however, that homicide is up nearly 50 percent since his election. The supposed downward trend is, they say, the result of a lower conviction rate rather than a true reduction in crime.

Concerns over crime in Fairfax County have prompted some local groups to try to remove Descano from office. In April 2021, Stand Up Virginia announced a recall effort, and four months later Virginians for Safe Communities followed suit. Both describe their groups as motivated by the dangers progressive prosecutors pose to public safety. Sean Kennedy, the president of Virginians for Safe Communities, said the homeless killings Brevard was recently charged for show how "reckless" Descano's approach to criminal justice reform has been.

"If Descano had done his job by protecting the public and following the law instead of protecting criminals and imposing his radical ideology there is not a scintilla of doubt that those two innocent men would be alive today," Kennedy told the Free Beacon. "Their lives mattered more than Descano's reckless agenda."

The prosecutorial approach has also alienated law enforcement. Since the beginning of the year, 29 police officers have left their jobs in Fairfax County. Only two were fired, and resignations outpaced retirements three to one.

Staff described a contentious work environment in the office, with Descano prone to angry outbursts when his judgment is questioned. More than half of the attorneys have departed since he took office, including four of his five deputy commonwealth's attorneys, leaving behind mostly unpracticed prosecutors to handle a flood of cases. Those who spoke with the Free Beacon did so anonymously for fear of career reprisals. All mentioned Descano's political ambitions.

"There wasn't a focus on the actual investigations," another former attorney said. "Rather it was what will look good or bad for a TV camera or Washington Post article."

During one particularly heated meeting over sex crime cases, Descano reportedly yelled at a prosecutor who was planning to charge a murderer with a 20-year sentence, "Fuck that. You're going to charge, at most, 15 years."

"Don't listen to victims," Descano added. "They're overly dramatic."

On March 18, the Fairfax County commonwealth's attorney's office dropped felony charges for a mother accused of shaking her two-month-old baby and causing head trauma. The assistant commonwealth's attorney tasked with the case had resigned from the office in February. Descano blamed the resignation for his office's failure to prosecute.

Russia Indicates Withdrawal in Position From Ukraine Capital, Kyiv + Second Perspective from streiff

Sundance reporting for Conservative Treehouse 

(second article by RedState streiff follows below this one)

While the western propaganda about the Russian objective in Ukraine remains at a fever pitch, most intellectually honest observers have always held that liberation of eastern Ukraine was the goal of Russia and western Ukraine was never part of the objective.

With a decade-long civil war in eastern Ukraine preceding the current Russian operations, and with western forces supporting one side while Russia supported the other, it was always presumed -prior to the Russian military operations- that Vladimir Putin’s central goal was removing the NATO influence from eastern Ukraine.

That objective has seemingly remained visible throughout the conflict with Russian activity in western Ukraine limited in scope to targeting inbound NATO weapons and material support.

We might remember the 20-mile-long armored convoy that sat in place for weeks north of Kyiv while the media narrative was ‘any day now’. Those troops never moved on Kyiv, and in hindsight looked more like a strategic positioning of resources to keep western Ukraine in check while the more important goal of clearing eastern Ukraine was the ongoing operation.

It seems a little silly to point out the obvious, but everything Putin said about what he was doing in Ukraine is factually what has taken place. The western media narrative spinning his ‘true intents’ to be much more significant than his open statements, has never played out when reviewing the actual military operations. In short, Putin was then (as he said), and continues now, to be carving out eastern Ukraine and the Donbas region.

As the Russian operations in eastern Ukraine enter the clean-up and finalization stage, this report about the shift in Russian operations near Kyiv and western Ukraine makes a great deal of sense.  The Reuters spin is that Putin was losing western Ukraine, ergo he is reducing activity.  However, it never appeared that western Ukraine was part of the objective.

ISTANBUL/KYIV OUTSKIRTS/MARIUPOL, Ukraine, March 29 (Reuters) – Russia promised on Tuesday to scale down military operations around Ukraine’s capital and north, while Kyiv proposed adopting neutral status, in confidence-building steps that were the first signs of progress towards negotiating peace.

Their talks took place in an Istanbul palace more than a month into the largest attack on a European nation since World War Two. Russia’s invasion has been halted on most fronts by stiff resistance from Ukrainian forces who have recaptured territory even as civilians are trapped in besieged cities.

He made no mention of other areas that have seen heavy fighting, including around Mariupol in the southeast, Sumy and Kharkiv in the east and Kherson and Mykolaiv in the south.

Some analysts noted that Russia’s promise to reduce fighting mostly covered areas where it has been losing ground.

[…] Ukrainian negotiators said that under their proposals, Kyiv would agree not to join alliances or host bases of foreign troops, but would have security guaranteed in terms similar to “Article 5”, the collective defence clause of the transatlantic NATO military alliance.

They named Israel and NATO members Canada, Poland and Turkey as countries that may give such guarantees. Russia, the United States, Britain, Germany and Italy could also be involved.

The proposals, which would require a referendum in Ukraine, mentioned a 15-year consultation period on the status of Crimea, annexed by Russia in 2014. The fate of the southeastern Donbas region, which Russia demands Ukraine cede to separatists, would be discussed by the Ukrainian and Russian leaders.

Kyiv’s proposals also included one that Moscow would not oppose Ukraine joining the European Union, Russia’s lead negotiator Vladimir Medinsky said. Russia has previously opposed Ukrainian membership of the EU and especially of NATO. (read more)

⓶

Russian Army Begins to Withdraw From Kiev to Russia and a Lot of Folks Are Very Unhappy With the Pig in the Poke They Were Sold

streiff reporting for RedState

On Tuesday, Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin held a press conference after Russia-Ukraine negotiations ended in Istanbul. In that conference, he read a statement that seemed to indicate that Russia is de facto accepting that its decapitation thrust launched at Kiev at the outbreak of hostilities has failed. (Note that the deputy defense minister made the statement, not Putin’s favorite courtier Sergei Shoigu, who hasn’t been seen in public since March 11, Russia’s Defense Minister Surfaces After Two Week. Disappearance and the Mystery Deepens.)

