Domestic political reasons and debatable “pragmatic” ones are responsible for Russia remaining reluctant to abandon hope that Trump might coerce Zelensky into withdrawing from Donbass.
And as could have been expected, here's Rubio trying to humiliate Lavrov by strongly implying that the "Spirit of Anchorage" is indeed dead, so Russia reaffirming its commitment to it achieved nothing:
It's interesting that Lavrov was wearing a CCCP shirt when he went to Alaska. Perhaps needling is going in both directions by some fractions of both RU and the US.
Completely agree about the NRPRs. So many of them lead with rage against the West and put their weight behind intransigent positions. They want Russia and China to be some kind of superheroes against the West, when both are self-interested states that change with the times and use pragmatism and good judgement, as much as possible, to get what's best for them.
I get why Lavrov still talks about Anchorage, but I think it's time to just let it go.
Just like love, sometimes you need to know when things are dead.
Just like with people, you need to know when your lover isn't who you thought they were.
The US either lied at Anchorage or just didn't have the strength or good sense to see it through. Probably the former according to what it known.
Russian politicians are using it as a sort of emotional bargaining angle, but it is falling on deaf ears.
Russia needs to reaffirm the same solid and reasonable set of conditions it always had with some adaptations for present dynamics. Assessing the present as it is is the best starting point for Russia in my opinion.
Sorry for the long waffly comment. Good stuff as always, cheers))
No worries, it's a great comment, Shane! I nowadays consider most NRPRs to be cultists because that's literally how they behave. You're also right that many of them rage against the West and these feelings blind them to the reality of Russian policy.
Over the past year, I concluded that the vast majority of them are Leftists, Islamists, and/or "Third Worldists" who simply piggyback off of Russia's current cause in fighting the West to generate clout, push their ideologies, and/or solicit donations.
Very few of them are actual Russophiles in the cultural or political senses in that most don't speak Russian, know almost nothing about Russian history, are ignorant of its culture, and have absolutely zero stakes in its success either.
I'm not negatively judging people who believe in the three ideologies that I enumerated nor those who aren't Russophiles but I'm confident that my assessment describes the vast majority of people who consider themselves "pro-Russian" and are also online activists.
Their ulterior motives contextualize why they misportray Russia and its policies, which some innocently do due to their own wishful thinking but others deliberately lie about them for one, some, or all three of the reasons that I mentioned.
I think it is interesting that U.S. elites have more sympathy for Palestinians than Russians. For example, a majority of Democrats are now pushing to stop all U.S. military aid to Israel (including defense-industrial mergers), but say nothing about doing the same in relation to Ukraine:
In fact "progressive" Democrats such as this one—several of whom have Muslim or Arab backgrounds—argue that Ukraine, unlike Israel, merits aid because its regime is allegedly fighting an anti-imperialist war against Russian colonizers (in much the way Palestinians are said to be countering Israel):
I think this shows the extent to which U.S. and world politics is driven by ethnic or religious lobbies—many of which are foreign-funded—rather than genuinely national (i.e., patriotic) motives, as any constructive critique would be. I have been faced with this truth often to date.
The U.S. GOP and the Democrats mirror each other. AIPAC and the rest of the Israel lobby has switched its loyalty to the former more or less since the 1980s. Trump and other Republicans often refer first to Israeli and only secondarily to U.S. interests vs. Iran (or Islamism).
Unlike the GOP, the Democrats have come to be dominated by non-Jewish, often nonwhite donors (Soros being an outlier), with both parties acting as a scissor against Americans. Both Zionism and the leftist–Islamist nexus are fundamentally anti-American, alien agendas.
I would just say there is nothing 'left' about the Democrats. They're warmongering liberals, or megaloliberals as I call them. Because they still cling to their vision for world order and their radical species of liberal ideology, they can't choose the pragmatic approach to Russia and Ukraine and will continue to weaponise and sacrifice the latter for their ends. The European Powers are still in thrall to the same ideology.
I tend to distrust political labels to a point, given that no U.S. political faction has acted with consistency. I think the Democrats are less "leftist" or "liberal" than they are Islamist proxies (hence "'leftist'–Islamist", with stress on the latter), while the GOP shills for Zionist/Jewish dual nationals.
Yet both parties have propped up Islamism, whether as a Cold-War or globalist cudgel—in both cases against Russia and other powers. Pro-Israel neocons such as Charles "Charlie" Wilson and "Scoop" Jackson promoted aid to the Afghan mujahideen, for instance.
There are other factors at work as well. Yet right now we are seeing both Trump and the Democrats begin to favor Islamist actors over Israel, for very different reasons. Trump sees Turkey and Pakistan as more useful tools against Israel's Russian ally, as do the Democrats.
The latter also view the Iran war as a distraction from Ukraine, but what is genuinely new is their angst over Israeli policy in Gaza and Lebanon. This has been ongoing for some time, but I never expected a majority of Democrats to turn so sharply anti-Israel.
All this—while neither U.S. party shows a willingness to compromise with Russia on Ukraine—shows that the U.S. elite hates Russia and even Israel more than it does the Islamists (whether U.S. allies or not) who have killed thousands of rival Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
The elites don’t care anything about Palestinians. They are merely trying to deflect the outrage of most Americans, and especially many Jews who are rapidly turning against Israel and AIPAC. While the elites are faking sympathy the genocide continues.
