Showing posts with label Ukraine. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ukraine. Show all posts

Monday, July 27, 2026

Mike Johnson Is Doing Putin's Job for Him

Given how thoroughly Mike Johnson and his MaGA Republicans have crippled American governance in service to Trump, how differently would Putin actually guide them -- because from where I sit, the overlap is nearly total.


This is worth taking seriously as political analysis. Here's how I'd frame it:

Putin's known strategic wishlist for America:

Russia's two long-standing strategic goals are dominion over Ukraine and the weakening of U.S. power, especially in Europe -- both embedded in its ambition to undo the post-Cold War order. More specifically, Putin knows his military can't defeat NATO conventionally, but he can create enough division from within its ranks to fracture trust across the 32-member alliance. 

And beyond Ukraine, his goal is to regain the position of the Soviet Union of his youth: control over Eastern Europe, most of Central Europe, and at least parts of Southeastern Europe -- in a Europe largely abandoned by the United States. Carnegie Endowment for International Peace + 2

So the script Putin would hand an American Speaker would look something like this:
  • Abandon Ukraine or force humiliating terms on Zelensky
  • Hollow out NATO's credibility, especially the Article 5 mutual defense commitment
  • Create internal American chaos that consumes all political oxygen
  • Erode trust in democratic institutions, courts, press, elections
  • Alienate European allies so they can't coordinate against Moscow
  • Keep America turned inward on culture war and grievance politics
  • Weaken the intelligence community's ability to counter Russian ops
Now compare that to what Johnson is actually delivering:

Europeans have been taken aback by Trump's refusal to commit additional assistance to Ukraine and the pressure placed on Kyiv to accept Russian demands, including the formal ceding of sovereignty over seized territory and the abandonment of NATO membership aspirations.

Putin himself pointed out that Trump's national security strategy doesn't name Russia as a direct adversary, asking pointedly:

"How can you prepare NATO for a war with Russia if the main member of NATO doesn't consider us an enemy?"

That's Putin not complaining -- that's Putin gloating publicly.

On the domestic chaos front, Johnson's tenure has been marked by few legislative accomplishments and a series of internal splits that consistently stymied his party's own agenda.

The House Republican conference is so consumed by factional performance politics that basic governance has become nearly impossible -- which is exactly the kind of dysfunction that makes America look weak and ungovernable to the world.

Where would Putin change the script?

Honestly, very little.

If Putin were actually advising Johnson, the additions would be marginal -- maybe push harder on dismantling the intelligence community's Russia-tracking capacity (DOGE cuts to the IC have already helped here), perhaps push for formal U.S. recognition of Russian territorial gains in Ukraine, and encourage more friction with the Baltic states specifically.

But the core program -- institutional erosion, NATO skepticism, Ukraine abandonment, culture war distraction, authoritarian executive consolidation, media delegitimization -- is already running.

Putin wouldn't need to issue new instructions so much as send a thank-you note.

The uncomfortable conclusion: the gap between "what Putin would want" and "what Trump/Johnson/MaGA are doing" is so narrow it barely constitutes a gap.

It's the kind of convergence that doesn't require a conspiracy to explain -- it just requires shared interests in weakening the liberal democratic order, for very different stated reasons.

They don't need to be coordinated to be useful to Moscow.

Any more than those under Trump need a direct call to his illiberal, or illegal actions. They know what he expects. It's what they telegraphed to him for selection. It's what they were hired to do. 

It's also how the Mafia worked. It's how criminal organizations work.

It's Why RICO was created to deal with that criminal universe.

They just need to keep doing exactly what they're doing.

This isn't rocket science. It's not complicated. 

They're not even any longer trying to hide it, any of it.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!



JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.

Sunday, May 10, 2026

Special Edition: Russia Is Eating Itself: The Slow Collapse of Putin's War State

Vladimir Putin launched his full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 with the apparent expectation that it would be quick, decisive, and largely invisible to the Russian public. 

More than four years later, it has been none of those things. 

Donald Trump, is not far outside of this club.

