In response to Neil Abrams.
As a reminder, if you want to keep up with my multipart examination of Russiagate along with my commentary on Russia and Ukraine, be sure to subscribe to The Detox, where it will appear first. https://www.readthedetox.com/
12:31 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
Here, again, is the link to the piece: https://www.readthedetox.com/p/propaganda-and-collusion-in-the-trump
12:31 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
For now, in parts 2 and 3, we’ll focus on Taibbi and Maté’s treatment of Kilimnik, if only because it exposes their dishonesty and overall ignorance. After that, we’ll get to the actual collusion, or attempted collusion, revealed in Vol. 5 of the Senate report.
So stay tuned…
So stay tuned…
12:30 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
What we *can* know for sure, based on evidence contained in Vol. 5, is who Manafort and Kilimnik acknowledged working for during the campaign. That’s the crux of the whole story, or this one aspect of it. We will cover this matter in detail in part 4.
12:30 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
But here’s the thing: It doesn’t really matter whether Kilimnik was a Russian intelligence operative or what information, specifically, Manafort provided him. Anyway, we can’t know for sure from the report.
12:30 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
Later, in 2021, when the Treasury sanctioned Kilimnik, our two collusion-deniers sprang into action. Both Taibbi and Maté reached out to Kilimnik and interviewed him in an attempt to exonerate him of the charges. These interviews, we’ll see, were desperate and dishonest.
12:29 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
The allegations also sent Taibbi and Maté scrambling. For years, the two had belittled the collusion theory. Yet here was apparent confirmation of Trump-Russia collusion—from a GOP-led Senate committee, no less.
12:29 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
The report alleged that Manafort passed Kilimnik sensitive internal campaign polling data. Naturally, the revelation that the head of a U.S. presidential campaign might have aided and abetted election interference by Russia provoked a media firestorm.
12:29 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
The next two installments will deal with the explosive claim in vol. 5 of the report that Paul Manafort, Trump’s campaign manager until August 2016, met and communicated during the campaign with an alleged Russian intelligence operative named Konstantin Kilimnik.
12:28 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
Obviously, if anyone had an incentive to prevent evidence of collusion from becoming public, it was the Trump-acolytes who led the Senate Intel Committee in 2020. But the facts contained in their report provide damning evidence of collusion, or, at least, attempted collusion.
12:28 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
Vol. 5 is especially important due to its bipartisan authorship. Released in Aug. 2020 at a time when the GOP led the Senate Intelligence Committee, it issued no conclusions, only findings of fact. And the committee members of both parties joined in those findings of fact.
12:28 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
But to find the evidence of collusion, we need to look in the right places. To that end, this series will focus, for the most part, on Volume 5 of the Senate Intelligence Committee’s report into Russian interference in the 2016 election.
12:27 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
That’s unfortunate, as it was exploited by Taibbi and Maté to argue the whole collusion narrative was bunk. But by cutting through both the false reporting and the gaslighting efforts of our two collusion-deniers, we’ll see there *is* evidence of collusion—plenty of it, in fact.
12:27 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
Seemingly bolstering Taibbi and Maté’s Russiagate-denial is the horrendous reporting by certain mainstream journalists who, falling over each other in an effort to prove collusion, ended up publishing bullshit. A number of such stories were, or should have been, retracted.
12:26 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
We will be looking at two pundits, in particular: mtaibbi and aaronjmate. For this series is not only about key facets of Russiagate others have missed; it is also a window into the disingenuousness and general cluelessness of these two prominent collusion-deniers.
12:25 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
As usual, I’ll focus not on pundits of the right, whose arguments are too dumb to merit consideration, but rather certain “leftwing” commentators. The latter actually put some effort into their gaslighting and might thereby manage to sway otherwise reasonable people.
12:25 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
In the process, we will debunk many of the arguments put forth by Russia apologists and professional contrarians. From the start, these people dismissed claims of collusion as a liberal fairy tale devoid of substance.
12:25 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
This is part 1 of a multipart series on Russiagate. Drawing on public filings, it pulls together some of the most critical pieces of the affair. These pieces, we’ll see, have been overlooked by most commentators, including both deniers and proponents of the collusion theory.
12:24 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
Here's a link to the piece: https://www.readthedetox.com/p/propaganda-and-collusion-in-the-trump
12:23 PM - May 02, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
And if you like what you see here, be sure to subscribe to The Detox, where we’ll bring you all the sneering mockery you crave, albeit reserved, going forward, for the bad-faith trolls who deserve it. https://www.readthedetox.com/
04:50 PM - Apr 30, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
Here, again, is the link to the piece: https://www.readthedetox.com/p/on-ir-and-terrible-ukraine-takes
04:50 PM - Apr 30, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
So that’s another objection with which proponents of a forced-peace must contend. Again, you’re free to try and make that argument. But it’s a tall order. So I will continue to advocate for unlimited Western aid to Ukraine. I’ll just try not to be such a dick about it.
/end
/end
04:49 PM - Apr 30, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
There’s also reason to doubt that Ukraine is even capable of implementing a land-for-peace deal at this point, considering the widespread—and quite understandable—opposition it would engender among its people.
04:49 PM - Apr 30, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
The problem is that a Western-imposed peace agreement is unlikely to solve the problem. Not only will it encourage other states to engage in nuclear blackmail; Russia will likely violate the agreement anyway, thus bringing us right back where we started.
04:48 PM - Apr 30, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
There’s one rationale in favor of a coerced-peace I have not yet addressed: That continued war raises the likelihood of armed conflict and possibly nuclear confrontation between Russia and the West. I think the threat is exaggerated, but one can certainly make the argument.
04:48 PM - Apr 30, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
“Yes, a land-for-peace deal will consign Ukrainians to mass atrocities, will likely be trashed by Russia, and is opposed by the vast majority of Ukrainians. Still, we should do it anyway.”
If you’re prepared to make that case, feel free. I’m just skeptical it can be done.
If you’re prepared to make that case, feel free. I’m just skeptical it can be done.
04:47 PM - Apr 30, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
However, there is one point I will not concede: If you are to call for a Western-imposed “peace deal,” especially in a prominent outlet, you need to address some very basic objections. To do otherwise is intellectual malpractice. So what would such an argument look like?
04:47 PM - Apr 30, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
Not only that, but I also suggested that my own opinion on the matter is the only morally-legitimate one, with all others residing beyond the bounds of acceptable debate. That was unreasonable on my part.
04:46 PM - Apr 30, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
The terrible arguments I referenced are mostly voiced by a small handful of highly-influential commentators, both within and outside of IR.
04:46 PM - Apr 30, 2023
In response to Neil Abrams.
That was not what I intended to convey. The fact is, there are plenty of IR experts whose work may be instructive for understanding the war and who offer smart commentary on the subject.
04:45 PM - Apr 30, 2023
