4 Dec, 2023 15:22

Endgame: How will Ukraine look after its defeat?

It's all over bar the shouting for Zelensky and his followers, so what will be the reaction in Kiev and beyond?1/3

Toward the end of World War II (in Europe), Germans often shared a dark joke, reflecting their well-deserved dread at the prospect of defeat:“Enjoy the war, the peace will be terrible.”Of course, despite the worst efforts of the Ukrainian far right to damage both the politics and the image of their country, no objective observer would equate Ukraine with Nazi Germany.

Nevertheless, that old German piece of gallows humor points to a question that is now pertinent for Ukraine. Even the militantly anti-Russian Economist is spotting “war fatigue” in both the US and the EU. TheWestern funding on which Kiev depends is in danger of drying up;and current promises of more cash are not reliable.

When and how will the war end?

Bloomberg reports a “sense of gloom” in Ukraine and the Wall Street Journal admits that“Moscow holds the advantage on the military, political and economic fronts.”The prominent American military commentator Michael Kofman, often treading a fine line between professional analysis and pro-Western bias, is close to facing reality. Still insisting that “it’s inaccurate to suggest that Russia is winning the war,” he acknowledges that “if the right choices are not made next year on Ukraine’s approach and Western resourcing, then Ukraine’s prospects for success look dim.” He also suggests that Kiev should shift to the defensive. Frankly, it has already, and it had no choice.

Yet a defensive strategy cannot achieve Ukraine’s official war aims, because they include retaking territory from Russia. For Ukraine, Kofman’s “right choices” imply giving up on that. Former war monger and Zelensky adviser – and now foe –Aleksey Arestovich, for one, has correctly spotted that fact. Such an outcome is called “losing.”. Redefining it as a form of “success” – a shifting of goalposts popular in the West now – comes across as a clumsy attempt to rationalize and sell a defeat.

Regarding “right choices” for the West, despite desperate clarion calls by the Cold War re-enactor and Ukraine proxy war booster Tim Snyder and the US grand strategy maitre penseur Walter Russell Mead, the West may continue some funding of Ukraine, but it is unlikely to once again up the ante. Why would it, when all its previous strategies – economic, military, diplomatic, andby information war – have failed at great cost?What is happening instead is an American attempt to shift more of the burden of the proxy war onto the EU.

If Donald Trump wins the US electionsin less than a year, thenthat trend is certain to accelerate, as even British state broadcaster BBC has long recognized. Western observers who think that this is a reason for Russia to be in no hurry to make peace before November 2024 are probably right.

But what if the West and Ukraine suddenly come up with a whole new suite of brilliant, game-changing strategies? After the “miracle weapons” have crashed, perhaps we’ll see “miracle ideas”?We won’t. Because if Western elites could have them, they would have utilized them already.

Concerning Ukraine, Maryana Bezuglaya, a member of parliament, has just caused a stir by accusing the military of failing to produce any genuine plan for 2024. Clearly, this attack is part of apower struggle– and blame game– between President Vladimir Zelensky and commander-in-chief Valery Zaluzhny. But Bezuglaya is not lying, just exploiting facts.

Regarding the West, after initial Russian blunders, it has not only been out-fought but also been out-thought by Moscow. Keeping alive the persistently unsophisticated Western tradition ofstereotyping Russia at great cost, NATO think-tankers like Constanze Stelzenmüller at the Brookings Institution may go on underestimating Moscow as “not that strategic and not that intelligent” but merely very “determined.” On that assumption, Westerners – including think tankers – stymied by what they insist on imagining as not-so-smart Moscow, must conclude they are even less bright.

