Latest news with #politicaltheater
Russia Today
3 days ago
- Politics
- Russia Today
Mission: Regrettable – Ukraine's drone strike blows up in its face
For most people, June 1st is a cheerful date – the start of summer, a celebration of children. But from 2025 onward, it may also be remembered as the day Ukraine launched its largest covert operation in Russia since the start of the conflict. While the full impact of the operation is still unclear, estimates suggest anywhere from a handful to several dozen Russian aircraft were damaged or destroyed. The precise details will likely remain shrouded in speculation. What is certain, however, is that the Russian military must rethink how it defends strategic facilities. The traditional approach – based on intercepting missiles and deploying advanced air-defense systems – has proven inadequate against cheap drones that can be assembled from off-the-shelf parts and launched from almost anywhere. That lesson is now painfully clear. But the military will draw its own conclusions. Our focus should be on the political meaning of what happened. Make no mistake – this was not just a military act. Like much of what Ukraine does, this was political theater, staged for a very specific audience: Donald Trump. Kiev's objective was simple. Derail the Istanbul negotiations and paint Russia as the intransigent party. How? By provoking a furious response – one that would make headlines, stir outrage inside Russia, and force Moscow to walk away from the table. The idea was to provoke a reaction that Ukraine could then parade before Washington. The message? 'See? We told you they don't want peace. Arm us more!' It's not the first time they've tried this tactic. From the attack on the Kursk Bridge to the shelling of Donbass civilians, Ukraine has repeatedly used provocation as a diplomatic weapon – seeking to engineer Russia's diplomatic isolation by sabotaging any steps toward negotiation. And yet, once again, it didn't work. Despite outrage from parts of Russian society, Moscow did not take the bait. Our delegation flew to Istanbul as planned. There, negotiators presented Ukraine with a memorandum reiterating the same terms previously offered. Not a step back. At the same time, humanitarian agreements were reached – including a new exchange of prisoners and the return of fallen fighters' remains. So did Russia 'turn the other cheek'? Hardly. Moscow has adopted a strategy one might call an 'Italian strike' – doing the bare minimum to deny our enemies a propaganda victory, while withholding the kind of breakthroughs that would reward bad-faith behavior. Yes, the humanitarian measures agreed upon in Istanbul are important. But let's not kid ourselves – they are not steps toward a peace settlement. Politically, the situation is unchanged. However, there is a deeper issue now at play – one with far more serious implications. On June 1st, Ukrainian forces didn't just target military bases. They targeted components of Russia's nuclear deterrent. Under our official doctrine, an attack on the strategic nuclear infrastructure is grounds for the use of nuclear weapons. Now, no one is suggesting we nuke Kiev over a few aircraft, no matter how advanced or expensive. That would be disproportionate. But here lies the paradox: If Russia does nothing, it risks undermining the credibility of its own deterrence posture, and that sends a dangerous message. In the Western capitals and among Ukrainian hawks, there are already whispers: 'If they didn't respond to this, maybe they'll tolerate even more.' That may sound absurd – but that's how these people think. Their fantasies become policy more often than one would like. So what is the answer? Let's be honest: repeating slogans like 'our response will be success on the battlefield' won't cut it here. Ukraine's leadership isn't acting out of military logic, but emotional desperation. Their calculation is political. So Russia's response must be political, too – emotionally resonant, unmistakably firm, and, above all, creative. This doesn't mean rash escalation, but we can't rely on the old playbook. Hitting the same military targets again and again achieves little. Striking Ukraine's energy infrastructure? Done. Launching another missile as a 'demonstration'? Predictable. Escalating to mass casualties? Unnecessary and, frankly, counterproductive. So what's left? Innovation. Russia must now think asymmetrically. That might mean a covert action so unexpected that it catches Ukraine completely off guard. Or it could involve striking symbolic targets that shift the psychological balance. The key is to remind Kiev – and its patrons – that nothing they do goes unanswered, and that the cost of provocation will always outweigh the benefit. In truth, Russia has spent too long responding conventionally to a conflict that is anything but conventional. Our adversaries deal in optics, symbols, and theater. To counter that effectively, we must speak the same language – without abandoning our principles or resorting to theatrics of our own. The June 1st attack was not a turning point. But it was a warning. Not just about drones or airfields, but about perception and power. The next move, as always, is Russia's to make. And this time, it must be something they don't article was first published by the online newspaper and was translated and edited by the RT team
Wall Street Journal
5 days ago
- Business
- Wall Street Journal
The Trump-Musk ‘War of the Roses'
Too bad we didn't set up an office pool in January. Someone could have cleaned up choosing the closest date for the inevitable divorce between President Trump and Elon Musk. This pair of modest egos were never a good match for the long haul, and on Thursday their breakup turned into 'The War of the Roses.' It certainly makes for entertaining political theater, at least for Democrats. First came Mr. Musk's broadside against the One Big Beautiful Bill Act as an 'abomination.' Mr. Trump replied that he was disappointed but that his buddy Elon knew what was in the bill all along. Mr. Musk raised the bidding with a demand sent to his followers on to 'KILL the BILL.' The President suggested Mr. Musk suffered from 'Trump derangement syndrome,' to which Mr. Musk replied that the President wouldn't have won without him. Since these guys only know how to escalate, Mr. Trump then posted on Truth Social that 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts.' Tesla shares plunged. Defcon 2.