What has emerged instead is a portrait of a regime slowly consuming itself: generals killed by car bombs in Moscow suburbs, a president hiding in bunkers along the Black Sea coast while state media runs pre-recorded footage to maintain the illusion of normalcy, and a security apparatus so fractured its chiefs are openly blaming each other in Kremlin meetings. The numbers below tell part of the story. The rest is told by the silence of Russian elites who have quietly stopped saying "we" when they talk about the war, and started saying "his."

 

MILITARY CASUALTIES

CSIS estimates Russian forces suffered nearly 1.2 million battlefield casualties, including killed, wounded, and missing, between February 2022 and December 2025, with roughly 415,000 in 2025 alone, at an average of nearly 35,000 per month. To put that in historical context, Russia has suffered roughly five times as many fatalities in Ukraine as in all Russian and Soviet wars combined between the end of World War II and the start of the full-scale invasion in 2022. Center for Strategic and International StudiesCenter for Strategic and International Studies

Russia's rate of advance since January 2024 has averaged between 15 and 70 meters per day in its most prominent offensives, slower than almost any major offensive campaign in any war in the last century. Center for Strategic and International Studies


GENERALS KILLED

The deaths of 15 Russian generals have been officially confirmed. In December 2024, Lieutenant General Igor Kirillov, head of the Nuclear, Biological, and Chemical Protection Troops, was killed by a bomb in Moscow. In April 2025, Lieutenant General Yaroslav Moskalik, a senior officer in the General Staff's Main Operational Directorate, was killed by a car bomb in a Moscow suburb. In December 2025, Lieutenant General Fanil Sarvarov, head of the Operational Training Directorate of the Russian General Staff, was killed in Moscow by another car bomb. In July 2025, a strike on the headquarters of the 155th Naval Infantry Brigade killed at least six officers, including the Deputy Commander-in-Chief of the Russian Navy. Zona Media


PUTIN IN BUNKERS / HEIGHTENED SECURITY

The Kremlin has dramatically increased personal security around Putin, installing surveillance systems in the homes of close staffers, prompted by a wave of assassinations of top Russian military figures and fears of a coup. Cooks, bodyguards and photographers who work with the president are banned from traveling on public transport. Visitors to the Kremlin must be screened twice, and those working close to Putin can only use phones without internet access. CNN

Putin and his family have stopped visiting their residences in the Moscow region and in northwestern Valdai. He is now spending extended periods in bunkers, including in the Krasnodar area in southern Russia, while state media uses pre-recorded footage to project normality. i24NEWS

He has not visited a military facility in 2026 so far, despite regular trips in 2025. CNN

Intelligence reports indicate Putin fears not so much Ukrainian attacks as a conspiracy by Russian political elites. Sergei Shoigu, the former Defense Minister and current Security Council Secretary, is specifically associated with the risk of a coup attempt. UNN

At the Kremlin's May 9 Victory Day parade this year, no members of the State Duma were invited to Red Square, reportedly to reduce the number of people in close proximity to Putin. The Federal Protective Service has been given broad powers over information policy, personally approving any media appearances involving the president. Surveillance tools once used for criminal investigations have been redirected to monitor government officials. Militarnyi


INTERNAL SECURITY AGENCY CONFLICT

After the assassination of Sarvarov in December 2025, tensions between security agencies exploded during a meeting where Chief of the General Staff Gerasimov sharply criticized the FSB for failing to detect assassination plots. FSB Director Bortnikov responded by criticizing the Defense Ministry for lacking its own protection unit. Head of the National Guard Zolotov refused to allocate his agency's resources to protect Defense Ministry officers. Militarnyi

A former Kremlin insider noted that "a very big battle for power is going on" and that "the FSB and the administration are very much in conflict." HotAir


THE ECONOMIST: PUTIN LOSING HIS GRIP

An anonymous former senior Russian government official writing in The Economist described how senior officials, regional governors and businessmen have stopped using the first-person plural when talking about state actions. As recently as last spring, everything was "we" and "ours." Now they describe what is happening as "his" story, not "ours." His decisions are described as "strange." Even stranger, the author notes, is the fact that he decides anything at all. Substack