Do you have any evidence that these Democrats are secretly funding the Iran war and Israel? The sources I quoted said more than a hundred were working to cut off aid to both, as their votes show. So the opposition looks real.
I didn’t say anything about funding or democrats. I Sid the elites are feigning sympathy for the Palestinians while the Genocide continues. And the Democratic Party, with a few exceptions, still supports Israel. Even Sanders, with his harsh criticism of Netanyahu, still takes about Oct. 7 and Israel’s right to exist.
I think you're pretty much on the money with your classification of most NRPRs.
Interestingly and ironically, they may rage against the Liberal Order, but they still end up seeing world politics on its terms, i.e., through the lens of binary moralism. It's a simplification of course, but many see world politics in terms of gods and monsters, good and evil, rather than in terms of needs and interests, better and worse.
Another feature, and this is a feature of what I call megaloliberalism, and Walt and Mearsheimer call liberal hegemony, is that they perceive international politics as domestic politics writ big. You will never understand IR and world politics if you think of it as something similar to the domestic sphere. I'm some kind of old-style leftie for internal affairs, but I have a very different mindset when I write about the external, which is most of the time.
I wrote a piece on Venezuela after the kidnapping of Maduro and there were a few in the comments saying how they hope Russia and China will get together to something about it. I tried to explain that if you think they're gonna do anything, you really don't understand how things work. The US just sticking to its own hemisphere is basically the best possible outcome for the two of them.
I agree as well, some of the NRPRs are just naïve and a bit misguided. Others just love Russia cause it's the enemy of their enemy. One way or another, most know very little about Russia and probably have never even thought about going there.
Dear Sir, your bad faith is staggering, and your flattering tone is most pernicious. Do you really believe that the USA is content—and will remain content—to stay within its own hemisphere? Or are you taking us for fools? In the first case, buy yourself some glasses, look at a world map, and note all the countries where Uncle Sam has military bases and all those where its diplomacy is highly aggressive. To help you out, I would say that I didn't know that Mali, Ukraine, Syria, Lebanon, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, North Korea, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Australia were part of the 'US hemisphere.' Because, you see, they are sowing blood, hatred, and shit there. In the second case, drop your honeyed, soporific tone and just call us idiots outright. That would be less insulting.
As for the NRPR, who in Russia receives the most exalted among them as plenipotentiaries if not Lavrov and the gang and even Poutine himself? Who encouraged them to make fools of themselves by churning out cargoes of adult male bovine excrement if not the Lavrov's gang? Who claimed that the West was of satanic essence and that Russia was fighting to keep the light of humanity shining on the world, if not Putin himself? If Russians have the memory of goldfish and are dulled by the desire to be Western consumers, the NRPR know full well the villainy of their own civilization and remember very clearly how the West treated Gorbachev's outstretched hand, and how Russia was treated in the ten years that followed. And if the Russians still haven't understood and remain blinded by a debilitating mirage, the NRPRknow very well how the West will treat them (and especially their daughters) if they give up. Yes, there are excesses, provocations, and even indeed some crazies among the NRPR (no more than among the NATO fans) — please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater."
I have no idea if I qualify as an NRPR, good or bad. All I can say is I love the idea of my country, I am anti-war, I reject amoral geopolitics, I support national sovereignty with global institutions as needed to mediate conflict and provide help to others, I believe the west would have been far better off in alliance with Russia, I think Europeans have not behaved and are not behaving admirably, I am ignorant of any Russian mal-intention apart from a desire for shared security and the right to being an equal member of the world, and I happen to think Mr Putin and Mr Lavrov have negotiated their way through an incredibly complex situation with considerable skill while the leadership of my own country has the appearance of being a clown car.
If all that makes me a "cultist", or a "deranged leftist", guilty as charged but still open to re-education.
That doesn't make you a cultist; you'd be one if you were aggressively pushing false but spun-as-positive narratives about Russian policy online (such as the popular one that Putin is secretly an anti-Zionist who's always plotting to undermine Israel out of solidarity with Iran and Palestine), refused to recognize that they're false when made aware of facts from official sources like the Kremlin website, and then "canceled" those like me who shared them with you.
There is nothing wrong with any of that. But none of that means that you have to indulge in wishful thinking.
The NRPR is basically the mirror image of the neocon. The neocons blame Russia for everything from pubic lice to slow service at the Alexandria, VA Denny's. Russia is depicted as a fascist dictatorship run by religious obscurantists when the audience is left wing, and as unreconstructed Stalinists, when the audience is right wing. The reality is much more complicated than Marvel Comics.
Sort of the way Jews once were godless atheist communists who wanted nothing more than your daughters on the one hand, and also bankers who were religious fanatics and only wanted to mingle with co-religionists.
The NRPR play the same games, just they ascribe magical superhero qualities to Russia and sometimes China. Again, they get their news from Marvel Comics, just they make the designated supervillain into the hero and vice versa.
There's nothing wrong with any of that, on the contrary, it's all very admirable, LJones.
There are just certain tendencies to see and portray Russia (and also China) in very unrealistic terms by some NRPRs. Some do this just cause they don't know any better. Some do it from a position of reason, pragmatism and good solid values. And some do it for far more insidious ends.
My dear friend, the difference is that our western leaders rule and decide nothing. Peoples who draw their strings are not clowns at all. Deadly efficient bastards yes, clowns, no.
