They Never Stopped Spying

Among the bad tastes lingering in the mouths of Republicans from the 2020 election, prominent is a letter signed by 51 former senior officials within or adjacent to the U.S. intelligence community. It baldly claimed that explosive emails recovered from soon-to-be first son Hunter Biden's abandoned laptop had "all the classic earmarks of a Russian information operation." The emails and the rest of the contents of the laptop were, in reality, entirely authentic. So here was a partisan effort on the part of Biden supporters to lean on their résumés in an effort to discredit the damaging disclosure.

The post They Never Stopped Spying appeared first on .

Leaving NATO Stronger As Putin Eyes an Attack

Storm clouds formed over the Gulf this week, as American forces retaliated against Iranian attacks on neutral shipping, but it was mostly sunshine and rainbows at the NATO summit in Ankara. Donald Trump had some tough comments about a few European allies, but overall, "there was a lot of love in that room. A lot of unity."

The post Leaving NATO Stronger As Putin Eyes an Attack appeared first on .

Why Peace in Armenia Matters—And Why Trump Deserves Some Credit

With Donald Trump and the Iranian regime lurching between continuing an economic war of attrition and announcing that a deal is imminent, the Persian Gulf remains volatile. But just to the north of Iran, an earlier Trump peace offensive is yielding its first fruits.

The post Why Peace in Armenia Matters—And Why Trump Deserves Some Credit appeared first on .

Liberal critics hate 'The Wizard of the Kremlin' — that's how I knew it was worth a watch



Remember around 2018 or so, when reviews on Rotten Tomatoes suddenly became suspicious?

Like movies that hit all the left-wing, DEI talking points would get 98% Fresh ratings from the critics, but then when regular people started weighing in, the audience meter would drop precipitously?

Paul Dano’s Baranov is fascinating. He’s the opposite of a typical Russian movie character. He’s sensitive, intelligent, creative, and socially aristocratic.

Or when a movie like "Sound of Freedom" came out and all the critics panned it because it was produced by a non-Hollywood Christian studio. But then, everyone who saw it loved it?

Generally, I still consult Rotten Tomatoes. But in any situation where a film can be seen as “political” or might touch on a controversial subject, I become skeptical.

Such was the case with "The Wizard of the Kremlin." It was already getting roasted months before its release. Apparently, our brave American critics wanted to virtue signal their personal animosity toward Putin.

Because of this, I became interested in the film. If the critics hate it, it’s probably good.

RELATED: MacIntyre: The real reason journalists hate ‘Sound of Freedom’

Getty Images

Vive le cinéma!

Another aspect of the film I was excited about: It was made by French filmmaker Olivier Assayas. Not that the French are so independent-minded, but Hollywood filmmakers are literally incapable of addressing international politics above a sixth-grade level.

The French though. They’ve been through some stuff. They’re not afraid to talk about international affairs in a serious, adult manner.

Another thing that recommended the movie: the casting of Jude Law as Putin and Paul Dano as Baranov, his close personal adviser. (Baranov is a fictional character, almost everyone else is real.)

When I heard this, I thought: “Oh my goodness, this movie is going to be brilliant.

Another good sign: The film was adapted from an acclaimed French novel by the same name. So the story was already established. The film just had to follow it.

Story of my life

The movie begins in the present, with an American journalist traveling to Russia to interview Baranov (Paul Dano) about his former role in the Putin administration.

Through this interview, Baranov tells the story of his life, which begins in the '80s and moves through the dissolution of the Soviet Union and the emergence of Putin.

The film’s portrayal of life at the end of the Soviet Union was super interesting, in part because we rarely see this in films.

The avant-garde theater scene in Moscow in the late 1980s? Could you even picture that? I couldn’t. Until I saw it.

All the Russian interiors were super interesting. And the clothes. And the nightclubs. The supporting actors all looked very Russian. The whole thing was fun to look at. This was the end of the dowdy Soviet Union and the beginning of the reign of the gangster oligarchs.

No rush

It took 40 minutes for Putin to appear. This built suspense. You’re sitting there enjoying Paul Dano as Baranov, and then you remember Jude Law is still to come. Jude Law as Putin!

Meanwhile, Paul Dano’s Baranov is already fascinating. He’s the opposite of a typical Russian movie character. He’s sensitive, intelligent, creative, and socially aristocratic (his father and grandfather were high-level Communist Party members).

He speaks in a soft, unhurried voice. But with his big, wide, puffy face, he still looks totally Russian!

The whole “you’re in Russia” conceit was great. I don’t know if this was actually filmed in Russia, but it sure felt like Russia. (I noticed in the credits there were a few mentions of Latvia. So maybe they shot some of it there.)