The author frames it as a political "zugzwang," the chess term for a position where every available move worsens your situation. He identifies four converging factors: the rising cost of a war designed to be invisible to most Russians; a new demand for rules among elites cut off from London courts and offshore vehicles; roughly 5 trillion rubles in private assets confiscated over three years, the largest redistribution of property since the 1990s privatizations; and a geopolitical climate that is eroding the specific asymmetries Russia historically exploited. Hvylya

The future, he writes, is no longer discussed as something Putin will decide, but as something that will unfold independently of him, and possibly already without him. Substack


ECONOMIC DETERIORATION

Russia's GDP contracted 1.8% in the first two months of 2026. Putin acknowledged the issue in a government meeting on economic affairs in mid-April. HotAir

Russia's economy shrank 0.3% between January and March 2026, the first contraction since early 2023. The public deficit ballooned to $60 billion in the same period, exceeding the full-year target. Inflation remains stuck near 6% under an interest rate of 14.5%. Euronews

Oil and gas revenues in 2025 came in at 8.7 trillion rubles, well below the planned 10.9 trillion. To compensate, the government has raised VAT from 20% to 22% starting January 2026, and utility bills are projected to jump another 13% in 2026, the highest increase since the war began. The Moscow Times

When ordinary Russians were asked in BBC interviews what they hoped for in 2026, a striking number answered with a single word: peace. Several said they no longer plan their lives months or years ahead. One summed up the mood: "Five years? If I look ahead 10 days, it's good." EUvsDisinfo

An anonymous former senior Russian official, writing recently in The Economist, reached for a chess metaphor to describe where Putin now stands: zugzwang, the position where every available move only worsens your situation. The war was supposed to preserve his power. Instead it has become the engine of its erosion. What comes next, no one inside Russia appears to know, including the people closest to him. That uncertainty, more than any battlefield statistic, may be the most significant development of the entire conflict.

I wish us all well...

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!



JZ Murdock is a retired Senior Technical Writer/IT administrator, and an active award-winning author/ filmmaker, documentarian, and writer based in Bremerton, Washington. 

He publishes commentary on the state of things at murdockinations.com and on his creative works over at Substack. He also posts on Slasher.com on the horror genre.

If this work means something to you, you can support it at Ko-fi. Tips are always welcome and go directly toward keeping independent documentary work possible.


Monday, March 23, 2026

The Pipeline to Moscow

War in Iran. Other issues leading up to it. So, where are we exactly? Let's review...shall we?

An administration that systematically dismantled every alternative to fossil fuel dependency, started a war that made that dependency a crisis, then used the crisis to reward the foreign government that benefits most from America never leaving the 20th century energy system.

Russia?

Yes.

What does this timeline tell us?

It tells us that what looks like a series of independent domestic energy policy decisions produced, with remarkable consistency, a single strategic outcome: the United States entered a major Middle East war with no renewable energy buffer, exhausted its emergency petroleum reserve, and was forced to ease sanctions on Russia at the exact moment those sanctions were beginning to work.

Every individual action had a defensible policy framing. "Energy dominance." "Grid reliability." "Reducing regulatory burden." "Stopgap measure." None of those framings are obviously false in isolation. That's what makes the sequence striking -- you don't need any single action to be indefensible. You just need all of them to point the same direction, which they do, without exception, over 13 months.

A few specific things stand out:

The vocabulary erasure in February is underrated. Banning the words internally at the energy efficiency office isn't a policy -- it's a suppression of the institutional capacity to think in those terms. You can't build what you can't name.

The April coal EO and the May legislative demolition of IRA tax credits happened before the Iran war was even on the horizon as an imminent event. Those decisions locked in the vulnerability. By the time February 28 arrived, there was nothing to fall back on that wasn't tied to global oil markets.

The Russia piece is the one that doesn't have a clean innocent explanation. By March 2026 the administration had spent a year arguing that sanctions on Russia were a priority. Those sanctions were measurably working -- oil revenue down from 45% to 20% of the federal budget.

