“Sudden death syndrome”

Alexi Navalnay’s mother has been told that her son died of “sudden death syndrome” (SDS). Alexi would appear to be the latest victim of what seems to be an a growing epidemic of this unexplained cause of morbidity.

It appears that genetics may play a part as it seems to be mainly Russians who suffer from it although there have been non-Russian cases also.

Those researching the disease have noticed it seems to be related to those with an underlying case of “democracy” which itself appears to be quite a healthy syndrome. In fact it is estimated that there are millions of Russians infected with this but do not exhibit any systems publicly and can thus live to a ripe old age.

The problems begin when individuals present with outward signs of democracy. This seems to mark the onset of SDS which, initially may not be fatal. Those with limited symptoms who occasionally parade them in public can suddenly be struck down with severe pains to their back, head and other parts of their body which some have described as like being beaten with a base ball bat.

Others who have gathered together with fellow sufferers have complained of a severe burning sensation in their eyes and nose leading to real difficulty breathing. Often this is accompanied by the pains mentioned above.

Victims who exhibit persistent symptoms of democracy are often taken to local treatment centres and treated with electric shocks and cold baths. This sometimes works although it may leave the victim with long term medical and mental issues and an inability to secure employment. Ironically, in many cases the treatment can lead to an even more virulent version of democracy.

The most unfortunate cases are those where their infection becomes widely known and they become a real focus for the spread of the disease. These individuals are taken to remote, specialist treatment centres. The centres are often in very cold climates presumably as part of the process of attempting to contain the disease. Sometimes individuals need to be kept in total isolation so as to prevent the possibility of cross contamination with other patients or indeed staff at the facility.

It is when individuals exhibit these advanced symptoms of democracy that they become at risk of SDS. At this point the pathology becomes completely baffling as it seems the final step can be triggered by the most mundane of events. Those recorded to date include: catching ones leg on an umbrella, drinking a cup of tea, opening the front door of ones home and various versions of lead poisoning. Some sufferers seem to have to take matters into their own hands by blowing themselves up in their cars or leaping out of apartment windows.

Victims can be struck down in their homes or in the street, within Russia or abroad. They seem to often be subject to an attack in a pubic space, say, somewhere like outside the Kremlin in Moscow.

Occasionally a victim will exhibit symptoms but survive the initial episode. Following this they may be subject to forced removal to a special facility to be helped. Sadly, the victim may still succumb to SDS which may be triggered by something as innocent as a walk in the forrest.

Fortunately, much work is being done by those at risk of the syndrome in attempting to identify how the malignant transformation of benign democracy into malignant SDS occurs. There seems to be a growing understanding of the pathology of the disease and specifically the primary agent causing the transformation. The problem they are wrestling with at the moment is how to eradicate that agent once and for all. We must all wish them luck with that work.

Ed. The above is as credible as any previous explanation of the death of opponents of Vladimir Putin and in the current case, given the previous and various attempts on his life, more credible than any statement that has or will come out of the Kremlin on the matter. According to Wikipedia, in Mein Kampf Hitler talked about the source of the credibility of the colossal lie as being the fact people could not believe that someone “could have the impudence to distort the truth so infamously”. Clearly Putin has taken this lesson to heart. Whatever happens leaders in the West need to remember this particularly if the unthinkable happens in the United States next year.

One can only hope there is a circle of hell in which Putin spends eternity waking up each day to the knowledge that he will experience a new version of SDS and that it will be worse than the day before.

Alexi Navalny RIP

The death today is yet another example of what happens to critics of Vladimir Putin. An incredibly brave and industrious searcher for truth. His humanity and commitment to democracy in sharp contrast to that of the man who had him locked up and murdered after his first assassination attempt failed.

This is the man that ex President Trump said could do what he wanted to those states in NATO that did not invest 2% of their GDP in defence! If ever two threats to democracy deserved each other.

