Mediaboss Marketing

Russian President Vladimir Putin's speech announcing plans to change the Russian Constitution is broadcast on the exterior of a Russian skyscraper. January 15, 2020. REUTERS/Anton Vaganov

Vladimir Putins plans to change the Russian Constitution are not yet finalized, but few doubt that his true intention is to remain in power indefinitely. The Russian leaders January 2020 announcement of constitutional revisions came following months of speculation over the future prospects for the country once his fourth presidential term ends in 2024. That uncertainty now appears to be over. Russias future will look much like Russias recent past, with Putin dominating national life.

The rewriting of the Russian Constitution is the latest step away from the brief democratic flirtation of the early 1990s and towards the countrys authoritarian traditions. This is entirely in keeping with Putins increasingly open enthusiasm for a brand of Russian imperial nationalism rooted in the early nineteenth century Tsarist trinity of Orthodoxy, autocracy and nationality.

Putins plans for lifelong rule look particularly ominous when viewed from Ukraine, which faces the prospect of perpetual imperial aggression at the hands of an adversary who views much of modern Ukraine as historically Russian and continues to ask fundamental questions about the countrys right to exist. For Ukrainians, Putin forever means war without end.

Putins imperial ideology is not simply the revival of 200-year-old doctrines. His brand of imperialism is hybrid in nature, incorporating elements from both the Soviet and Tsarist eras. During his first year in power, Putin made his revanchist intentions clear by reinstating the Soviet national anthem. This set the tone for further efforts to rehabilitate the Communist period and draw a line under the soul-searching of the early post-Soviet years. Putin has since taken veneration of the Red Army victory over Nazi Germany to new heights and made it the basis of modern Russian national identity, while gently ushering Stalin himself back into polite society as an example of severe but successful Russian leadership.

Subscribe for the latest UkraineAlert

In religious matters, the godless Soviets had little to offer Putin. Instead, he has sought to make the Russian Orthodox Church the official state religion of the Russian Federation, despite the fact that Russias Orthodox faithful constitutes less than 50% of a population including many millions of Muslims and Buddhists.

The ascendancy of the Russian Orthodox Church during Putins reign reflects his view of the Churchs importance as a tool of imperial influence. Tellingly, when Constantinople granted Ukraine Orthodox independence in early 2019, Putin called an emergency session of the decidedly secular Russian Security Council. Such moves hint at the political role of the Russian Orthodox Church, which is implacably hostile to the idea of an independent Ukrainian Orthodox Church and remains the Kremlins greatest single agent of influence in Ukraine.

Alongside an emphasis on the supremacy of the Russian Orthodox Church, Putins other great borrowing from the Tsarist era is his broad interpretation of Russian nationality, with Ukrainians and Belarusians also seen as part of the three-branch Russian people. In his public statements, Putin has repeatedly stressed his personal belief that Russians and Ukrainians are one people.

The evolution of Putins Tsarist imperialism became more noticeable following his first re-election in 2004, when Russian anger over Western support for the Rose Revolution in Georgia and Ukraines Orange Revolution led him to adopt an increasingly nationalistic posture. This extended to gestures such as returning the remains of Russian White Army General Anton Denikin to Russia for reburial with full state honors. At the time, Putin specifically praised Denikins early twentieth century opposition to Ukrainian independence and encouraged journalists to read the generals diary entries on the subject. He (Denikin) has a discussion there about Big Russia and Little Russia (Ukraine). He says that no one should be allowed to interfere in relations between us; they have always been the business of Russia itself, commented Putin approvingly.

Putins hybrid mix of Tsarist and Soviet Russian nationalism led to the establishment in 2007 of the Russkiy Mir Foundation (Russian World Foundation), followed by the emergence of a Russian World doctrine calling on the Russian state to intervene on behalf of Russians throughout the former Soviet Union. Although the term is subject to different interpretations, the Russian World concept broadly aims to unite the three modern eastern Slavic nations (Russia, Belarus and Ukraine) under Moscows leadership, with the population of this informal empire bound together by the Russian language and the Russian Orthodox Church. This mirrors Soviet and Tsarist historical narratives which depicted Russians, Belarusians and Ukrainians as fraternal nations born together in the medieval Kyiv Rus and destined to remain united.