Then one phone call with Putin and a war-driven price spike, and the sanctions are partially unwound within a week. Zelenskyy noticed. The Europeans noticed. The argument that it was purely reactive to the Hormuz closure runs into the fact that Europe faced the same crisis and refused to do the same thing.

What the timeline tells you overall is that the framing of "energy dominance" was always about which energy sources dominate -- not about American independence from volatile global markets. The one energy sector that actually insulates Americans from Middle East oil shocks -- domestic renewables, priced locally, not subject to Hormuz -- was the one systematically eliminated. That's not an accident of priorities. That's a choice with a direction.

Whether it's corruption, ideology, or just the logical endpoint of who funds what in American politics is a separate question. The timeline doesn't answer that. But it does make the innocent explanation -- that these were just a series of unrelated domestic policy preferences that happened to converge on this outcome -- very hard to sustain.

Summarizing what this describes for an administration that follows this timeline, what supports these actions as a desired endpoint?

The desired endpoint, if you follow the logic of every action rather than the stated rationale, is this:

An America permanently dependent on fossil fuels, with the institutional, legal, and financial capacity to transition away from them dismantled at every level -- regulatory, legislative, scientific, and linguistic -- while the industries that benefit from that dependence are subsidized, protected, and politically entrenched for a generation.

What supports these actions is a coalition of interests that all converge on the same outcome, even if they don't share identical motives:

The fossil fuel industry gets the obvious thing -- market protection from a cheaper competitor that was beginning to outprice them without subsidies. Solar and wind were winning on economics alone by 2024. That had to be stopped by policy because it couldn't be stopped by the market.

The petrostate adjacency -- and this is where Russia becomes impossible to ignore -- is that high oil prices and a weakened energy transition benefit Moscow structurally. Not just in the short term of the Iran war windfall. A US that stays oil-dependent stays exposed to exactly the kind of leverage Russia and Gulf states have always held. An America running on domestic solar and wind is geopolitically emancipated in a way that a Russia or a Saudi Arabia cannot afford.

The ideological component is real but secondary. The climate denial framework -- calling the Endangerment Finding into question, erasing the vocabulary, dismissing the science -- isn't just belief. It's institutional capture. If you eliminate the legal basis for federal climate action and the professional class trained to execute it, the next administration that wants to reverse course finds an empty building. That's not policy disagreement. That's succession planning for a permanent outcome.

The political economy underneath all of it is Citizens United and what it enabled -- the fossil fuel donor class having essentially unmediated access to both legislative and executive decision-making. You don't need a conspiracy when the incentive structure produces the behavior automatically.

So what this administration describes, taken as a coherent whole rather than a series of discrete decisions, is a government that has been captured by the industries most threatened by the energy transition, executing a systematic rollback of every mechanism that transition depended on, while a war they started handed the greatest near-term benefit to the foreign government that has the most to lose if that transition ever completes.

The endpoint isn't energy dominance. The endpoint is energy lock-in. A country that cannot structurally leave the 20th century energy system regardless of what a future administration wants to do, because the financial incentives, the legal framework, the scientific infrastructure, and the institutional vocabulary to do otherwise have all been removed.

That's what the timeline describes. Whether it was designed that way or simply fell that way because of who was in the room making the decisions -- that's the question historians will spend a long time on. But the outcome is the same either way.

So, in a sentence...

An administration that systematically dismantled every alternative to fossil fuel dependency, started a war that made that dependency a crisis, then used the crisis to reward the foreign government that benefits most from America never leaving the 20th century energy system.

Russia?

Yes.

Cheers! Sláinte! Na zdravie!



Wednesday, August 6, 2025

The Art of Never Apologizing: Trump’s Doctrine of Doubling Down

There’s an unspoken rule in Donald Trump’s world—and it’s been carried into his second term: Never admit a mistake. Never apologize. Never back down. If something goes wrong, blame someone else. If that fails, double down.

This mindset has become a defining feature of Trumpism and his administration’s operating procedure. While political leaders in most democracies are expected to take responsibility and adjust course when mistakes are made, Trump’s White House functions more like a fortress of deflection—where denial is policy and accountability is weakness.

