

Adam Halkechev
2.4K posts

@damdam55666
green belt in karate







I finally collected my thoughts on Melnichenko's essay in last week's issue of @TheEconomist . Melnichenko claims to offer a pragmatic warning about the dangers of a weakened Russia, but his core argument rests on a massive logical fallacy: it completely divorces Russia’s current instability from the exact Kremlin policies that created it. It treats Russia's predicament as if it were the weather or some other natural phenomenon, rather than the direct result of Putin's actions over the 26 years of his rule. By framing Russia's internal and economic fragility as abstract geopolitical risks, the essay conveniently omits the principal drivers of its isolation: the full-scale invasion of Ukraine, the ongoing occupations in Georgia and Moldova, and the systematic dismantling of domestic freedoms and rights. Here are the three major flaws in this "geopolitical realism" approach: - The essay ignores Ukrainian agency: It treats Ukraine as a passive chessboard for a superpower showdown, entirely ignoring that Ukrainians are sovereign actors who have repeatedly chosen their own political future through elections, mobilisation, and fierce resistance. - The essay recycles Kremlin narratives: It subtly shifts the blame away from Kremlin's ongoing aggression abroad and repression at home and onto Western policies, implicitly arguing that European security depends on accommodating Russia's revisionist demands. - The essay is based on analytical asymmetry: It treats Russia’s violent behaviour as an unchangeable, fixed constraint while demanding that the choices of Ukraine and the West be the variables that must bend. Ultimately, this perspective doesn't analyse the crisis - it normalises it by ignoring the root causes. I honestly have no idea why The Economist chose to provide a platform for Melnichenko’s - or the Kremlin’s - voice.

'There's much more to defend than there is to change': @davidfrum argues that the biggest political battle today isn't between Left and Right—but between defenders of the democratic order and its opponents

Galeotti is a fucking disgrace.

Kreml skrytykował wypowiedzi kanclerza #FriedrichMerza dotyczące gwarancji bezpieczeństwa dla #Ukrainy. – Sformułowanie gwarancji bezpieczeństwa bez udziału Rosji jest niemożliwe – powiedział rzecznik Kremla Dmitrij Pieskow cytowany przez rosyjskie agencje p.dw.com/p/5H5o9





Russian opposition figure Igor Eidman claimed that Lindsey Graham may have been killed by Kremlin intelligence services According to sociologist Eidman, two factors point in this direction — the timing and the location. Moscow had a motive: Graham actively advocated for increased pressure on Russia and support for Ukraine. He had also recently said that Trump supported his bill introducing new “hellish sanctions” against the Russian Federation. He was considered the most pro-Ukrainian politician in the U.S. president’s circle. He promoted military assistance for Kyiv, including Tomahawk missiles, and lobbied for security guarantees for Ukraine. Eidman claims that the Kremlin may have viewed the senator as one of the people influencing Trump’s shift in position and his departure from his previous approach toward Russia. As a second argument, he pointed to Graham’s trip to Ukraine. According to the sociologist’s theory, a possible poisoning could have occurred during the visit, for example, through the use of a slow-acting substance. He suggested that Russian intelligence services could have used remaining agent networks in Ukraine to carry out such an operation.





⚡️⚡️⚡️ U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham has died unexpectedly — a strong supporter of Ukraine and advocate of tough sanctions against Russia. The senator was 71 years old.




Statement from the Office of U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham (R-South Carolina).