Throughout his time in power, Putin has consistently promoted Russias ancient ties to the Kyiv Rus state as a way of furthering eastern Slavic unity. This makes it all the more difficult for him to now accept the loss of a westward-looking Ukraine, as this would mean acknowledging Russias separation from the countrys historic heartlands. Indeed, in his March 2014 speech accepting Crimea into the Russian Federation, Putin referenced Kyiv Rus specifically. Two years later, he erected a huge monument to tenth century Kyiv prince Volodymyr the Great in Moscow, a city that was not founded until over a century after Volodymyrs death.

Russian appeals to Slavic unity are usually followed by assertions that Ukraine is undeserving of independent statehood. At a NATO summit in 2008, Putin told US President George W. Bush that Ukraine was not even a state. This idea of modern Ukraine as a manufactured nation has long been a staple of Russian state media. It was finally put to the test six years ago, with results that few in the Kremlin had anticipated.

Following the February-March 2014 seizure of Crimea, Russia sought to partition mainland Ukraine and unveiled plans to transform approximately half the country into a Russian protectorate. As part of these efforts, Moscow revived the Tsarist term New Russia, which had been used in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries to refer to southern and eastern Ukraine. Operating under the New Russia banner, Kremlin agents attempted to spark local pro-Russian uprisings in major cities throughout the south and east of the country.

Unfortunately for Putin, the majority of people in these predominantly Russian-speaking parts of Ukraine showed themselves to be Ukrainian patriots. Nevertheless, Putin continues to cling to his fantasies of rescuing Russian-speaking Ukrainians. During his annual press marathon in December 2019, he once more referred to southeastern Ukraine as ancestral Russian lands, claiming they had been inexplicably and erroneously handed to Ukraine by the Bolsheviks.

UkraineAlert sources analysis and commentary from a wide-array of thought-leaders, politicians, experts, and activists from Ukraine and the global community.

Such comments suggest Putin has failed to learn the lessons of 2014. Ukrainian statehood and national identity were strong enough to fight back against Russian military aggression six years ago, and Ukraines ability to defend itself has increased considerably since those desperate days of national improvisation. Indeed, it is worth noting that Russias invasion has played a key role in nation-building processes throughout eastern Ukraine, largely because this region has suffered the highest military casualties and has absorbed many of the estimated 1.7 million Ukrainians displaced by the conflict. Nevertheless, as a military and energy superpower, Russia can call upon vastly superior resources and will always be able to outgun Ukraine. This is a recipe for bloody stalemate.

Ukrainian society may have passed the ultimate statehood test in 2014, but the country looks set to remain a target of Kremlin hostility and hybrid aggression for many years to come. Putins embrace of Tsarist imperialism and his desire to remain Russias national leader mean there is little chance of a sustainable peace in Ukraine. On the contrary, Ukraines centrality to Putins understanding of Russian identity and national interests makes it difficult to imagine a settlement that would leave both parties satisfied.

It is therefore imperative that Ukraines current leaders are on the same page as the countrys citizens, many of whom have long believed no peace is possible while Putin is still in power. It is also vital for the international community to grasp the existential nature of Putins imperial ambitions in Ukraine, and to recognize that Kremlin-friendly compromises will only prolong the problem.

Vladimir Putin is now the uncrowned Tsar of Russia. His reign is likely to last for as long as he lives. Given that he is currently 67 years old and in good health, the Putin era could extend into the future for decades to come. This means Russian aggression against Ukraine will also continue indefinitely, serving to destabilize the wider geopolitical environment until it is decisively confronted.

Taras Kuzio is a non-resident fellow at the Foreign Policy Institute at Johns Hopkins-SAIS and a professor at the National University of Kyiv Mohyla Academy. He is also author of Putins War Against Ukraine and co-author of The Sources of Russias Great Power Politics: Ukraine and the Challenge to the European Order.

Mon, Jan 20, 2020

Many hoped President Zelenskyys April 2019 election could break the deadlock in peace talks with Russia. However, it now looks like the best Ukraine can expect is a transition from hot war to frozen conflict. That may not be such a bad outcome, argues James Brooke.

UkraineAlertbyJames Brooke

Tue, Feb 4, 2020

Rival interpretations of the 2015 Minsk Protocols have brought Ukraine and Russia to deadlock in negotiations to end the undeclared six-year war between the two nations but could international law help Ukraine to win the diplomatic argument?