Re: NRPRs, I must add that they tend to be aligned more with Third-World leftism and/or Islamism than the kind of national conservatism Putin promotes. They were never really "pro-Russia" to begin with, given that "Red–Green" globalism endangers the Russian state and its foreign relations (e.g., with Trump, Netanyahu, Modi, and Xi). There are many reasons.
If this group gets its way, the Muslim regions of Russia, India, and China will secede on an "anti-colonial" basis. A common theme is that Ukraine and Palestine are just like Chechnya, Kashmir, or Xinjiang. The implications for Muslim-majority areas in the West (EU), the East, and the "global South" (i.e., the Sahel, East Africa, or southeast Asia) are profound.
Effectively Muslims are weaponized as geopolitical proxies for leftist–Islamist globalism in a way that weakens major multipolar powers and even the U.S. For Russia the role of Türkiye in this via TRIPP is just one example. China and India are threatened by Turkish ally Pakistan's role in Bangladesh (via the JeI), Afghanistan (via ISIS-K), and Myanmar (via the Rohingya).
Muslims act influentially as a bloc, given higher birth rates, migration, and the petrodollar. Since 7 October 2023 many of them have been convinced by NRPR influencers that Putin is too Israel- or even Jew-friendly—a trend that has major ramifications on already-shaky Russia–ummah ties, not least due to the legacy of Russian occupation in Muslim-majority (Turkic) Central Asia, Crimea, and the Caucasus, as well as Russian support for Orthodox clients in various Balkan wars against the Ottomans.
Right now both U.S. policy wings, along with the EU, for different reasons, are sourcing on Israel, both due to Muslim electorates' role in opposing Zionism (as can be seen in "liberal-globalist" discourse about "decolonization") and concern over Iran being a distraction from Ukraine. We see this in Democrats and EU elites opposing funding for Israel, Israeli settlements, and/or Iran operations, while Trump consolidates the "Islamic NATO" via TRIPP (Türkiye) and Saudi ally Pakistan, both neutral re: Iran.
This adds an important dimension to geopolitics, as we are often presented with false caricatures of U.S.–Israel ties (people were shocked that Biden or Trump, not to say many members of Congress, would ever disagree with Bibi) and Putin's nonexistent "anti-Zionism". Yet now we see major political realignments in the West that prioritize containing Russia over backing Israel 100% or even 50% of the time—an unthinkable development by many NRPRs' shallow standards.
I really think Islamism and leftism are inherently incompatible, for the most part, with the pragmatic worldview Russia's leadership upholds. People cannot recall that Putin was sold as pro-Western by none other than Yeltsin himself, backed the U.S.-led "war on terrorism" after 9/11, and for many years did not even oppose NATO expansion in Poland or the Baltic states (c. 2004).
Russia also does not agree with the divisive identity politics promoted by Third-World leftism and its globalist–Islamist allies, given that it supports private property, commonsensical social policy, and the existing Westphalian concert of nation-states. It also abhors violent attempts by extremist movements to overturn this order. For this reason Putin is more and more resented.
Islamist and leftist discourse is tinged with anti-Russia elements, given that it often—in part due to Western "liberal-globalist" manipulation—equates Palestine and Ukraine under an "anti-colonial" rubric, while opposing Putin as a "Zionist"-friendly capitalist who allegedly oppresses ethnic, religious, or even other minorities—be they Ukrainians, Chechens, or LBGTQ+I. The dangers for Russian statehood are manifest.
Russian officials—such as Kremlin spokesman Peskov—have said NATO is directly warring with Russia since last year (TASS, 15 Sept 25), yet Russia has not yet reacted accordingly, as shown by the use of Baltic airspace for Ukrainian drone strikes. Russian overtures to the U.S. continue to act as though a U.S.-led war is not in fact ongoing.
The world changes, dynamics shift and politicians adapt accordingly. This is why a lot is never set in stone. I understand what he said a month ago and I don't agree with him talking about it again and so much moreover. You read my comment, so know what I think. It's the wrong move, but some in the Russian Government still hope to use Anchorage as a way to frame talks to prevail upon Trump.
If I recall correctly, Anchorage was never an "agreement", but a framework to be formalized. If so, then in this sense Rubio is correct. Anchorage was meant to lay the basis for final talks based on preliminary understandings such as Putin's quid pro quo.
Given the U.S.-led West's unreliability on this count, however, the Russian reaction is nonsensical. I can understand why Russia might agree to go along for pragmatic reasons, but there is no justification (i.e., evidence) for its belief that Trump 2.0 might cut a deal.
Basing foreign policy on a forecast, probability, and/or hope is dangerously unprofessional. At this stage I think Lavrov et al. are beset by deep psychological complexes, if they truly think a U.S.–Russia settlement is viable. They need to explain why they do so.
This is all the more surprising since Putin cautioned his strategic forecasters against indulging in wishful thinking in remarks that he gave to his foreign spy service in summer 2022:
I explained why in the analysis and I agree that it looks very bad, especially since Rubio strongly suggested right after meeting Lavrov that the "Spirit of Anchorage" is indeed dead, so Russia reaffirming its commitment to it achieved nothing:
'At the end of November Putin...was surprised by the imposition of new US sanctions against Russian oil companies, as relations between the two countries began to improve.
"This is in connection with what? I'm telling you honestly, I didn't even understand - what's going on? <...> We talked with him, met in Alaska, and then "boom" with the health of the emerging new relationship - sanctions that destroy our relationship. It is not clear to us what kind of sign it is," the President said.