But if nothing succeeds like success, the opposite is also true –nothing fails like failure: Ukraine’s and the West’s setbacks are a self-reinforcing trend already. Hence, the pertinent question now is: when the current war ends, most likely with a Ukrainian (and Western) defeat, what will come after it? It’s a question that is both timely and difficult to answer.

https://www.rt.com/russia/588284-darkening-prospects-ukraine-postwar/

>>20026654

2/3

For one thing, there are still all too many, in Ukraine and the West, who believe –or pretend to believe? – that the war should and can continue, perhaps for years. German chancellor Olaf Scholz, for instance, has just claimed that the EU must go on supporting Ukraine because it is essential for the bloc that Russia must not win. Such intransigent positions – or rhetoric – betray an unrealistic assessment of Ukrainian, Western, and Russian capacities. They alsoimply sacrificing more Ukrainian livesin the EU’s interests.

Scholz, for one, is speaking from an almost touchingly perfect position of weakness. His personal approval ratings have just hit a record low; the coalition government he is trying to lead is not doing much better. No wonder: the International Monetary Fund is now expecting Germany to end up as the world’s worst-performing major economy this year, while the government’s unconstitutional financial trickery has triggered a severe budget crisis that will cause painful cuts in public spending.

Scholz may, of course, be lying. There also are unconfirmed reports – or leaks? – that Berlin plans to join Washington in forcing Ukraine to come to terms.

Ukrainian Foreign Minister Dmitry Kuleba may still boldly deny feeling any pressure from his country’s Western sponsors.

In reality, multiple signals point in another direction: Western leaders are at least considering the option of cutting their losses by making Ukraine give up territory.

Conversely, Western stay-the-course talk on the war in Ukraine has an ever-hollower ring to it. It is ironic that only a few months ago – but before the predictable failure of Ukraine’s summer offensive turned into an undeniable fact – Foreign Policy surmised that Russian President VladimirPutin’s Ukraine policy was falling prey to the sunk cost fallacy. By now it is clear that it is the West that is experiencing a feckless gambler’s reluctance to give up before incurring even greater losses. Cynicism, the will to squeeze the last bit of blood from Ukraine, and an obstinate refusal to acknowledge past errors are certain to also play a role.

Yet it should be noted that even some observers who are not suffering from such Western biases are pessimistic about a quick end to the war. That'sbecause they believe that ultimately Washington will keep fueling its proxy war against Russia in Ukraine, whoever is or seems to be in charge in the White House. For Ukraine and Ukrainians, such a strategy would still mean defeat, but after even more losses and suffering.

On the other hand, given the dire state of Ukraine’s manpower and other resources, a sudden change in the situation on the ground cannot be ruled out. The war could enter a new phase marked by (initially) local breakdowns of Ukrainian forces andsuch significant Russian breakthroughs that Kiev would have to accept defeatin one form or another, whether under the Zelensky regime or a successor.

The fear of some Western officials that Ukraine could “unravel” as early as this winteris not baseless. In that scenario, fighting would be over comparatively soon, i.e. at the latest at some point next year, even if it might take much longer (compare the Korean case) to replace a formal state of war with peace in the full sense of the term.As John Mearsheimer has warned,a genuine or inherently stable peace may well be impossible, but a de facto cessation of hostilities – call it a frozen conflict, if you wish – can precede it. It may not be pretty, but it would make a big difference, nonetheless.

All of the above entails a paradox. We cannot yet tell if the end of the war is close, but it is not too early to think about the post-war period. The unknowns of the current situation also complicate the question of what exact shape that post-war era will take.

The fate of Ukraine’s military and NATO ambitions

Let’s assume the following: first, while a formal state of war may continue, the more important question is what it will take to end the actual fighting. Kiev would lose territory and, in general, would have to make additional concessions to Russia. The one that is easiest to predict is Ukraine reverting to neutrality and, in particular,giving up on its NATO ambitions(and, of course, its current de facto integration in the alliance). The second outcome that Russia is bound to pursue is capping Kiev’s military potential. The third result that Moscow will not let go off is to either completely neutralize (probably impossible) or strongly diminish the influence of Ukraine’s far right.

https://www.rt.com/russia/588284-darkening-prospects-ukraine-postwar/

>>20026676

3/4

Thus, post-war Ukraine will be smaller, neutral, militarily weak, and its official politics and institutions (especially those with arms, such as the police and army)will have to let go of far-right personnel and influence, at least on the surface. No more ‘Black Suns’ on display, except maybe at private parties. If these conditions are not met, fighting may still temporarily cease, but not for long.