UkraineAlertbyMichel Waelbroeck and Willem Aldershoff

Mon, Jan 27, 2020

The departure of Vladimir Putins gray cardinal Vladislav Surkov and his replacement as Ukraine policy curator by Dmitry Kozak has led to speculation that Russia could be planning a change in its Ukraine strategy.

UkraineAlertbyAnders slund

The views expressed in UkraineAlert are solely those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of the Atlantic Council, its staff, or its supporters.

Read the original:
Putin forever: Ukraine faces the prospect of endless imperial aggression - Atlantic Council

Some of the world's largest and most powerful banks spent the past decade mired in scandal, but none descended as far into ignominy as Germany's Deutsche Bank. Its rap sheet includes a staggering array of ethical and legal lapses, including money laundering, tax fraud and sanctions violations not to mention mysterious ties to President Trump that federal investigators are even now looking into.

How this plodding, conservative bank from a country famous for diligence and thrift turned into the most infamous casino on Wall Street is the subject of David Enrich's excellent, deeply reported book Dark Towers: Deutsche Bank, Donald Trump, and an Epic Trail of Destruction.

It is by now a familiar story. "This proud national icon was seduced by the siren song of Wall Street riches," Enrich writes. Thanks partly to deregulation, big firms such as Goldman Sachs and Merrill Lynch were coming up with tantalizing new ways to make money, and by 1994 Deutsche Bank wanted a piece of the action.

It started by recruiting Edson Mitchell, an American executive from Merrill, who believed Deutsche Bank's "stubborn Germanness was the main impediment to unleashing its full animal spirits." Mitchell set about building a global markets operation, not at the bank's Frankfurt headquarters but in London, where he could function more independently. He hired a staff of "bloodthirsty piranhas" from Wall Street who knew how to push boundaries, as Enrich's tale tells.

Among them was Bill Broeksmit, a risk management genius who subsequently killed himself as regulators were moving in on the bank and whose death is the mystery Enrich uses to frame the story.

Mitchell died early in a plane crash, but the machinery he built kept chugging along. Enrich tells the story of its rise and fall in the careful style of a good newspaper reporter (he is an editor at The New York Times) but allows the complicated material to unfold like a good novel.

Over time, he writes, Deutsche Bank became less German and more global, so much so that the bank had to post a sign in its London lobby explaining how to say "Deutsche." Too many of the American traders were pronouncing it "douche bank."

With the piranhas in charge, Deutsche Bank eventually became the biggest bank in the world, with 90,000 employees and some $2 trillion in assets almost the size of the German economy, Enrich notes. Despite that, it was a clumsily managed place. The bank's antiquated computer system made it difficult for senior management to monitor London's activities, even if they'd wanted to and it's not clear they did. Management tended to look the other way when employees broke the rules, even when they did business with dictators like Russian President Vladimir Putin and their friends. "Even by the amoral standards of Wall Street, Deutsche exhibited a jarring lack of interest in its clients' reputations," Enrich writes.

Just how disconnected the bank became can be seen in its ongoing relationship with a then New York real estate developer named Donald Trump, whose multiple bankruptcies had made him a pariah in the banking world. One part of Deutsche Bank turned down Trump's request for a loan. But the private banking division, which catered to the rich and famous, arranged the loan anyway and then, when Trump stopped making payments, arranged another one.

Trump's murky relationship with Deutsche Bank is still under congressional investigation, so Enrich's story is necessarily incomplete. Still, the book has enough detail to make its case that Deutsche Bank was more than just one more rogue bank; it is a cautionary tale of what happens when a bank pursues profits at any cost, without being weighed down by pesky moral scruples.

Read the original here:
'Dark Towers' Is A Cautionary Tale Of Deutsche Bank Pursuing Profits At Any Cost - NPR

COLORADO SPRINGS, Colo. (CBS4) President Donald Trump is planning a campaign stop in Colorado Springs this week. Colorado RepublicanSen.Cory Gardner will join the president during a rally on Feb. 20 at the Broadmoor World Arena.

The rally is set to start at 5 p.m. local time. Tickets are available online on a first come, first served basis.