Putin on the Ritz

So finally, 40 minutes in, we get our first look at Putin. In the beginning, it’s Baranov and his boss (they both work for Russian TV) who are recruiting the reluctant KGB agent.

They think Russia needs a new style of leader, someone young and energetic. They’ll help him. They’ll guide him. They’ll make sure he wins.

But Putin isn’t receptive. He’s happy where he is.

But once he gets a sniff of power, Putin rises quickly. Only Baranov is able to remain in his good graces, due to his low-key, soft-spoken manner.

Jude Law as Putin was hilarious. I laughed to myself when he first appeared. Not that it was intentionally funny. It was just a relief, and a little bit shocking, to finally see him.

It was actually a very good rendition. It was not politicized. Jude Law did the Putin scowl and facial and body expressions. It was really good. I was kind of blown away.

Smart art

Honestly, I was blown away by the whole movie. It was funny, moving, smart. It did have moments where plot points had to be explained to the audience, forcing characters to make little speeches of exposition. But that always happens when you adapt from a book.

There were also some historical/political plot points that I would maybe question. But this movie is designed for a European/American audience and has to adhere generally to our Western understanding of Putin and his crew. Because of this, Putin is ultimately “the bad guy.”

But he’s definitely a fully fleshed-out character in the film. When they show him hanging out with his old KGB buddies, you get a sense of the man behind the scenes.

"The Wizard of the Kremlin": Itwas the most intelligent movie I’ve seen in years. I thoroughly enjoyed it. Highly recommend.

A version of this review originally appeared on the Substack Travels to Distant Cities.

America Needs a New START? Our Enemies Never Stopped.

To the shock, horror, and dismay of onlookers around the world, the New START treaty expired on Thursday. U.N. secretary-general António Guterres called it "a grave moment for international peace and security" and lamented that, "for the first time in more than half a century, we face a world without any binding limits on the [American and Russian] strategic nuclear arsenals." Nuclear disarmament advocates and their media supporters fear the onset of an arms race and global thermonuclear war.

The post America Needs a New START? Our Enemies Never Stopped. appeared first on .

Tomahawks look tough. Grid disruption actually wins.



As President Trump proposes a ceasefire-in-place to stop the meat grinder in Ukraine, Vladimir Putin appears to be doing what he does best: stalling. With the U.S. busy juggling Iran, Venezuela, and even Greenland, Putin likely figures he can drag this war out long enough to wear Ukraine down and force a surrender through attrition.

Meanwhile Volodymyr Zelenskyy is brooding over not getting Tomahawk cruise missiles — weapons that could strike deep inside Russia.

The goal is irritation, disruption, and humiliation — repeated so often that people start cursing the Kremlin for creating this mess.

But instead of fixating on Tomahawks, Zelenskyy should look at the position Putin is now in. It has a historical parallel worth taking seriously.

Putin resembles Czar Nicholas II in 1917.

In both cases, Russian treasure has poured into a black hole while generals kept ordering “meat attacks” that chewed through manpower by the hundreds of thousands. In 1917, the loss of blood and money turned the nobility against the czar and set the stage for the Kerensky Revolution.

Putin’s oligarchs now sit where the czar’s nobility once sat: close enough to power to profit and close enough to disaster to panic.

Ukraine should exploit that.

A weapon of mass disruption

The goal shouldn’t be a dramatic strike that makes Russians rally around “Mother Russia.” A Tomahawk barrage would do exactly that. It would unify the country behind Putin and hand him the cleanest propaganda gift imaginable.

Ukraine needs something else: a way to transfer the misery and frustration of war to the Russian public — especially in Moscow and other major cities — without creating a patriotic surge.

Russia’s population is insulated by propaganda. Ukraine should attack the insulation, not the borders.

Winter brings slower movement and fewer offensives. That gives Ukraine an opening to run a low-cost, high-annoyance campaign modeled on a little-remembered British operation from World War II.

RELATED: Pressed on Greenland, Trump tells Davos the US has weapons he ‘can’t even talk about’

Photo by Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

The British Royal Navy called it Operation Outward. Today strategists would call it a “cost-imposing” campaign: something cheap to launch that forces the enemy to spend far more to stop it.

The Royal Navy released nearly 100,000 weather balloons. About half carried incendiary bomblets. The rest dragged long wire strands designed to short out power lines and cause disruption across the German electrical grid. German forces had to waste time and resources trying to counter a swarm of cheap devices drifting across their territory.

Because winds in the northern hemisphere generally move west to east, the Germans couldn’t retaliate in kind.

(The Japanese later tried something similar against the United States with the Fu-Go balloons, launching roughly 9,300 of them toward the U.S. and Canada. They forced America to divert resources even though the overall damage remained limited.)