Here’s an example of Alexi’s work exposing the corrupt excesses of Putin world. It illustrates the enthusiasm and raw energy of a genuine patriot who cared for his country and ultimately gave his life trying to preserve it from the predatory gangsters led by Putin.

This is a sad day for Russia and the Russian people.

Is Jaw Jaw always better than War War?

For over two weeks now we have seen a completely unprovoked invasion of a European democracy descend into an ever more brutal war of attrition. Where the incompetent application of overwhelming force has resulted in the aggressor having to resort to ever more inhumane tactics to try to terrorise the nation into surrender.

The West’s response has been to provide peans to the brave people of Ukraine, weapons to defend themselves, economic sanctions, more severe than anyone could have imagined possible, and a single red line around the borders of Nato. From the start it has made clear it will not cross that red line with any offensive capacity for fear of starting World War Three and a possible nuclear war.

Such a firm stand against entering into battle against President Putin is understandable. For some, with sons of conscription age, new grandchildren and living in port cities the fear of war creates a depressing background. The everyday, taken for granted, joys of life are suddenly thrown into sharp relief as the TV provides example after example of how that can be taken away in a blinding flash of shells or rockets.

The consensus seems to be this is a war that, ultimately, President Putin cannot win. The incredible bravery of the Ukrainian people, supported with weapons from the West, economic sanctions against Russia, personal sanctions against Putin and the oligarchs he has created, will lead to the ultimate victory of Ukraine. Sadly, the country and its people may be devastated in the meantime.

The optimistic case is that President Putin realises the mistake he has made, or key members of the Russian elite force him to see that error, or the return of body bags cuts through state propaganda and provokes a popular uprising.

In the less optimistic scenario Putin terrorises the Ukraine into surrender. But having “won” he then has to retain control of a country of some 40m people, pretty much all of whom hate him, and, based on evidence to date, will not meekly accept some puppet government. A partisan struggle demanding huge military investment from a country whose economy is being devastated by sanctions may mean increasing numbers of body bags and reducing bread will eventually trigger a change in leadership, negotiations, the withdrawal of Russian troops and free and fair elections.

In both of these scenarios the Ukrainians have to be sacrificed to the greater good of European peace. There is a cruel logic to this which many serious people are expounding at every opportunity. These people rightly condemn the strategically vacuous demand that “something must be done!” and exhort people to adopt a real politik approach characterised by cool heads and clinical thinking.

The UK’s position on this was articulated last week by the Armed Forces Minister James Heappey on the Radio 4 Today programme. He was being asked about what should happen if President Putin did adopt the use of chemical weapons. He responded that “President Putin needs to be clear” that use of such weapons is the “most despicable thing anyone can ever imagine”.

I fear the Minister underestimates the capacity of President Putin’s imagination. He must also have forgotten the President’s support for President Assad when he used barrel bombs of chlorine gas against women and children. Finally, one suspects the only thing President Putin is clear about is the effectiveness of such tactics in terrorising people into surrender.

The Minister was then pressed whether such action would constitute a red line? His response was he did not think it helpful to get into where red lines sit right now. So Putin just has to guess. From the very clear statements made by leaders of all the leading countries he may be forgiven for thinking “the” red line remains around Nato.

In summary then, the consensus view of serious people seems to be: President Putin must not be provoked into a wider European conflict; he must be provided with a face saving way out; a negotiated settlement is the only way forward; a negotiation which gives Putin something eg. the Crimea or the Donbas or a guarantee of no Nato membership for Ukraine, or all of the above. Max Hastings, a highly respected military historian was arguing this case on the BBC’s PM programme, advocating the realistic way in which President JF Kennedy compromised with the Soviet leader Nikita Krushchev through the Cuban missile crisis as a model.

Whilst all this passes the cold and rational test, is it right?

If we start by considering the chances of a negotiated settlement, things do not look good. Firstly, each time representatives of Ukraine or the West have met with Russia the compromise proposed is unconditional surrender. Secondly, what they say does not correspond with what they do.