“Due to the fact that the talks on preparing an agreement on Ukraine’s neutrality and non-nuclear status as well as on providing Ukraine with security guarantees are moving to the practical sphere, considering the principles discussed during the meeting today, in order to bolster mutual confidence and create the necessary conditions for the further talks and the achievement of the final goal – the coordination and the signing of the aforementioned agreement – the Russian Defense Ministry has made a decision to cardinally, several-fold decrease the military activity in the direction of Kiev and Chernigov,” he said.

“We are proceeding from the premise that Kiev will make corresponding basic decisions and conditions should be created for the further normal work,” the military official added.

This statement supports the strategic direction outlined by the operations director of the Russian General Staff in a briefing last week (see Russia’s General Staff Claims Invasion Objectives ‘Mainly Accomplished’ and Phase II of Ukraine Invasion Is Starting). The idea was to reduce the force directed against Kiev, Kharkiv, and other cities in northern Ukraine, and focus military efforts on consolidating Russian control of Donbas–and perhaps achieve a so-called “land bridge” to Crimea. That accomplished, the Russians would dig in and wait for a peace agreement.

There is a lot less to this than the Russians are claiming. The cold, hard facts are that Ukrainian counter-offensives have made some areas untenable for Russian forces.

A guy named Nathan Ruser makes maps like these. They are great because of big swaths of color; he shows where Russian and Ukrainian areas of control are only as wide as the road the troops occupy. Regard the green spaces of the map as not being under the control of either side.

Northwest of Kiev, Ukrainian advances from east and west threaten to create a pocket of Russian forces. North-northeast of Kiev, you’ll see the city of Chernihiv. It was encircled as late as last week. In addition, the body of Russian troops on the eastern outskirts of Kiev is in danger of being cut off, after a Ukrainian counterattack severed their supply route. Further east, the city of Sumy (or Sum), which was also encircled, now has routes open to Ukrainian territory. Still further east, the city of Kharkiv was nearly surrounded, and it also has had supply routes opened to Ukrainian territory.

What the Russians want to do is pull as much of that force on the Kiev-Sumy-Kharkiv axis back into Russia, reconstitute them with vehicles pulled from storage depots and reservists who have been called up (Russia Calling 100,000 Reservists to Active Duty and Moving Wagner Group From Syria to Deal With Ukraine Manpower Crunch). Then they will ship those units east and reinforce the effort in the Donbas region.

Interestingly, the Ukrainians have captured draftees from the Donbas “republics” near Kharkiv, implying that the Russians have shifted a less capable militia force from Donbas and swapped it with a Russian unit.

The big-brain thinkers in the White House publicly doubt that the withdrawal is real.

“We need to see what the Russians actually do before we trust solely what they’ve said,” Kate Bedingfield, the White House communications director, said during Tuesday’s daily briefing. “We have no reason to believe” Moscow has abandoned its push into Kyiv. “No one should be fooled,” she continued, adding “The world should be prepared for a major offensive against other areas of Ukraine.”

I have to believe this is some sort of hardball negotiating tactic that they think will influence a negotiation they are not a party to. It is difficult to see why the Russians would pull back, just to launch a new offensive over the same area, this time facing a prepared and stubborn defense. This is not to say the Russians won’t do that, but most military commanders would resist having to fight to take the same real estate twice.

There is no reason to believe the plan will work, because it is hard to see how Russia generates the combat power to achieve its declared mission. However, the Russians seem prepared to try it, and they have established a narrative to explain the retreat from Kiev.

The problem with narratives is that they must be consistent.

In several public statements, Vladimir Putin has laid out his criteria for ending the war in Ukraine.

1. The government must be denazified; you can read that as regime change.
2. The country must be demilitarized, meaning that the Ukrainian armed forces must be disbanded.
3. Ukraine must forswear joining NATO or allowing foreign troops on its soil.
4. Ukraine must recognize Russia’s ownership of Crimea.
5. Ukraine must recognize the “independence” of the fake republics Russia established in Donbas.

Shortly after the deputy defense minister delivered his announcement, the defense ministry posted the text of the statement to Russia’s leading social media site, vk.com. If you click through the link in Chrome, it translates the statement and comments. I’m not sure about other browsers.

No, this is not the first time the Russian Army has had its ass handed to it by a much weaker opponent. When regime spokeswoman Maria Zarahova announced it on her Telegram channel, she was dragged.

 

Not only Rando Russians were opposed; so were Putin’s allies.

All of this just points to what we have discussed here for the past couple of weeks. By Putin laying down a hard marker of victory demands on several occasions, he created an expectation in the minds of his supporters that he would follow through. My opinion is that Russia has now reached the point where it will have to struggle to obtain what it had already achieved by February 21 (see Vladimir Putin Runs the Table in Ukraine and Shows Joe Biden to Be a Feckless and Unreliable Security Partner) without a war.

Today, the public statement agreed to leave intact a government that Putin has described as consisting of “nazis” and “drug addicts.” He agrees to leave the Ukraine armed forces in existence. There is no mention of Ukraine not joining NATO. There isn’t a whisper about Donbas independence or the annexation of Crimea. There is one message: “we’re withdrawing away from Kiev.”

This, like the helpful statements by Joe Biden (Here’s Why Biden’s Putin-Regime Change ‘Gaffe’ Was So Egregious) is doing nothing but making it more and more difficult to not only bring the Ukraine war to an end, but to keep it from spreading.