Wow, am I hallucinating or did I read that correctly. Lavrov did a back flip! Surely he is following orders only or does he feel there is more juice left to squeeze out of the Anchorage deal now with the agreement incapable US.
I'm also surprised after Russian officials and media trashed the "Spirit of Anchorage" a month ago. Whatever one might think about its merits and viability, to flip-flop like this doesn't make for good optics, to say the least.
I have long noted a similar trend in Trump 2.0. I think it shows the influence of foreign interests or lobbies as well as poor memory and a short-term outlook. There really is no "grand strategy" at work.
Good take. I was about to share that Rubio post-talk comments that is a slap to the face of Lavrov, Putin and co and (yet another) affirmation of the core belief of us-universally hated-NRPRs. Putin's obsession with a deal, without imposing any costs to the enemy, is a remarkably foolish attempt, on par of course with his former belief on the consecutive Minsk fiascos. You can't teach an old dog new tricks though...
Unbelievable. The leader of the biggest country on Earth, possibly one of the richest in natural resources and certainly the most advanced in nuclear technology, civilian and military, starts a war to remove a nasty neighborly government (de-nazification and de-militarization), stops after two weeks, and negotiates with the very same government.
As expected, he gets cheated on. Furthermore, he attempts to befriend the chieftain of the very clique that caused him and his country the biggest grievances in the last 20 - 30 years. Meanwhile, more than half a million of his finest and bravest men got killed or maimed on the battlefield.
One would think he's gotten wiser, but NO, he is in the spirit of negotiating away the souls of his dead men without getting anything in return, perhaps a pause of a few years.
One of the following things is true: the man is a fool; the man is such a genius that I cannot understand; the man sees threats to his country that I do not; the man is let down by most of his friends who promised their support earlier on.
Please take bets on the above possibilities. I will reward those in the highest bid category!
As I mused earlier re others' being nonplussed by Russian official friendly tones at times toward US, eg 4th of July greetings, despite the violent mayhem owing in part to US actions and arrangements at least via the prior regime; there may very well be backroom understandings considered best left unpublicized, however frustrating, Shtrumpfians assuring Russia of no serious consequences should it pursue warring with even greater violent vigour, which could serve to somewhat hasten an end to the war, and who knows what else relegated to whispers. It should not be expected to be easy for a US regime to quickly undo what has been long set up by prior regimes. I remember 1st sensing a tectonic-like cleavage among American higher-ups' factions some 20-plus yr ago - re going after Iran. Quieter goings on may be de rigueur.
It's like if in July 1941, with the Germans reaching Leningrad, Minsk and Kiev, Molotov would have said" we must respect the spirit of the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty.
Spirit Of Anchorage has a vague but realistic sounding nominal cover story -- Donbas settlement terms.
But what if that isn't what it's really about. I think, maybe, just maybe, it's about changes in the pipeline regarding the problem we have of the NATO crosslinked institution of the West no longer working or serving a purpose. Actually the superstructure even increasingly appearing to facilitate financial grift, hack elections, blackmail, etc. Look at the Russia Hoax to see the multi-national web behind it.
If the theory has any legs, and if you're going to blow up large parts of that infrastructure, it would be important to keep the other nuclear power somewhat aware of things in case western institutions become, for a time, illegible.
I would also note the sad faces on Rubio and Lavrov is not inconsistent with their fondness for the old order.
It also potentially recasts a lot of the western 'Russia hate' as a desperate last-ditch effort to inflame and create a reason for these post-cold war NATO institutional and institutional linkages to still exist. And it recasts Putin's refusal to be baited as an effective strategy.
In any case, it's interesting that Brussels aligned states have not suffered meaningful political loss from these years of disaster in Ukraine. They have been robust, and it would be worth more investigations IMO into the innerworkings and why things have held for this long.
I don’t know how you can claim that Putin and Lavrov still sincerely believe Trump will do anything to end this war, or that Zelensky has anything to do with ending it. Putin knows this is NATO’s war and is moving ahead rapidly to end it on the battlefield. The fact that NATO is now reduced to blowing up toaster ovens and assorted consumer goods, while Russia is destroying Ukraine’s ports, weapons factories, military storage sites and railways and blowing up the gas stations is evidence of that. The talk is cheap, the actions speak louder.
And as could have been expected, here's Rubio trying to humiliate Lavrov by strongly implying that the "Spirit of Anchorage" is indeed dead, so Russia reaffirming its commitment to it achieved nothing:
https://x.com/ralexdc/status/2080223430641877327
The Russians are such nice puppies. Maybe they'll get a pat on the head from Trump. Good Pootie, good boy.
It's interesting that Lavrov was wearing a CCCP shirt when he went to Alaska. Perhaps needling is going in both directions by some fractions of both RU and the US.
Solid and valuable analysis as always, Andrew.
Completely agree about the NRPRs. So many of them lead with rage against the West and put their weight behind intransigent positions. They want Russia and China to be some kind of superheroes against the West, when both are self-interested states that change with the times and use pragmatism and good judgement, as much as possible, to get what's best for them.
I get why Lavrov still talks about Anchorage, but I think it's time to just let it go.
Just like love, sometimes you need to know when things are dead.
Just like with people, you need to know when your lover isn't who you thought they were.
The US either lied at Anchorage or just didn't have the strength or good sense to see it through. Probably the former according to what it known.
Russian politicians are using it as a sort of emotional bargaining angle, but it is falling on deaf ears.