This has two manifestations. One is classic double speak like the comments of Foreign Minister Lavrov last week who said, in clear terms, Russia “has not attacked Ukraine”. It is difficult to imagine how much worse it would be if they did. The other is agreeing one thing and doing another. For example agreeing ceasefires to allow civilians to leave cities under attack, only to break them within hours. One might almost think this was a conscious tactic to raise and then dash hopes in order to further undermine the morale of the Ukraines.

The proposal that an agreement be negotiated as Kennedy did with Krushchev looks difficult. Firstly, Krushchev is a very different character to Putin and crudely he did not have the despotic authority based on terror his predecessor Stalin or his successor Putin had and have respectively.

Second, the deal that Kennedy proposed was a secret deal to withdraw US missiles from Turkey. Those missiles were not moved for the best part of a year after the Soviet capitulation. What’s more the secret was kept by both sides for 20 years.

A secret deal is no good for President Putin, he has painted himself into the victory-at-all-costs corner. It is an irony of history that the retreat from Moscow in 1812 was the beginning of the end for Napoleon, for Putin the retreat to Moscow would be the same for him.

President Putin has to win and given the incredible bravery of the Ukrainian people the only way he can achieve this is by by relentless shelling, the threat or use of chemical weapons, the importation of a ruthless mercenary army and hand to hand fighting street by street with massive military casualties on both side and huge numbers of Ukrainian civilian casualties. This is a price he is more than willing to pay

But what if the price was higher? Suppose the West said the breaches of the wars of law are such that fellow democracies must intervene and create a no fly zone for foreign aircraft over the Ukraine. What would Putin do?

We know President Putin is a ruthless tyrant who brooks no opposition at home. Controls the media and the internal narrative. Lies with no conscience abroad. Uses ruthless terror tactics against civilian populations to win wars. Murders or has locked up any that oppose his rule. And that he has a fine line in threatening rhetoric against Nato. However, he is not mad?

For the past ten years he has prodded and poked the West with cyber attacks, election interference, assassinations, false flag provocations and outright invasions. Whilst these have been increasingly outrageous they have always been finely calibrated to avoid a Western response which would threaten his position. Until now.

President Putin must know that he has crossed a line. He may feel his best hope is bring back to the people of Russia a territorial victory. Then close the shop and try to ride out the sanctions. He may judge time to be on his side if he could do this as the unity of the West would no longer have the nightly reinforcement of a terror war on TV.

The West has always been on the back foot responding to President Putins actions. The same is happening now in the war in Ukraine as its conduct has degenerated over time. Now it is plainly and simply about terrorising the civilian population in the hope they will eventually put pressure on President Zelensky to surrender and stop the pain.

The threat of a no fly zone would change the shape of the game for Putin. If implemented it would massively undermine his war effort, at the very least extending the period. Time would then become Putin’s enemy. More body bags, more time for sanctions to hurt. The possibility domestic restiveness becomes louder and braver and ultimately beyond the control of even the Russian state. There may even be cross overs into other states. Both Belarus and Kazakhstan have had to take ruthless steps to quell protests recently.

All this might make President Putin feel that the best option is actually to negotiate a face saving settlement. A real one which does not start with unconditional surrender. Which, in return for a withdrawal to pre-2014 borders would secure: a guarantee about Nato military deployments away from the Russian border areas; joint pre-notification of military exercises; agreement around missile locations in Europe; and a, say 5 year, freeze on Ukraine’s Nato membership negotiations.

Obviously, this would be a massive defeat for President Putin, and it would weaken him. However, it can be spun internally as about securing Russia’s borders without having to kill any more of their brothers in the Ukraine and it buys him time.

Of course serious people will say, but if he is cornered he will lash out and may use nuclear weapons. That is true and it would be an absolute catastrophe. The only thing that would be worse is, if the view of those serious people about the long term victory of the Ukraine, or rather the West, is correct, President Putin will at some point have his back to the wall and he will lash out then. Then we would have stood by allowing the people of Ukraine, not just to fight for democracy, but to die for it. And we would still have a nuclear conflagration.