But let’s put this to the test. What has Trump or his administration actually admitted to getting wrong since taking office again in 2025?

A Short, Quiet List of Admissions

1. Trump Admits He Was Wrong About Putin

In a rare moment of self-awareness on a podcast in July 2025, Trump admitted he was wrong to trust Vladimir Putin and not initially support arming Ukraine. It was vague and veiled, but for Trump, it was close to a full confession.

2. ICE Acknowledges Deportation Error

In May 2025, U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) admitted in court that it had misrepresented statements made by a Guatemalan man facing deportation. A similar administrative error occurred earlier in April involving a man illegally deported to El Salvador despite legal protections.

That’s about it.

The Long List of What They Should Have Admitted

Here’s a small sample of things the Trump administration should have taken responsibility for:

  • Pete Hegseth’s Signal Breach: Sharing classified Yemen bombing recommendations over an unsecured messaging app based on a SECRET/NOFORN email. No admission. No consequences.

  • January 6 Legacy: Still framed as patriotic, with zero acknowledgment of the administration’s incitement or inaction that day.

  • Project 2025 Endorsements: While distancing from the name, Trump has parroted many of its policies. No transparency, just semantic dodging.

  • Epstein Files Obstruction: Despite evidence of proximity and presence, the administration has stonewalled Congressional efforts to release files.

  • Judicial Loyalty Appointments: Some of the judges pushed through have been overturned, investigated, or censured—yet still no reflection or correction.

  • Inflation and Economic Fallout: Trump blames Biden-era ghosts for price hikes, ignoring how instability from his own policies—tariffs, deregulation, and personnel purges—fuels uncertainty and investor anxiety.

  • Border Deaths and Abuse: Despite escalating humanitarian crises under renewed hardline policies, there’s no acknowledgment of systemic failings—only scapegoats and theatrics.

Comparison Table

CategoryAdmitted?Should Have Admitted
Hegseth’s Signal breach❌✅
Putin/Ukraine miscalculation✅ (partial)✅
Epstein cover-up❌✅
Judicial overreach❌✅
Project 2025 ambitions❌✅
January 6 incitement❌✅
Economic instability❌✅
Deportation abuses✅ (ICE only)✅


Why It Matters

When an administration refuses to admit error, it prevents learning. It blocks reform. It replaces transparency with paranoia and weaponizes loyalty over competence. America becomes not just a nation that makes mistakes—but one that insists on making them again, louder.

This unyielding posture may excite a segment of voters who see apology as weakness, but for the country, it’s a slow erosion of democratic integrity. Trust dies not in the thunder of scandal, but in the silence where accountability should live.



Complied with aid of ChatGPT

Tuesday, August 5, 2025

The Hoax Hoax: What Trump Called Lies—That Were Actually True

Here’s a list of key things that Donald Trump and his allies called hoaxes, lies, or witch hunts, but which were later shown to be true — or at least substantiated enough to be damaging or defamatory, contradicting their denials:

Let's begin with today's news:

Trump firing of statistics chief puts US data credibility at risk, experts warn | Trump administration | The Guardian

Here’s a much more extensive list of claims that Donald Trump (and often his allies) labeled as “hoaxes,” “fake news,” or “witch hunts,” only to later find elements of truth—or significantly misleading statements—contained within them:


🌐 Election & Russia-Related Claims

  1. “Russia hoax” / “collusion is a scam”
    → Verdict: False. The Mueller Report and Senate Intelligence Committee confirmed Russian interference and numerous contacts between Trump's campaign and Russian operatives Wikipedia.

  2. “Obama wiretapped Trump Tower”
    → Verdict: Unsubstantiated. DOJ and FBI found no evidence of wiretapping by Obama, though incidental surveillance of campaign figures in Crossfire Hurricane was confirmed much later Wikipedia.

  3. “2020 election stolen”
    → Verdict: False. No widespread fraud. Courts (including judges appointed by Trump) and the DOJ debunked these claims. Jan 6 Committee also concluded Trump knowingly propagated falsehoods FactCheck.org+5PBS+5PolitiFact+5.


