Yves here. Trump, showing his long-established tendency to believe the last person who spoke to him, has gone from accepting Vladimir Putin’s report that Ukraine attempted to assassinate him via over 90 drones targeting his residence near Valdai to buying the CIA’s denial, that there was a Ukraine attack, but of a military objective not near the Putin lodging.
Frankly, Russia feeling the need to provide evidence to Trump through attaches (charitably assuming it will get to him unmolested and that he has the cognitive chops to interpret it) shows that they’ve gone too far in indulging the negotiation-to-end-the-war charade. Putin like felt it was necessary to enhance Russia’s image with its economic allies, who weren’t happy with the fact of the invasion. He may even have harbored some hope of improving relations and restoring at least some commercial ties. But the Administration has been unwilling or unable to take even the baby step of returning diplomatic property seized from Russia. And Trump has repeatedly retraded his deals, first retrading Alaska, now apparently retreating from the 28 point plan to some new version yet to be finalized.
Russia would be better served to stop dignifying this distraction, particularly since the CIA is now using it to try to discredit Putin personally. They need to prosecute the war and see if and when the US or Ukraine reopens talks of perceived necessity.
By Andrew Korybko, a Moscow-based American political analyst who specializes in the global systemic transition to multipolarity in the New Cold War. He has a PhD from MGIMO, which is under the umbrella of the Russian Foreign Ministry. Originally published at his website
Tensions risk spiraling out of control if Trump isn’t disabused of the CIA’s false narrative that Ukraine’s recent large-scale drone attack against Novgorod Region wasn’t an attempt to assassinate Putin.
Trump retweeted an editorial from the New York Post on New Year’s Eve about how “Putin ‘attack’ bluster shows Russia is the one standing in the way of peace”, which followed CIA chief John Ratcliffe briefing him about the agency’s assessment that Ukraine supposedly didn’t attempt to assassinate Putin. Several days prior, Putin informed Trump during their latest call that nearly 100 Ukrainian attack drones were intercepted near his residence in Northern Russia on the day that Trump hosted Zelensky.
Trump expressed anger when asked about this by the press and reminded everyone how he decided against giving Ukraine Tomahawks, seemingly implying that this might have saved Putin’s life. Ukraine predictably denied that it targeted Putin, with Zelensky lashing out at India and other countries whose officials condemned the attack that he insisted didn’t happen. Trump is now evidently of the same mind after Ratcliffe’s briefing, which convinced him that Ukraine didn’t attempt to assassinate Putin.
According to the CIA chief, an attack did indeed take place at the time that Russia claimed and in the same region as Putin’s residence in Northern Russia, but it supposedly only targeted a nearby military site. If Trump disagreed with this assessment, then he wouldn’t have retweeted the New York Post’s editorial condemning Putin of all people over this incident, conspiratorially speculating that the Russian leader made it all up “as an excuse to reject Trump’s progress on peace” and “spit in America’s eye.”
In the interests of transparency and wanting to prevent the CIA from manipulating Trump into once again escalatingagainst Putin, Russia’s military intelligence chief handed over to a representative of the US military attaché materials containing the downed drones’ decoded route data. He also said that this evidence “unequivocally and accurately confirmed that the target of the attack was the complex of buildings of the residence of the President of the Russian Federation in the Novgorod region.”
Nevertheless, this evidence might not disabuse Trump of Ratcliffe’s false narrative since he’s still dependent on the CIA’s assessment of the downed drones’ decoded route data. Seeing as how they lied about the attack’s target to misportray Putin as trying to manipulate Trump, they’re unlikely to reverse their narrative, especially after publicly receiving evidence from Russia. They’re therefore expected to stick to the script and misportray this evidence as yet another attempt by Putin to manipulate Trump.
Foreign Ministry spokeswoman Maria Zakharova warned that Russia’s response “will not be diplomatic”, but if Trump doesn’t believe its side of the story, then he can be manipulated by the CIA into perceiving this as “unprovoked aggression” and thus misled into escalating further. The New York Times’ recent report on Trump’s Ukraine policy revealed that the CIA earlier convinced him to authorize them to aid Ukrainian attacks against Russian refineries and its “shadow fleet” so the escalation risk is very real.
Therein lies the importance of convincing Trump that Ratcliffe lied to him. If that can be achieved, then the US likely won’t overreact to Russia’s retaliation, and perhaps Trump might finally force Zelensky to withdraw from the rest of Donbass as a concession for averting Russia’s retaliation. If Trump remains under Ratcliffe’s influence and Russia’s promised retaliation is more than symbolic, however, then he might be manipulated by him into being the one who reverses his own hard-earned progress on peace.
Korybko does not offer arguments as to why RU shouldn´t be able to or advised to pursuing multiple trajectories and strategies at the same. To keep open channels is no big loss. To quote Martyanov´s – although childish use of movie citations – you own what you can destroy – is the essential truth. Unless RU won´t take their foot off that everything else is secondary.
Why does Korybko not address the lack of trusted people in the Trump administration? IMHO that´s a huge and influential issue in all this.
After all we have an apparatus of I don´t know how many intelligence and secret agencies in the US for 25 years zooming in on Russia. How should we expect those to be changed in 10 months???
By a guy who is despised by many files and ranks of the upper echelons of that very same deep state?
I dunno – almost nothing written in the West really ever seems to be up to the task of assessing this clusterfuck.
No wonder the populace has zero clue (I see it in Germany all over – whether Russia-haters or “peacenicks”). So why should POTUS have a clue beyond his “gut feeling”. Wherever that gut is lingering.
Did the CIA/MI6 provide assistance for the attack? What role did the Ukrainians actually play? My knee-jerk reaction to the attack was that it was planned and facilitated by the west and the Ukrainians used as a front.
The provocations just get more desperate, reckless and dangerous. Just imagine if an attack was launched on a western head of govt. or the emperor himself. We have been here before, but it sure seems they are itching for a nuclear war.
It appears that Putin is still trying, to no avail, to appeal to DT’s rational faculties.
The emperor lacks the cognitive chops to evaluate anything that requires more than 10 seconds attention. He also lacks a basic moral compass. He boasts about taking bribes from foreign nationals and selling US policy to the highest bidder. He surrounded himself with corrupt and incompetent cabinet members (GIGO)
The cognitive decline appears to be progressing slowly but steadily. Some of his statements are nonsensical and amount to gibberish. A mentally deficient, reckless, POTUS with his hands on the nuclear football does not bode well for national security.
One thing I have had difficulty figuring out the last few years is if Tulsi Gabbard is for real or if she is just another establishment limited hangout. During moments of extreme cynicism I remember that she was a WEF young global leader, but in moments of optimism I think she agreed to be part of the administration because she saw an opportunity to actually contribute to peace.
This could perhaps be a clarifying moment: Will she speak out and disabuse some of the public of the CIA narrative or will she remain silent?