Russia needs to reaffirm the same solid and reasonable set of conditions it always had with some adaptations for present dynamics. Assessing the present as it is is the best starting point for Russia in my opinion.
Sorry for the long waffly comment. Good stuff as always, cheers))
No worries, it's a great comment, Shane! I nowadays consider most NRPRs to be cultists because that's literally how they behave. You're also right that many of them rage against the West and these feelings blind them to the reality of Russian policy.
Over the past year, I concluded that the vast majority of them are Leftists, Islamists, and/or "Third Worldists" who simply piggyback off of Russia's current cause in fighting the West to generate clout, push their ideologies, and/or solicit donations.
Very few of them are actual Russophiles in the cultural or political senses in that most don't speak Russian, know almost nothing about Russian history, are ignorant of its culture, and have absolutely zero stakes in its success either.
I'm not negatively judging people who believe in the three ideologies that I enumerated nor those who aren't Russophiles but I'm confident that my assessment describes the vast majority of people who consider themselves "pro-Russian" and are also online activists.
Their ulterior motives contextualize why they misportray Russia and its policies, which some innocently do due to their own wishful thinking but others deliberately lie about them for one, some, or all three of the reasons that I mentioned.
I think it is interesting that U.S. elites have more sympathy for Palestinians than Russians. For example, a majority of Democrats are now pushing to stop all U.S. military aid to Israel (including defense-industrial mergers), but say nothing about doing the same in relation to Ukraine:
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2026/07/15/israel-aid-democrats-iran-war-gaza-bill-divide/90935159007/
https://www.commondreams.org/news/senate-dems-block-ndaa
In fact "progressive" Democrats such as this one—several of whom have Muslim or Arab backgrounds—argue that Ukraine, unlike Israel, merits aid because its regime is allegedly fighting an anti-imperialist war against Russian colonizers (in much the way Palestinians are said to be countering Israel):
https://eu.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2025/04/19/abdul-el-sayed-military-aid-israel-netanyahu-aipac-haley-stevens-senate-chauvin-george-floyd/83140202007/
I think this shows the extent to which U.S. and world politics is driven by ethnic or religious lobbies—many of which are foreign-funded—rather than genuinely national (i.e., patriotic) motives, as any constructive critique would be. I have been faced with this truth often to date.
The U.S. GOP and the Democrats mirror each other. AIPAC and the rest of the Israel lobby has switched its loyalty to the former more or less since the 1980s. Trump and other Republicans often refer first to Israeli and only secondarily to U.S. interests vs. Iran (or Islamism).
Unlike the GOP, the Democrats have come to be dominated by non-Jewish, often nonwhite donors (Soros being an outlier), with both parties acting as a scissor against Americans. Both Zionism and the leftist–Islamist nexus are fundamentally anti-American, alien agendas.
There's definitely a lot of this at play, Daniel.
I would just say there is nothing 'left' about the Democrats. They're warmongering liberals, or megaloliberals as I call them. Because they still cling to their vision for world order and their radical species of liberal ideology, they can't choose the pragmatic approach to Russia and Ukraine and will continue to weaponise and sacrifice the latter for their ends. The European Powers are still in thrall to the same ideology.
I tend to distrust political labels to a point, given that no U.S. political faction has acted with consistency. I think the Democrats are less "leftist" or "liberal" than they are Islamist proxies (hence "'leftist'–Islamist", with stress on the latter), while the GOP shills for Zionist/Jewish dual nationals.
Yet both parties have propped up Islamism, whether as a Cold-War or globalist cudgel—in both cases against Russia and other powers. Pro-Israel neocons such as Charles "Charlie" Wilson and "Scoop" Jackson promoted aid to the Afghan mujahideen, for instance.
There are other factors at work as well. Yet right now we are seeing both Trump and the Democrats begin to favor Islamist actors over Israel, for very different reasons. Trump sees Turkey and Pakistan as more useful tools against Israel's Russian ally, as do the Democrats.
The latter also view the Iran war as a distraction from Ukraine, but what is genuinely new is their angst over Israeli policy in Gaza and Lebanon. This has been ongoing for some time, but I never expected a majority of Democrats to turn so sharply anti-Israel.
All this—while neither U.S. party shows a willingness to compromise with Russia on Ukraine—shows that the U.S. elite hates Russia and even Israel more than it does the Islamists (whether U.S. allies or not) who have killed thousands of rival Muslims and non-Muslims alike.
The elites don’t care anything about Palestinians. They are merely trying to deflect the outrage of most Americans, and especially many Jews who are rapidly turning against Israel and AIPAC. While the elites are faking sympathy the genocide continues.
Do you have any evidence that these Democrats are secretly funding the Iran war and Israel? The sources I quoted said more than a hundred were working to cut off aid to both, as their votes show. So the opposition looks real.
I didn’t say anything about funding or democrats. I Sid the elites are feigning sympathy for the Palestinians while the Genocide continues. And the Democratic Party, with a few exceptions, still supports Israel. Even Sanders, with his harsh criticism of Netanyahu, still takes about Oct. 7 and Israel’s right to exist.
Cheers Andrew))
I think you're pretty much on the money with your classification of most NRPRs.
Interestingly and ironically, they may rage against the Liberal Order, but they still end up seeing world politics on its terms, i.e., through the lens of binary moralism. It's a simplification of course, but many see world politics in terms of gods and monsters, good and evil, rather than in terms of needs and interests, better and worse.