Gardner for Senate Communications Director Jerrod Dobkin issued the following statement ahead of the rally:

Senator Gardner is looking forward to joining President Trump to tout all the great accomplishments they have delivered to Colorado, including the BLM headquarters, Space Force, delivering clean drinking water to fifty thousand Coloradans, record low unemployment, and more. Senator Gardner is hopeful both Democrats and Republicans will want to celebrate these successes.

Colorado Democratic Party spokesman David Pourshoushtari released the following statement Thursday evening:

Cory Gardners a spineless yes-man whos sold out Colorado to Donald Trump time and time again. Whether its their numerous attacks on Coloradans healthcare or raiding millions of dollars from Peterson Air Force Base in Colorado Springs, its no wonder theyre both so profoundly unpopular here in Colorado. We rejected Trump in 2016, and well reject him and his enabler Cory Gardner at the ballot box this November.

Campaign 2020 Resources

See a list of important dates in Colorados 2020 election cycle.

The field of candidates who will be on Colorados first presidential primary in 20 years has been largely established. To see a list of the candidates who have submitted a statement of intent and filing fee in order to appear on the March 3 Colorado Presidential Primary (which is also Super Tuesday) click here.

Register to vote through the Colorado Secretary of States office.

Follow this link:
Donald Trump To Rally In Colorado Springs With Cory Gardner On Thursday - CBS Denver

John Meredith, of Huntsville, is a former Capitol Hill lobbyist who was recognized as one of the countrys 100 most influential Black Republicans.

In a nation claiming reverence for the Lord, an oath before God cannot be meaningless.

In a nation claiming to respect the rule of law, breaking those laws can never be excused, even if it furthers the cause of a political party. In a nation where trial and punishment are only visited upon ones political enemies and those without means, justice is impossible.

Ignoring the role of Attorney General William Barr in orchestrating the demise of the rule of law in America, three actions taken by POTUS in particular have forever stained the legacy of American jurisprudence and symbolize the end to the unbiased administration of justice.

John Meredith is a contributing columnist for AL.com.John Meredith

First, and arguably the most nefarious, was granting a pardon to Arizonas disgraced xenophobic Sheriff Joe Arpaio. Convicted of disobeying a federal judge's order to stop racial profiling in detaining people thought to be in the U.S. illegally, President Trump pardoned Arpaio before he was even sentenced for his crime. What makes this act so detrimental to our criminal justice system is that POTUS used the constitutional power of his office to block a federal judge's effort to enforce the Constitution itself.

The next action taken by the President threatening the rule of law was his instructing recipients of duly served subpoenas not to honor the compulsion of their appearance. Investigation is indispensable to addressing crime. Subpoenas compel those with knowledge of a crime to share that knowledge with law enforcement or the courts. Without the knowledge gained through subpoenaed testimony, the majority of crime in America will not be prosecuted due to lack of evidence and our streets would soon teem with unaccountable felons.

The latest presidential act to redefine American justice involves the sentencing memo for convicted felon, Roger Stone. Since the 1980s, every federal criminal case resulting in conviction employs the U.S. Sentencing Guidelines for determining punishment. In Stones case, POTUS has defied his own Department of Justice by preemptively encouraging leniency to his friend, regardless of the standard to which others violating the same laws are held.

The aforementioned trifecta of judicial breaches affects both pretrial and trial viability. In addition, it mitigates findings of guilt both before and after sentencing. As a result, we now have trials without proper evidence or fact witnesses. As a result, convicted criminals may well escape punishment if their crimes benefited the rich or powerful while granting no recourse for the falsely accused.

In other words, the faithful administration of justice is functionally impossible in America today. What remains is the illusion of justice. The weight of that illusion is borne entirely by those without influence and administered by the unaccountable hands of those without mercy.

Perhaps the most troubling aspect of the attack on law and order in America is the failure to protect those who come forward after witnessing blatantly illegal acts. They are the bedrock of American jurisprudence. They must be protected from retaliation, not terrorized for bearing witness to the truth.

Upon further reflection, the plethora of openly brazen political payoffs to partisan Senate jurors for the willful violation of their impeachment oaths, is the worst element of Donald Trumps assault on truth and justice. One documented example of this flagrant miscarriage of justice occurred only days after the vote for acquittal when Senator Lisa Murkowski miraculously landed a $20 million U.S. Department of Transportation grant for port infrastructure development in her home state of Alaska.