Regarding NATO (that is, the US), the fundamental question here is whether Russia will even seek a grand settlement again, a principal reset, but this time from a position of increased strength or, instead, leverage its advantage to achieve the more limited aim of pursuing its security interest by shaping “only”the settlement in and about Ukraine.

Russia may or may not want – or be able to – also make NATO explicitly give up on Ukraine and, more broadly, its misconceived strategy of expansion. Moreover, Moscow may or may not try to insist once more on a fundamental revision of Europe’s security architecture and its relationship with the US and NATO, as in its prewar proposals of late 2021.

_What is certain is that once Moscow has created facts on the ground in Ukraine and Kiev has to revert to neutrality (in word and deed), NATO’s posturing will lose much of its relevance__. There are unofficial signals that the bloc may be considering admitting only a part of Ukraine (neither Kiev nor its Western backers will recognize Crimea or other Moscow-controlled territories as Russian and will probably refer to them as 'occupied'). If such a Plan B is serious, despite the fact that it would break NATO tradition and be foolish, Ukraine is rejecting it. And again, any signs of its implementation would be likely to restart the fighting quickly. It is true that some smart observers have speculated that Moscow may be willing tolive with a reduced Ukraine being part of NATO. But on this, they are likely to be wrong.

Whatever approach Russia chooses, the key point is that it now has the initiative. That, dear NATO, is what happens when you lose a war:The agenda won’t be the West’s to set.

The future of Kiev’s EU membership bid

What about the EU? After all, one key cause of the current war and preceding crisis was a regime change in Kiev in 2014, which was triggered by a conflict over Ukraine entering into a special association with the bloc. At this point, the EU shows no intention to change this course. Indeed, it seems to be about to open a formal process leading to full membership. There is resistance from some member states, however. Open pushback is coming from Hungary, whose Prime Minister Viktor Orban is threatening to block this policy as well as more money for Kiev. Where Orban is sticking out his neck, he may not be alone in having misgivings about integrating a large, poor, very corrupt, devastated, andrevolution-prone new member state with a security issue from hell.

In any case, let’s assume that, for now, the EU elite gets its way – for instance by releasing more frozen funds for Hungary – and Ukraine enters into official membership talks. As has long been pointed out, starting accession talks is not the same as getting membership. At least years, possibly decades, can separate one point from the other, and the process can also get stuck in the mud. Moreover, as the recent electoral successes of Slovakia’s Robert Fico and the Netherlands’ Geert Wilders have once again demonstrated, the ground is also shifting inside the EU. Add the AfD's surge in Germany, and the EU’s own ability to stick to the plan is very much in doubt.

Post-war Ukraine will probably not be a full member of the European Union. Either for a long timeor maybe forever.

>>20026684

4/4

Will Zelensky’s regime survive?

What about Ukraine at home? It is hard to imagine the political survival of the current President Vladimir Zelensky in a post-defeat Ukraine. Even now, internal Ukrainian government polling quoted by The Economist shows a drastic decline in his approval ratings. What is worse, while Zelensky is down to 32%, commander-in-chief Zaluzhny still scores 70%, and the especially sinister head of Ukraine’s military intelligence,Kirill Budanov, who proudly runs assassination programs, has a solid 45%.

And, of course, The Economist publishing such figures is yet another sign that Zelensky is also losing Western support. The initially intense personality cult Zelensky enjoyed in the West as an almost miraculous leader may have fooled him into a false sense of security and irreplaceability. In reality, it nowmakes him the perfect scapegoat. As we know from classical tragedy, with great elevation, comes the potential for a deep fall.