Another feature, and this is a feature of what I call megaloliberalism, and Walt and Mearsheimer call liberal hegemony, is that they perceive international politics as domestic politics writ big. You will never understand IR and world politics if you think of it as something similar to the domestic sphere. I'm some kind of old-style leftie for internal affairs, but I have a very different mindset when I write about the external, which is most of the time.
I wrote a piece on Venezuela after the kidnapping of Maduro and there were a few in the comments saying how they hope Russia and China will get together to something about it. I tried to explain that if you think they're gonna do anything, you really don't understand how things work. The US just sticking to its own hemisphere is basically the best possible outcome for the two of them.
I agree as well, some of the NRPRs are just naïve and a bit misguided. Others just love Russia cause it's the enemy of their enemy. One way or another, most know very little about Russia and probably have never even thought about going there.
Dear Sir, your bad faith is staggering, and your flattering tone is most pernicious. Do you really believe that the USA is content—and will remain content—to stay within its own hemisphere? Or are you taking us for fools? In the first case, buy yourself some glasses, look at a world map, and note all the countries where Uncle Sam has military bases and all those where its diplomacy is highly aggressive. To help you out, I would say that I didn't know that Mali, Ukraine, Syria, Lebanon, the Emirates, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Yemen, Armenia, Azerbaijan, Kazakhstan, Pakistan, North Korea, Japan, South Korea, the Philippines, Bangladesh, Indonesia, and Australia were part of the 'US hemisphere.' Because, you see, they are sowing blood, hatred, and shit there. In the second case, drop your honeyed, soporific tone and just call us idiots outright. That would be less insulting.
As for the NRPR, who in Russia receives the most exalted among them as plenipotentiaries if not Lavrov and the gang and even Poutine himself? Who encouraged them to make fools of themselves by churning out cargoes of adult male bovine excrement if not the Lavrov's gang? Who claimed that the West was of satanic essence and that Russia was fighting to keep the light of humanity shining on the world, if not Putin himself? If Russians have the memory of goldfish and are dulled by the desire to be Western consumers, the NRPR know full well the villainy of their own civilization and remember very clearly how the West treated Gorbachev's outstretched hand, and how Russia was treated in the ten years that followed. And if the Russians still haven't understood and remain blinded by a debilitating mirage, the NRPRknow very well how the West will treat them (and especially their daughters) if they give up. Yes, there are excesses, provocations, and even indeed some crazies among the NRPR (no more than among the NATO fans) — please do not throw the baby out with the bathwater."
I have no idea if I qualify as an NRPR, good or bad. All I can say is I love the idea of my country, I am anti-war, I reject amoral geopolitics, I support national sovereignty with global institutions as needed to mediate conflict and provide help to others, I believe the west would have been far better off in alliance with Russia, I think Europeans have not behaved and are not behaving admirably, I am ignorant of any Russian mal-intention apart from a desire for shared security and the right to being an equal member of the world, and I happen to think Mr Putin and Mr Lavrov have negotiated their way through an incredibly complex situation with considerable skill while the leadership of my own country has the appearance of being a clown car.
If all that makes me a "cultist", or a "deranged leftist", guilty as charged but still open to re-education.
That doesn't make you a cultist; you'd be one if you were aggressively pushing false but spun-as-positive narratives about Russian policy online (such as the popular one that Putin is secretly an anti-Zionist who's always plotting to undermine Israel out of solidarity with Iran and Palestine), refused to recognize that they're false when made aware of facts from official sources like the Kremlin website, and then "canceled" those like me who shared them with you.
There is nothing wrong with any of that. But none of that means that you have to indulge in wishful thinking.
The NRPR is basically the mirror image of the neocon. The neocons blame Russia for everything from pubic lice to slow service at the Alexandria, VA Denny's. Russia is depicted as a fascist dictatorship run by religious obscurantists when the audience is left wing, and as unreconstructed Stalinists, when the audience is right wing. The reality is much more complicated than Marvel Comics.
Sort of the way Jews once were godless atheist communists who wanted nothing more than your daughters on the one hand, and also bankers who were religious fanatics and only wanted to mingle with co-religionists.
The NRPR play the same games, just they ascribe magical superhero qualities to Russia and sometimes China. Again, they get their news from Marvel Comics, just they make the designated supervillain into the hero and vice versa.
Thanks FF… I get it.
There's nothing wrong with any of that, on the contrary, it's all very admirable, LJones.
There are just certain tendencies to see and portray Russia (and also China) in very unrealistic terms by some NRPRs. Some do this just cause they don't know any better. Some do it from a position of reason, pragmatism and good solid values. And some do it for far more insidious ends.
Appreciate that feedback, Shane.
You’re very welcome)) I write about Russia and the West more than anything else in fact, just like the erudite and accomplished Andrew Korybko.
Thanks, Shane!
My dear friend, the difference is that our western leaders rule and decide nothing. Peoples who draw their strings are not clowns at all. Deadly efficient bastards yes, clowns, no.
i would greately appreciate your opinion on my assessment on Russia: https://squirrelbrain77.substack.com/p/russia
Re: NRPRs, I must add that they tend to be aligned more with Third-World leftism and/or Islamism than the kind of national conservatism Putin promotes. They were never really "pro-Russia" to begin with, given that "Red–Green" globalism endangers the Russian state and its foreign relations (e.g., with Trump, Netanyahu, Modi, and Xi). There are many reasons.