A Christian nation that fails to embody biblical teachings is an anathema to God. A democracy that does not administer justice blindly is destined for autocracy. Before the Founding Fathers roll over in their graves ashamed of what we have done with their greatest gift, citizens must summon the courage to demand the restoration of the rule of law in America. Until then, those who have paid the ultimate price for our freedom will have done so in vain.

Read the rest here:
Donald Trumps assault on truth and justice - al.com

Philippines President Rodrigo Dutertethreatened in Januaryto end his countrys Visiting Forces Agreement with the United States if Washington would not reinstate the visa of his former drug war chief. Last Tuesday, Dutertesgovernment announcedthe agreement permitting U.S. troops to train in the Philippines is done. Its about time we rely on ourselves. We will strengthen our own defenses and not rely on any other country, Dutertes representative quoted him saying.

Well, maybe or maybe notPhilippine Foreign Secretary Teddy Locsin Jr., who tweeted the initial announcement, alsoindicated on Twitterthat Manilas endgame is forcing Washington to negotiate on trade and security issues, not actually ousting U.S. troops. And it seems likely the visa revocation is merely a convenient excuse for a move Duterte wanted to make regardless.

But whatever Dutertes intent, the Trump administration should take his announcement seriously and bring our troops home. And he might be taking it seriouslyReuters reports that Trump said hewouldn't mindif the agreement was terminated, making the point that, "it will save a lot of money." However, putting aside financial concerns, there's good reason to end the U.S. military presence in the Philippinesand beyond.

The United Statesmaintains about800 overseas military bases in 70 nations and territories around the world. Some house only a few dozen American troops, but at many, U.S. forces number in the tens of thousands. No other country has anything like this global military presence: The U.K., France, and Russia together have a mere 30 or so foreign bases, and two of them are close U.S. allies.

This worldwide sprawl of American military might is expensive, risky, and counterproductive to U.S. security. It costs taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars every yearmoney which functionally subsidizes the host nations governments, which too often respond to our military presence by avoiding responsibility for their own defense. Thats bad enough in Europe, where wealthy NATO allies perfectly capable of defending themselves are freed up to spend more on their domestic welfare states instead. Its worse in countries like the Philippines, where Dutertes brutal regime can claim the credibility of alliance with the United States while oppressing its own people. In war zones like Iraqanother nation, incidentally,which has askedU.S. troops to leaveprolonging U.S. presence there puts Americans in harms way on behalf of a country that does not want them there.

Battlefield risk is not the only danger these foreign bases occasion. In ocean trade lanes near the Philippines, for example, the U.S. conducts Freedom of Navigation Operationsto push back on Chinese regional dominance. But as Chinas power grows in its near abroad, such operations increasingly chance unwanted encounters between U.S. and Chinese forces, like thelate 2018 near-collisionbetween warships. The risk of stumbling into a shooting war is real. Open war between the U.S. and China would be catastrophic even if it never turned nuclear; maintaining an inherently antagonistic presence in the Philippines is short-sighted and reckless.

Fortunately, this network of foreign military bases in the Philippines and elsewhere are not necessary to secure vital U.S. interests. The U.S. military isfar and awaythe most powerful on the planet. Our country enjoys friendly neighbors, considerable geographic advantages, and no peer rivals militarily. Spreading our forces thin to defend and meddle in foreign countries is at best a distraction from core defense priorities and more typically a wasteful, counterproductive use of limited defense resources.

We more and more are not wanting to be the policemen of the world, President Trumphas saidof U.S. foreign policy. Were spending tremendous amounts of money for decades policing the world, and that shouldnt be the priority. His impulse here is correct, but it is difficult to stop policing the world when you have 800 police stations. Shutting down these bases is necessary if we are ever to move toward what Trumpclaims hewants: a prudent, realist foreign policy that prioritizes diplomacy in pursuit of peace. Taking the Philippines Duterte at his word here would be a good place to start.

Bonnie Kristian is a fellow at Defense Priorities and contributing editor atThe Week. Her writing has also appeared at CNN,Politico,USA Today, theLos Angeles Times,Defense One,andThe American Conservative, among other outlets.

Read the rest here:
The Philippines Wants U.S. Military Forces Gone? Donald Trump Should Do It. - The National Interest Online