The Guardian
6 days ago
- General
- The Guardian
Marjorie Taylor Greene accused of assembling ‘rogues' gallery' to attack NGOs
The far-right congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene has assembled a 'rogues' gallery of extremists, conspiracy theorists and C-team political operatives' to promote Donald Trump's crackdown on non-government organisations (NGOs), a congressional watchdog has claimed. The House of Representatives' Delivering on Government Efficiency (Doge) subcommittee, chaired by Greene, is due to hold a hearing on Wednesday entitled 'Public Funds, Private Agendas: NGOs Gone Wild'. The subcommittee said in a press release that the hearing will 'expose' the use of federal funds by NGOs to advance 'radical' agendas such as 'open borders and the Green New Deal scam'. It frames its work as an investigation of the alleged funneling of taxpayer dollars to politically motivated groups while 'lining the pockets of their friends and allies'. But a memo from the Congressional Integrity Project (CIP), obtained by the Guardian, condemns the hearing as 'political theater', 'weaponized government oversight' and an exercise in hypocrisy, given the substantial federal funding received by Republican allies and rightwing groups. While attacking civil society organisations for receiving federal grants, the memo says, 'their own networks have systematically benefited from government contracts, subsidies, and loans worth billions of dollars'. Wednesday's hearing on Capitol Hill will feature witnesses Mark Krikorian, executive director of the Center for Immigration Studies; Daniel Turner, founder and executive director of Power the Future; and Scott Walter, president of the Capital Research Center. The CIP describes Greene's line-up as 'rogues' gallery of extremists, conspiracy theorists and C-team political operatives masquerading as government watchdogs'. It notes that the Center for Immigration Studies has been designated a hate group by the Southern Poverty Law Center and regularly circulates content from 'white nationalist and antisemitic writers'. Krikorian has made statements including that Haiti's problems stem from not being 'colonised long enough'. The memo adds that CIS received more than $700,000 in PPP loans and is now under investigation by the justice department for potentially lying to obtain at least one of them. 'That's right, Republicans chose as their star witness on government waste someone who may have committed fraud to secure government money for his organization.' The CIP describes Turner as a career political operative who worked for the Charles Koch Institute before founding Power the Future, a climate-denial organisation that attacks environmental groups for receiving federal grants. Yet Turner's former employer, Charles Koch, has received more than $750m in government subsidies. The memo states: 'Turner, who calls 'climate change the slippery slope to socialism' and promotes conspiracy theories about climate science, represents everything wrong with this sham hearing. 'He's a junior varsity Republican operative masquerading as an objective analyst while advancing the financial interests of the fossil fuel industry – the same interests that have systematically profited from the very government largesse he now pretends to oppose.' Walter leads the Capital Research Center, 'a secretive organization that won't disclose its donors while attacking others for lacking transparency', the CIP alleges. 'His organization's fiscal arrangements appear designed to shield activities from public scrutiny, yet he positions himself as a watchdog exposing liberal 'dark money'.' In 2023, according to the memo, Walter helped funnel nearly $600,000 in anonymous donations to supreme court justice Clarence Thomas's wife Ginni Thomas's group while his organisation had business before the supreme court, creating conflicts of interest. Walter also has a history of making or defending offensive statements about race, gender and sexual orientation. He publicly defended a university professor accused of making racist statements, said average Americans have 'disgust at homosexual practice' and in the 1990s mused that one good thing from the Monica Lewinsky scandal might be 'that feminism will die, that sexual harassment laws will fizzle'. The memo adds: 'This hearing represents weaponized government oversight at its worst, with Chairwoman Marjorie Taylor Greene assembling hate group leaders, conspiracy theorists, and dark money operatives to attack civil society organizations while the very people crying about government waste have pocketed billions in federal contracts and subsidies.'