If this group gets its way, the Muslim regions of Russia, India, and China will secede on an "anti-colonial" basis. A common theme is that Ukraine and Palestine are just like Chechnya, Kashmir, or Xinjiang. The implications for Muslim-majority areas in the West (EU), the East, and the "global South" (i.e., the Sahel, East Africa, or southeast Asia) are profound.
Effectively Muslims are weaponized as geopolitical proxies for leftist–Islamist globalism in a way that weakens major multipolar powers and even the U.S. For Russia the role of Türkiye in this via TRIPP is just one example. China and India are threatened by Turkish ally Pakistan's role in Bangladesh (via the JeI), Afghanistan (via ISIS-K), and Myanmar (via the Rohingya).
I fully agree.
Sorry, I'm absolutely not.
Why not?
Muslims act influentially as a bloc, given higher birth rates, migration, and the petrodollar. Since 7 October 2023 many of them have been convinced by NRPR influencers that Putin is too Israel- or even Jew-friendly—a trend that has major ramifications on already-shaky Russia–ummah ties, not least due to the legacy of Russian occupation in Muslim-majority (Turkic) Central Asia, Crimea, and the Caucasus, as well as Russian support for Orthodox clients in various Balkan wars against the Ottomans.
Right now both U.S. policy wings, along with the EU, for different reasons, are sourcing on Israel, both due to Muslim electorates' role in opposing Zionism (as can be seen in "liberal-globalist" discourse about "decolonization") and concern over Iran being a distraction from Ukraine. We see this in Democrats and EU elites opposing funding for Israel, Israeli settlements, and/or Iran operations, while Trump consolidates the "Islamic NATO" via TRIPP (Türkiye) and Saudi ally Pakistan, both neutral re: Iran.
This adds an important dimension to geopolitics, as we are often presented with false caricatures of U.S.–Israel ties (people were shocked that Biden or Trump, not to say many members of Congress, would ever disagree with Bibi) and Putin's nonexistent "anti-Zionism". Yet now we see major political realignments in the West that prioritize containing Russia over backing Israel 100% or even 50% of the time—an unthinkable development by many NRPRs' shallow standards.
I really think Islamism and leftism are inherently incompatible, for the most part, with the pragmatic worldview Russia's leadership upholds. People cannot recall that Putin was sold as pro-Western by none other than Yeltsin himself, backed the U.S.-led "war on terrorism" after 9/11, and for many years did not even oppose NATO expansion in Poland or the Baltic states (c. 2004).
Russia also does not agree with the divisive identity politics promoted by Third-World leftism and its globalist–Islamist allies, given that it supports private property, commonsensical social policy, and the existing Westphalian concert of nation-states. It also abhors violent attempts by extremist movements to overturn this order. For this reason Putin is more and more resented.
Islamist and leftist discourse is tinged with anti-Russia elements, given that it often—in part due to Western "liberal-globalist" manipulation—equates Palestine and Ukraine under an "anti-colonial" rubric, while opposing Putin as a "Zionist"-friendly capitalist who allegedly oppresses ethnic, religious, or even other minorities—be they Ukrainians, Chechens, or LBGTQ+I. The dangers for Russian statehood are manifest.
"The US either lied at Anchorage or just didn't have the strength or good sense to see it through."
The US was stringing Russia along and never had the slightest intention of reaching any kind of agreement.
This was abundantly obvious from the outset.
" I get why Lavrov still talks about Anchorage,"
I dont, please explain , especially after Lavrov made this statement:
" Russian Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov says the US is 'directly at war' with Moscow "
Russian officials—such as Kremlin spokesman Peskov—have said NATO is directly warring with Russia since last year (TASS, 15 Sept 25), yet Russia has not yet reacted accordingly, as shown by the use of Baltic airspace for Ukrainian drone strikes. Russian overtures to the U.S. continue to act as though a U.S.-led war is not in fact ongoing.
Odd, isnt it ?
The world changes, dynamics shift and politicians adapt accordingly. This is why a lot is never set in stone. I understand what he said a month ago and I don't agree with him talking about it again and so much moreover. You read my comment, so know what I think. It's the wrong move, but some in the Russian Government still hope to use Anchorage as a way to frame talks to prevail upon Trump.
I still dont understand why you think Lavrov keeps talking like that.
If I recall correctly, Anchorage was never an "agreement", but a framework to be formalized. If so, then in this sense Rubio is correct. Anchorage was meant to lay the basis for final talks based on preliminary understandings such as Putin's quid pro quo.
Given the U.S.-led West's unreliability on this count, however, the Russian reaction is nonsensical. I can understand why Russia might agree to go along for pragmatic reasons, but there is no justification (i.e., evidence) for its belief that Trump 2.0 might cut a deal.
Basing foreign policy on a forecast, probability, and/or hope is dangerously unprofessional. At this stage I think Lavrov et al. are beset by deep psychological complexes, if they truly think a U.S.–Russia settlement is viable. They need to explain why they do so.
This is all the more surprising since Putin cautioned his strategic forecasters against indulging in wishful thinking in remarks that he gave to his foreign spy service in summer 2022:
https://voiceofeast.net/2022/07/03/president-putin-cautioned-russian-strategic-forecasters-against-indulging-in-wishful-thinking/
Why do you think Russian officials have done such an embarrassing about-face (multiple times to boot) on such a matter of vital interest?