The West’s position is based on a strict utilitarian ethic with a single red line. It is logical and unimpeachably rational. But if feels wrong. Heartbreakingly wrong morally.

Democracy Matters

Against a nation with the second largest number of nuclear missiles and one of the largest armed forces in the world Ukrainians are preparing to fight in the streets of their capital to defend democracy. Given the significance of this for Putin’s own future, without a Russian coup, their resistance is almost certainly doomed to bloody defeat.

However the capture of Kyiv will only create a running sore of opposition to Putin which may well rally others within Russia. This will be reinforced by the country becoming a pariah state with sanctions bleeding the country slowly but surely over time.

The swiftness and scale of the western response and the contrasting laboured pace of the invasion have probably taken Putin by surprise. His fellow “strong” leaders in Hungary and Turkey have abandoned him and even China is far from offering unqualified support.

There are almost certainly members of the officer class in Russia and members of his golden circle of oligarchs who will be wondering where Putin is leading his country. The destruction of Kyiv and the associated bloodbath that seems inevitable will be a hollow victory and will raise even more questions amongst ordinary Russians.

The west’s strategy seems to be to sacrifice the Ukrainian people on the premise that they cannot risk a nuclear confrontation, and the hope sanctions and the ostracisation of Russia will lead to some change in Putin or a change of Putin. Given his actions nuclear escalation can certainly not be ruled out and so caution is wise.

However, if he takes Ukraine and creates a vassal state and then starts military “exercises” on the border with Finland what should the west do? Does the bloody destruction of every non-NATO country in Europe become the price to be paid for “peace”. Do we risk deterrence becoming a one way street?

The future for Ukraine looks bleak. They are on the front line of democracy. If our strategy is as set out above then every support we can provide should be given to its people. Weapons both now to support its defence and in the future to support its opposition. Humanitarian aid to meet whatever disaster Putin creates, and safe haven for the refugees fleeing the country mostly, women and children. And we should be ashamed that a Minister of our Government suggested they apply for potato picking visas.

Sadly our country has adopted Churchillian rhetoric about defending democracy but applied Chamberlainian procrastination in its actions to support those that are doing the work. We have been on the coat tails of pretty much the rest of the west. Germany acted decisively and swiftly at real risk of negative economic consequences for its country.

At the moment this sadly has the look of a war of attrition which will not end with the bloody destruction of Ukrainian cities and the murder of its leaders. Ultimately, the only resolution will be the deposition of Putin. The longer that takes the worse this will be for Ukraine, for Europe, and for Russia.

Ukrainians are providing an object lesson in how valuable democracy is for people who have only relatively recently achieved it. Overnight they have transformed themselves from ordinary citizens to resolute defenders of democracy fighting for freedom. Many have been separated from their families many of whom have, in the blink of an eye, become refugees.

In much of the west, 75 years of democracy have made us complacent about its permanence and even its value. Some arguing enlightened dictatorship would be better. What people usually mean is an enlightened dictatorship doing what they think is right. The problem is once you get a dictator it is what they think is right which matters, and there is little you can do about it.

Democracy does not always secure the best leaders but just occasionally it does. Volodymyr Zelensky has risen above leaders across the west as someone who genuinely is willing to die for his country. He can be under no illusion as to what will happen to him if captured by Russian troops.

Putin is where you can end up when you have no effective way of getting rid of a leader.

If we are not going to fight with the Ukrainians, we should give them unstintingly of our support in every other possible way, even when it costs us. And we should humbly salute them and their leaders for their bravery in defending their country and defending democracy on our behalf.

Foreign to Policy

As in everything he does President Trump brings to foreign policy a unique approach. One unweighed down by precedent, existing alliances, traditional enmities or common sense. I recently referred to a book “On Grand Strategy” written by JL Gaddis. He employs a distinction used by Isiah Berlin to categorise different types of leader. On the one hand there are those who know one big thing on the other those who know many small things. President Trump, again in a category of his own, knows nothing.