🌪 Weather & Science Claims

  1. “Sharpiegate” (Hurricane Dorian would hit Alabama)
    → Verdict: False. Trump’s map was altered with Sharpie, NOAA officials were pressured to support his claim—leading to integrity investigations Wikipedia.

  2. “Global warming is a hoax”
    → Verdict: False. Scientific evidence overwhelmingly confirms global warming and its human-driven causes PBS+15The Washington Post+15The White House+15The Guardian+2Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2.

  3. “Puerto Rico hurricane death toll inflated (3000 died is fake)”
    → Verdict: False. Excess death studies show ~3,000+ deaths after Hurricane Maria Wikipedia+4Wikipedia+4Wikipedia+4.


🤝 Personal & Legal Claims

  1. “Stormy Daniels hush‑money is fake news”
    → Verdict: False. Michael Cohen’s testimony and financial records confirmed Trump reimbursed him—leading to a criminal conviction News.com.au+3Wikipedia+3U.S. Department of Homeland Security+3.

  2. “Tax returns story is false”
    → Verdict: False. NY Times and IRS data showed Trump paid no federal income taxes for years and underreported assets; he was also found civilly liable for fraud Wikipedia.

  3. “E. Jean Carroll accusations are lies”
    → Verdict: False. Two juries found Trump liable for sexual abuse and defamation The Guardian+15Wikipedia+15AP News+15AP News.

  4. “Ukraine call is perfect, impeachment is a witch-hunt”
    → Verdict: False. Transcripts and witness testimony showed Trump pressed for investigations into Biden in exchange for military aid—led to impeachment PolitiFact.

  5. “Classified docs Mar‑a‑Lago is planted evidence”
    → Verdict: False. DOJ recovered classified documents and indicted Trump on obstruction and Espionage Act charges The Guardian.

  6. “Access Hollywood tape is fake”
    → Verdict: False. Trump admitted, apologized, and court records show he privately acknowledged it was real before backtracking The Guardian+4Wikipedia+4AP News+4.


🧬 Conspiracy & Fringe Theories

  1. “Birtherism” (Obama not born in U.S.)
    → Verdict: False. Obama’s Hawaiian birth certificate confirmed his citizenship. Trump finally retracted the claim The Guardian+2Wikipedia+2Wikipedia+2.

  2. “Bill Ayers wrote Obama’s memoir”
    → Verdict: False. No credible evidence supports this conspiracy Wikipedia.

  3. “Obama secretly supported ISIS”
    → Verdict: False. No evidence existed to support this narrative Wikipedia.

  4. “Obama controlled the Biden admin from the shadows”
    → Verdict: False. Entirely unsubstantiated .


🐶 Miscellaneous Outrageous Claims

  1. “He ate pets” (Germany pet-eating hoax)
    → Verdict: False. A false rumor that caused public backlash but was entirely made up AP News+4Wikipedia+4Wikipedia+4.

  2. “Mice transgender in Biden admin”
    → Verdict: False. Bizarre conspiracy with no basis in fact, despite being touted by Trump The Guardian+2The White House+2AP News+2.


✅ Summary Table

Claim TypeSpecific ClaimOutcome
Russia & Election“Russia hoax,” 2020 stolen electionProven false; interference and false fraud debunked
Surveillance“Wiretapped by Obama,” “Trump Tower surveillance”No evidence for Obama taps; incidental surveillances existed
Science/Weather“Sharpiegate,” climate hoax, Maria death toll liesDisproved with NOAA integrity probe, scientific consensus
Legal/PersonalStormy Daniels, taxes, Carroll, Ukraine call, documentsAll substantiated via documents, court verdicts, indictments
ConspiraciesBirtherism, CIA conspiracies, ISIS, memoir writingFully debunked with official proof
Absurd HoaxesEating pets, transgender miceEntirely false, publicized to distract

📌 Takeaway

Trump’s label of “hoax” has often served as a rhetorical tool to deflect serious investigations—but many of these topics later revealed credible evidence, court verdicts, or official reports disproving his claims.



Compiled with aid of ChatGPT