I explained why in the analysis and I agree that it looks very bad, especially since Rubio strongly suggested right after meeting Lavrov that the "Spirit of Anchorage" is indeed dead, so Russia reaffirming its commitment to it achieved nothing:
https://x.com/ralexdc/status/2080223430641877327
'At the end of November Putin...was surprised by the imposition of new US sanctions against Russian oil companies, as relations between the two countries began to improve.
"This is in connection with what? I'm telling you honestly, I didn't even understand - what's going on? <...> We talked with him, met in Alaska, and then "boom" with the health of the emerging new relationship - sanctions that destroy our relationship. It is not clear to us what kind of sign it is," the President said.
(Per Google Translate—ed.)
https://m.business-gazeta.ru/news/694370
Apparently even Putin does not seem to comprehend Trump 2.0's behavior.
Because Russia is grasping at straws for any way out of this war.
The West, of course, will be satisfied with nothing less than the annhilation of Russia.
Wow, am I hallucinating or did I read that correctly. Lavrov did a back flip! Surely he is following orders only or does he feel there is more juice left to squeeze out of the Anchorage deal now with the agreement incapable US.
I'm also surprised after Russian officials and media trashed the "Spirit of Anchorage" a month ago. Whatever one might think about its merits and viability, to flip-flop like this doesn't make for good optics, to say the least.
I have long noted a similar trend in Trump 2.0. I think it shows the influence of foreign interests or lobbies as well as poor memory and a short-term outlook. There really is no "grand strategy" at work.
Good take. I was about to share that Rubio post-talk comments that is a slap to the face of Lavrov, Putin and co and (yet another) affirmation of the core belief of us-universally hated-NRPRs. Putin's obsession with a deal, without imposing any costs to the enemy, is a remarkably foolish attempt, on par of course with his former belief on the consecutive Minsk fiascos. You can't teach an old dog new tricks though...
A good spirit came out of Anchorage and need to be continued.
There were a lt of good feelings comining out of Achorage. They must be reaffirmed. Sad that we are not back there again
Unbelievable. The leader of the biggest country on Earth, possibly one of the richest in natural resources and certainly the most advanced in nuclear technology, civilian and military, starts a war to remove a nasty neighborly government (de-nazification and de-militarization), stops after two weeks, and negotiates with the very same government.
As expected, he gets cheated on. Furthermore, he attempts to befriend the chieftain of the very clique that caused him and his country the biggest grievances in the last 20 - 30 years. Meanwhile, more than half a million of his finest and bravest men got killed or maimed on the battlefield.
One would think he's gotten wiser, but NO, he is in the spirit of negotiating away the souls of his dead men without getting anything in return, perhaps a pause of a few years.
One of the following things is true: the man is a fool; the man is such a genius that I cannot understand; the man sees threats to his country that I do not; the man is let down by most of his friends who promised their support earlier on.
Please take bets on the above possibilities. I will reward those in the highest bid category!
As I mused earlier re others' being nonplussed by Russian official friendly tones at times toward US, eg 4th of July greetings, despite the violent mayhem owing in part to US actions and arrangements at least via the prior regime; there may very well be backroom understandings considered best left unpublicized, however frustrating, Shtrumpfians assuring Russia of no serious consequences should it pursue warring with even greater violent vigour, which could serve to somewhat hasten an end to the war, and who knows what else relegated to whispers. It should not be expected to be easy for a US regime to quickly undo what has been long set up by prior regimes. I remember 1st sensing a tectonic-like cleavage among American higher-ups' factions some 20-plus yr ago - re going after Iran. Quieter goings on may be de rigueur.
It's like if in July 1941, with the Germans reaching Leningrad, Minsk and Kiev, Molotov would have said" we must respect the spirit of the Molotov-Ribbentrop treaty.
All that smell bad, really bad.
Spirit Of Anchorage has a vague but realistic sounding nominal cover story -- Donbas settlement terms.
But what if that isn't what it's really about. I think, maybe, just maybe, it's about changes in the pipeline regarding the problem we have of the NATO crosslinked institution of the West no longer working or serving a purpose. Actually the superstructure even increasingly appearing to facilitate financial grift, hack elections, blackmail, etc. Look at the Russia Hoax to see the multi-national web behind it.
If the theory has any legs, and if you're going to blow up large parts of that infrastructure, it would be important to keep the other nuclear power somewhat aware of things in case western institutions become, for a time, illegible.
I would also note the sad faces on Rubio and Lavrov is not inconsistent with their fondness for the old order.
It also potentially recasts a lot of the western 'Russia hate' as a desperate last-ditch effort to inflame and create a reason for these post-cold war NATO institutional and institutional linkages to still exist. And it recasts Putin's refusal to be baited as an effective strategy.
In any case, it's interesting that Brussels aligned states have not suffered meaningful political loss from these years of disaster in Ukraine. They have been robust, and it would be worth more investigations IMO into the innerworkings and why things have held for this long.
I don’t know how you can claim that Putin and Lavrov still sincerely believe Trump will do anything to end this war, or that Zelensky has anything to do with ending it. Putin knows this is NATO’s war and is moving ahead rapidly to end it on the battlefield. The fact that NATO is now reduced to blowing up toaster ovens and assorted consumer goods, while Russia is destroying Ukraine’s ports, weapons factories, military storage sites and railways and blowing up the gas stations is evidence of that. The talk is cheap, the actions speak louder.
And I want a unicorn.
Hope dies last. Oh well.
Hope make die too.
Mr Lavrov is too much of a gentleman to have said anything else.