Ukraine’s geography makes this concept even more attractive. Ukraine sits southwest of Russia. That means a balloon campaign drifting into western Russia would give Moscow no easy, low-cost way to respond with the same trick.

And unlike the World War II version, Ukraine wouldn’t need incendiaries. The point isn’t to burn Russian cities or kill civilians. The last thing Ukraine needs is to create martyrs and rally Russians around Putin.

The goal is irritation, disruption, and humiliation — repeated so often that people start cursing the Kremlin for creating this mess.

The cost math

Peter Rosato of Kaymont Consolidated Industries, a major weather balloon manufacturer, estimates that an eight-foot diameter balloon costs about $5 to $7. A hydrogen generator could inflate them for only pennies more.

Using the British model, the balloon could carry a simple ballast mechanism that slowly lowers it while trailing a long tether: roughly 700 feet of hemp cord, tied to a thinner steel wire around 300 feet long. That wire drags across power infrastructure and can short out lines, forcing repairs and outages.

The British saw real success disrupting the German electrical grid. They also forced the Nazis to waste valuable fighter flight hours trying to shoot down balloons — an expensive response to a cheap threat.

Ukraine could buy 100,000 balloons at roughly $5 each and — even after adding wire and other components — build a unit for under $1 million.

Unlike the British, Ukraine also wouldn’t need the same complex altitude-control system used to guide balloons across the English Channel, France, and the Low Countries into Germany. A long, contiguous border allows Ukrainian launches to drift into Russian territory without the same navigation demands.

To improve the results, Ukraine could tweak the design. A better unreeling mechanism might outperform a simple trailing wire. A Ukrainian electrical grid specialist and a meteorologist familiar with conditions in the northeastern border region near Shostka could help optimize launch times for maximum impact.

Make it a war Russians can’t ignore

This isn’t just disruption. It’s information warfare.

The point is not only to knock out power lines but to make the disruption visible — balloons everywhere across western Russia, especially near Moscow — as proof that Putin cannot protect his own people from the consequences of his war.

Modern realities require modern execution. Ukraine couldn’t run this from fixed-launch sites. Russian reconnaissance drones would find them, and artillery or kamikaze drones would destroy them.

The operation would need to move.

A vehicle-borne launch system makes the most sense: military trucks large enough to carry inflated eight-foot balloons, gas tanks, uninflated balloons, payloads, communications gear, a generator, and basic workshop tools.

And for safety, Ukraine would likely need to use helium instead of hydrogen. Hydrogen is cheaper, but the risk of accidental detonation inside a truck is too high.

RELATED: The fastest way to stop Iran’s killers ... without firing a single shot

Antonina Satrevica / Getty Images

Night launches would also matter. To avoid detection, the trucks and equipment would need to be compatible with night-vision operations.

Now picture the outcome.

Imagine 1,000 yellow-and-blue balloons drifting into Russia every day, dragging wires across electrical lines.

Imagine the manpower, equipment, and aircraft Russia would have to divert from the front to hunt them down — at night — every night — for the next hundred nights.

And for the final touch, imagine the optics when Russian crews find one of these balloons in daylight, wires draped across a shorted power line, with a huge portrait of Vladimir Putin half-naked on a horse and the Russian phrase for “I did that!”

That kind of mockery lands differently when you’re freezing in the dark because of Putin’s war.

Ukraine doesn’t need Tomahawks to hit Russia where it hurts. It needs a cheap, persistent campaign that turns irritation into anger — and turns anger into political pressure on the regime that started this catastrophe.

Those Unhappy With Ukrainian Peace Deal Have Russia Hoaxers To Blame

Without Iraq-style lies about Russia, the collusion hoax, the impeachment farce, and the 51 intel officials laundering deception for political gain, there likely would have been no Russia-Ukraine war.

Why the Ukraine Peace Plan May Be Pointless

President Trump's latest Ukraine peace offensive took the world by storm. The 28-point plan and Thanksgiving deadline set off a diplomatic frenzy on both sides of the Atlantic. The Ukrainian government and European negotiators rushed to connect with their U.S. counterparts, and the Russians passive-aggressively threatened to veto any proposal emanating from these talks. As of this writing, 19 points are now on the table—and peace is nowhere in sight. Amid this week's zigs and zags, three dynamics stood out as the most important factors affecting the fate of Ukraine: Trump is determined not to be dragged in any further, but he wants to be at the center of anything that happens, and none of the other powers are strong enough to change his mind or meaningfully alter facts on the ground.

The post Why the Ukraine Peace Plan May Be Pointless appeared first on .

Warmongers Dredge Up Neville Chamberlain (Again) To Bash Trump’s Ukraine Peace Negotiations

How many times do I have to teach you this lesson about appeasement, warmongers?