His foreign policy triumphs include haranguing NATO allies and threatening to pull out of the post-war bulwark against the Soviet Union and latterly Russia. Around the same time inviting the Russian ambassador into the oval office without US minders (no adults in the room) and sharing intelligence provided to the US by an ally. Keeping your adversaries confused is  the kind of mundane strategy the President eschews in favour of keeping his allies confused.

In the far east he has engaged in a costly and misguided tariff war with China in the belief that the tariffs he imposes will be paid by the Chinese.  He is currently having to bale out the US farming industry damaged by the consequential Chinese response.

His calming influence on the Korean peninsula has provided the pariah leader of the North with a boost to his legitimacy. Worse, the comparison between the ramblings of the dotard and the sharp responses of the rocket man, and their relative diplomatic success, has undermined the credibility of the leader of the free world. It really is only President Trump who could lose a shouting war with the leader of a failed state whose economy is ranked 204th in the world.

Unfortunately for the Middle East this has been an area that has benefited from a significant amount of Trump diplomacy. Red lines have been drawn with missile strikes on Syria following the use of chemical weapons. Unfortunately the Syrians and their Russian allies went around the red lines with the indiscriminate use of Barrel Bombs and traditional munitions to kill civilians and combatants alike in their destruction of ISIS and those within Syria opposed to Assad.

Early on the President, keen to demonstrate his grasp of the dynamics of the region and fresh from dancing with the Saudis, announced that Quatar was promoting terrorism. This is a state which is home to the largest US military base in the region with some 11,000 US military personnel. A place that mistakenly thought it was an ally of the US. To be fair a misapprehension the State Department was also under.

Not content to bring his own distinctive brand of incompetence to the area Trump has secured the services of his son in law, Jared Kushner to deliver the “ultimate deal” resolving the Israel-Palestinian conflict. This seems to be retreating into the long grass following the electoral problems of Benjamin Netanyahu and the “other” problems of Mohammed Bin Salman. These were the two key contacts for an honest broker deal which has shifted the American embassy to Jerusalem and stood by as more land has been taken by Israeli settlers. No doubt the Palestinians are waiting with bated breath for the revelation of the “ultimate deal”.

There is more, much more but the clowning achievement to date must be the tweet following his conversation with President Erdogan of Turkey, another great defender of democracy, giving the green light to an invasion of Syria. An invasion to exterminate the Kurdish fighters who had been fighting the US’s war against ISIS for them in Northern Syria and dying for that cause. How naive to believe that would qualify them as allies.

With his characteristic penchant for inconsistency however, as soon as preparations for invasion were announced President Trump Tweeted that “…if Turkey does anything that I in my great wisdom consider to be off limits I will totally destroy and obliterate the economy of Turkey…” So far his “great wisdom” has not judged indiscriminate shelling and air attacks, the creation of 100k refugees and the escape of ISIS sympathisers in the fog of war as off limits.

To date it seems, President Erdogan, Muhammad Bin Salman, Kim Jong Un, Xi Jin Ping, and most of all Vladimir Putin have run rings around the Wise One. His approach to foreign policy is straight out of the BSD school outlined in Liars Poker by Michael Lewis. Just about as crude and just about as beneficial.

The brilliant theoretical physicist Wolfgang Pauli did not suffer fools gladly. After reading a paper by a colleague he said “It is not even wrong.” The same criticism applies to Trump and his negotiation of relationships with foreign powers. It is a policy free, strategy free, tactic free, idea free zone. It is so bad that even the supine GOP is struggling to rationalise his actions much less support them.

We know that Trump is not up to the job and we know he doesn’t even understand that. The damage he is doing to the United States of America, politically, socially, economically, internationally just goes from bad to worse and the Republicans must be held to account for their collusion in this  process. We must pray in 2020 both he and they are.