What would come after the Zelensky regime? This is where it’s time to stash away the crystal ball because things become simply too opaque. One thing that true friends of Ukraine should hope for is that whatever is next will actually still be some form of coherent and minimally effective government. Those with ill-conceived fantasies of a “South Korean miracle” in what will be left of Ukraine, may want to refocus on more elementary, Hobbesian issues: In a country full of disappointed citizens and veterans and awash in arms, with a far right second to none in the world,things could turn very ugly indeed.

https://www.rt.com/russia/588284-darkening-prospects-ukraine-postwar/

Julie Kelly 🇺🇸@julie_kelly2

Prayers Up for CowbowCouy

J6 appeals now making their way thru system. DC appellate court panel today heard@CowboyCouy convictionof 1752(a)(1), a common misdemeanor. Judge McFadden convicted Griffin of the count in 2022.

Judges sounded skeptical DOJ met burden of proof, appears headed back to McFadden

As to proof that Mr. Griffin knew, while he was on the Capitol grounds, that the Vice President was at the Capitol, the government proffers only evidence that Mr. Griffin expected that the Vice President would be at the Capitol on January 6th "to do the right thing" (Govt Br.

57) and that other people in the crowd said things suggesting that they believed the Vice President was still at the Capitol during the relevant period. But the evidence is undisputed that Mr. Griffin was operating under the erroneous belief that by the time he crossed onto the West Lawn, the certification of electoral votes had been over for at least 45 minutes (Anx:528 538) Havino been misinformed and havino

USCA Case #22-3042 Document #2015825

Filed: 09/07/2023 Page 28 of 30

Further complicating DOJ's ongoing use of this trespassing count is a ruling last week by Judge Nichols that clearly stated defendant had to know the VP was or would be visiting the Capitol, which rendered the area as "restricted" bc of Secret Service protection:

Pursuant to FRAP 28(), we write to advise the Court of new authority pertaining to what 18 U.S.C. § 1752(a)(1)'s "knowingly" element requires with respect to the presence of a Secret Service protectee, addressed at pp. 48-57 of the

opening brief and pp. 17-22 of the reply.

Yesterday, December 1St, Judge Nichols, in United States v. Elizalde, Crim. No. 23-170, adopted appellant's reading of § 1752(a)(1) and issued Final Bench Instructions [ECF 40] providing: The government must prove that the defendant knew that he had entered or remained in what he knew to be a restricted building or grounds and that he knew that he did not have lawful authority to enter that area. It is insufficient for the government to prove that the defendant merely knew that the area he entered or remained in was restricted in the colloquial sense. The government must instead prove that (A) the defendant knew that the area was posted, cordoned off, or otherwise restricted and (B) the defendant knew that the Vice President or the Vice President's immediate family was or would be temporarily visiting the area.

Meant to post this here

MvvZtsP4_x96.jpg

Julie Kelly

@julie_kelly2

·

Follow

DOJ atty sounds like he agrees with court’s suggestion Griffin’s conviction should be sent back to McFadden.

Griffin arrived at 2:30 after fencing, racks were gone and shortly after Pence was evacuated. DOJ’s claim that all rioters knew Pence was at Capitol is highly dubious

https://threadreaderapp.com/thread/1731765472591319490.html

4 Dec, 2023 22:55

WHO asks Israel to spare Gaza warehouse

(but not the people?)

Israeli troops have told the World Health Organization to abandon the facility

Israel Defense Forces have notified the World Health Organization to evacuate a medical warehouse in southern Gaza, WHO head Dr. Tedros Adhenom Ghebreyesus said on Monday. The WHO has asked the IDF to reconsider.

Israeli troops resumed operations in the Palestinian enclave on Saturday, targeting the south of Gaza after a humanitarian ceasefire with Hamas expired.

The IDF sent the WHO a note to “remove our supplies from our medical warehouse in southern Gaza within 24 hours, as ground operations will put it beyond use,” Tedros wrote on X (formerly Twitter).

“We appeal to Israel to withdraw the order, and take every possible measure to protect civilians and civilian infrastructure, including hospitals and humanitarian facilities,” the WHO director added. (What to Hell do they have in that Warehouse, Bioweapons?)

West Jerusalem declared “war” on Hamas almost two months ago, after the October 7 incursion by the Palestinian group that claimed the lives of an estimated 1,200 Israelis. Up to 250 were also taken captive by the militants. Some of those hostages were released – or exchanged for Palestinian prisoners – during the “humanitarian pause” from November 24-30.

After air and artillery strikes, Israel eventually sent ground troops into Gaza, cutting the enclave in half and blowing up the Palestinian parliament building in mid-November.

The attack on the south will be “no less powerful” than the attack on the north, IDF Chief of Staff General Herzi Halevi said on Sunday.

Meanwhile, the head of Israeli security service Shin Bet, Ronen Bar, has vowed to hunt down every member of Hamas “everywhere, in Gaza, in the West Bank, in Lebanon, in Turkey, in Qatar,” even if it takes “years” to do so.

According to the Gaza health authority, at least 15,200 civilians have been killed as the result of Israeli operations, around 70% of them women and children. With the enclave’s health system in ruins, the exact toll might be even higher, they said.

https://www.rt.com/news/588508-israel-gaza-who-warehouse/

Darren Beattie: Harvard's Shocking Admission: Affirmative Action And CRT Killed South Africa

10:11

https://rumble.com/embed/v3x0t14/?pub=4

>>20026807

Darren mentions this post

Bill Ackman@BillAckman

December 3, 2023.1/3

Dear President Gay,

Since my letter to you of November 4th to which you did not reply or even acknowledge, I have received substantial feedback and input from senior members of the Harvard faculty about a number of the issues I raised in my letter concerning free speech, antisemitism, and the impact of the Office of Equity, Diversity, Inclusion and Belonging (OEDIB) at Harvard. I thought to share this feedback with you now as it may inform your testimony and potential questions you may receive from the Congress on Tuesday.

Free Speech at Harvard

In several of your communications since October 7th, you have emphasized Harvard’s commitment to free speech as the reason why the university has continued to permit eliminationist and threatening language on campus – i.e., calls for Intifada (suicide bombings, knifings, etc. of Israeli civilians) and the elimination of the state of Israel “From the River to the Sea.” You explained your tolerance for these protests on October 13th: “[O]ur university embraces a commitment to free expression. That commitment extends even to views that many of us find objectionable, even outrageous.

In my letter to you, however, I noted that In The Foundation for Individual Rights and Expression (FIRE) Free Speech Rankings, Harvard has consistently finished in the bottom quartile in each of the past four years. I note that Harvard’s ranking has deteriorated each year, receiving its lowest free speech ranking ever for the 2023 academic year, last out of 254 universities with a rating of 0.00, the only university with an “abysmal” speech climate.

After sending my letter, I reached out to the faculty to reconcile your free speech absolutist commitment with Harvard having the lowest free speech ranking of any university. The faculty had a lot to say on this issue, as well as on antisemitism and the OEDIB. Notably, they were willing to share their views so long as I committed to keep their identities confidential. I have quoted their remarks below:

On Free Speech

“Years ago, Harvard stopped being a place where all perspectives were welcome.”

“Harvard is a place where loud, hate-filled protests appear to be encouraged, but where faculty and students can’t share points of view that are inconsistent with the accepted narrative on campus.”

“Harvard became a place where if you toed the party line, there was applause. If you disagree, you are drowned out. The gatekeepers of speech continue to further narrow what they deem acceptable speech.”

“The primary problem with speech at Harvard is that if you say the wrong thing, you will be cancelled, which leads to self-censorship. The result is what you actually think is not what you say.”

“Saying anything that doesn’t highlight the importance of slavery and colonialism as animating forces of history is not acceptable speech. Lived experience and ideology become the dominant forces of conversation. All of the courses follow the same playbook ideology. Ideology poses as coursework.”

On Antisemitism, Support for Hamas, and the Protests Against Israel

When I asked members of the faculty about the causes behind the Israeli/Gaza protests and the tolerance for antisemitism on campus, they explained:

“Whiteness at Harvard is deemed fundamentally oppressive. Indigenous peoples are presented as in need of justice and reparations. Jews are presented as white people. It is therefore ok to hate Israel and Jews as they are deemed to be oppressors.”

I asked: “Why are the protests only about Israel versus other conflicts in the Middle East and around the globe where Palestinians and other civilians were killed?”

“Israel is the rare case where we have a hot conflict between people that are deemed ‘white’ versus people of color.”

The Office of Diversity, Equity, Inclusion and Belonging (ODEIB)

“The primary animating force of the ODEIB is racism-colonialism and the denial of indigenous rights. The ODEIB is a home for people who are perceived to have been victimized.”

https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1731532031048245631?s=20

>>20026900

2/3

“The ODEIB was meant to include Asians, but it does not. It is focused on communities that experienced colonialism.”

“Recency matters. India is not included because they got autonomy 70 years ago.”

“The ODEIB is at the service of black students, to a lesser extent brown students, and to a lesser extent LGBTQ students.”

“It’s about whiteness versus people of color.”

“The DEI framework prioritizes people on the oppressed side of the narrative.”

Hiring Practices at Harvard

One topic which emerged when I spoke to the faculty was the issue of hiring at Harvard, an issue about which the faculty clearly has a lot of consternation.

When I asked why Harvard’s faculty has shifted sharply leftward in recent years, they explained:

“Each department decides whom they want, and the university can accept or reject the candidate. Left-leaning faculty appoint other left-wing faculty because they get to decide whom to hire and promote. It’s a bit like the Twitter algorithm which continues to feed you the points of view you want to hear. Eventually, each department reaches the tipping point.”

One senior member of the faculty shared that it is made abundantly clear that they cannot hire new faculty members unless they meet ODEIB requirements. That is, the candidate has to be a woman, person of color, or have LGBTQ+ status. Straight white males are “off the table.” Asians and those of South Asian (i.e., India) heritage are similarly disadvantaged in the process as they are deemed successful, overachieving minorities.

A number of the faculty bemoaned that in many cases they cannot hire the substantially more qualified person if he is a white or Asian straight male as the proposed candidate “has to be a woman or BIPOC person.” I was told that behind closed doors, it is common to hear: “I clearly don’t think this is the strongest candidate, but we can see where the train is headed. I therefore have no choice but to vote for the [lesser-qualified candidate.]”

It is made clear to the faculty that Harvard’s discriminatory approach to hiring should never be acknowledged or written about in an email. One professor said that he has been continually amazed that no one has brought a lawsuit as these practices are clearly illegal.

One faculty member explained that it is not just the administration that has been putting forth these requirements, but that external organizations like The Chronicle of Higher Education (TCHE) do “investigative reporting” where they do racial and gender audits of university departments. TCHE publicly scolds university departments that don’t meet their diversity requirements further reinforcing Harvard’s requirement for ODEIB-preferred candidates.

On all of the above issues, I know you will not rely on my survey of the faculty. I therefore encourage you to commission a highly credible, third-party firm to do an anonymous survey of the Harvard faculty. I am confident it will confirm and reinforce all that I have outlined above.

Discrimination at Harvard Is Not Limited to Antisemitism

The problems at Harvard are clearly not just about Jews and Israel. It is abundantly clear that straight white males are discriminated against in recruitment and advancement at Harvard. That is also apparently true to a somewhat lesser extent for men who are Asians or of Indian origin. The ODEIB is an important culprit in this discrimination on campus as it sees the world in a framework of oppressors and the oppressed, where the oppressor class includes white males, Asians, Jews and other people perceived to be successful and powerful.

While Harvard claims that it is committed to free expression, in practice free expression appears to only happen “behind closed doors” or among faculty and students speaking anonymously.

https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1731532031048245631?s=20

>>20026906

3/3

Conservative voices are squelched and often outright cancelled on campus.

Tyler J. VanderWeele and Carole K. Hooven are two recent examples.

In March of this year, Mr. VanderWeele, the John L. Loeb and Frances Lehman Loeb Professor of Epidemiology, a practicing Catholic, was effectively excommunicated from Harvard (saved only by his tenure) when it was discovered he had signed an amicus brief in 2015 which affirmed his view that the definition of marriage was between a man and a woman, and when he surfaced his pro-life views. See: https://sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2590113323000226

Earlier this year, Ms. Hooven, an evolutionary biologist was cancelled and eventually forced to resign because she stated that one’s sex was biological and binary on Fox and Friends. See: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10508-022-02467-5

I am saddened that the Harvard I love has lost its way. I am embarrassed for not having been aware and previously taken the time to investigate these issues until antisemitism exploded on campus. I should have paid more attention as it did not take a forensic analysis to surface and better understand these issues.

Discrimination at Harvard is not just illegal, but it is extremely damaging to our nation’s competitiveness, which is critically important in a world with growing geopolitical conflict and turmoil. Harvard should be an institution for our best and brightest, taught by our best and brightest who are in search of Veritas and excellence. Russia, China, and our other competitor nations are not selecting their scientific and educational leaders using Harvard’s diversity, equity and inclusion metrics.

President Gay, beginning with your testimony to Congress on Tuesday, you can begin to address the antisemitism that has exploded on campus during your presidency, the seeds for which began years before you became President. But as I hope you recognize, the issues at Harvard are much more expansive than antisemitism. Antisemitism is the canary in the coal mine for other discriminatory practices at Harvard.

As President you have both the opportunity and the responsibility for addressing these critically important issues. It won’t be easy for you as I have been told that your recent “pivot on antisemitism” is already making the radical left wing of the faculty highly skeptical of you.

When 34 Harvard student organizations came out in support of Hamas’ barbaric terrorism, it was a wake up call for me. I hope that having to face the Congress on Tuesday will be a wake-up call for you.

Sincerely,

William A. Ackman, A.B. 1988, MBA 1992

Cc: Ms. Penny Pritzker, Chairman,

and The Harvard Corporation Board

Last edited

11:33 PM · Dec 3, 2023

https://x.com/BillAckman/status/1731532031048245631?s=20

NEWS

Twenty FBI agents dressed in “tactical gear” just raided the home of a peaceful J6er because of his online “associations”…

December 4, 2023 (a day ago)

The excessive use of force against January 6 victims has reached levels that are so absurd that they’re now in the realm of North Korea-esque treatment. It’s clear that the regime is trying to send a message to anybody who dares to dissent: if they step out of line, meaning they don’t bow down to the regime agenda, the full force of the United States government will come crashing down on them and their families. It’s a KGB-like tactic that is very powerful and rather off-putting to Americans who still appreciate and love freedom.

This blatant abuse of power was on full display recently, when 20 FBI agents, dressed in tactical “SWAT” gear, conducted a raid on the home of a peaceful January 6th participant who had simply walked through an open door at the Capitol. The man was charged with a misdemeanor, so why did the federal government deploy such overwhelming force against this poor soul?

According to the authorities, they justified this approach based on the “associations” this peaceful man had online.

In other words, he likes people who think the “wrong way.”

Yahoo News:

The FBI this week raided the home of a Los Angeles-based actor who was among a group of right-wing protesters who entered the U.S. Capitol on Jan. 6, authorities said.

About 20 agents armed and outfitted in tactical gear raided the North Hollywood home of Siaka shortly before 6 a.m. Thursday, according to a source familiar with the investigation.

Public records list Brian Burks, 42, at the same address. Burks did not return a call for comment, but his ex-wife, Luvelle Mendoza, confirmed Burks was briefly detained by federal authorities.

Mendoza said their two sons, ages 3 and 7, were at Burks’ home when it was raided.

“My heart breaks,” Mendoza said Saturday. “They had to see the big guns and I just think, I wasn’t there to console them.”

The raid took place because of the two men’s associations on “a social media app,” according to the law enforcement source. No further details of the raid were provided and it was unclear whether Massaquoi was arrested and released.

Massaquoi did not return calls from The Times for comment.

Mendoza said Burks called her about 6 a.m. the day of the raid to say he needed to drop the kids off.

“I knew that something bad had to happen for him to just abruptly call me,” she said. “I support him in doing what he believes in. I don’t agree with everything … I just don’t want my kids to be in the crossfire.”

In an Instagram video posted on his account at chiefamericano after the raid, Massaquoi said: “I did nothing wrong on the 6th … did nothing violent.” Videos posted on social media from Jan. 6 showed him inside the Capitol building.

Massaquoi is actually an actor known for playing bit parts on various shows. In addition, he has worked for the Babylon Bee and the Daily Wire. So it makes you wonder: who exactly are these so-called “DANGEROUS” associations of his?

Massaquoi also recorded himself at an anti-vaccine protest and played a prominent role in the movement to recall Gavin Newsom. So, it’s pretty obvious why he’s considered public enemy #1 and why the regime is intent on destroying him and making an example of him to deter others from dissenting against the regime.

As disconcerting as this situation may be, it should serve as an inspiration for everyone to dissent even more. After all, that’s exactly what this country was built upon—challenging the establishment’s narrative and rebelling against a crooked system. The current issue is that when you swim against the tide, you’re frequently treated as though you were a domestic terrorist, triggering a ‘SWAT’ team response. That’s a truly frightening situation to confront. However, what’s even more alarming is living under constant tyranny from a government that should fear the people, not the other way around.

https://revolver.news/2023/12/20-fbi-agents-dressed-in-tactical-gear-raided-home-of-peaceful-j6er-because-of-online-associations/

Mike Davis: "Joe Biden knew exactly what was going on and he personally benefitted from it"

5:49

https://rumble.com/embed/v3x0un1/?pub=4

Dr. Bradley Thayer: From Abbey Gate To "Jericho Wall" The Gross Negligence Of Western Militaries. Milley’s ineptitude and willingness to go along with the horrific Afghanistan withdrawal has infected the Military and our Military is loosing credibility on the world stage. Milley should have resigned when Bidan demanded the horrific withdrawal, any other General would have immediately resigned, he went along with it and he and others are decapitating the required professional nature of our Military. PDJT we need you back ASAP!

10:20

https://rumble.com/embed/v3x0pqs/?pub=4

4 Dec, 2023

Ukraine and US trade blame for ‘failed counteroffensive’ – WaPo

Washington reportedly wanted a single focused advance sooner, but Kiev disagreed

US and British officers helped plan the Ukrainian spring-summer campaign and provided all the asked-for vehicles,but Kiev decided to divide its forces in three directions, according to a Washington Post feature published on Monday.

Over a dozen Post employees interviewed “more than 30 senior officials” from Ukraine, the US and the EU, only a handful identified by name. The outlet’s conclusion was that “a counteroffensive born in optimism has failed to deliver its expected punch,generating friction and second-guessing between Washington and Kiev.”

A series of eight tabletop wargames at the US base in Wiesbaden, Germany reportedly developed a “viable, detailed campaign plan” for the attack. ThePentagon wanted the offensive to start mid-Apriland focus on cutting the “land bridge” to Crimea by driving to Melitopol.

General Mark Milley, chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff at the time, advised the Ukrainians to also send sabotage groups into the Russian rear, saying there “should be no Russian who goes to sleep without wondering if they’re going to get their throat slit in the middle of the night,” according to one official.

The NATO-armed47th Brigade, so new that 70% of its members had no combat experience, was to lead the way.

Nothing went as planned.

Washington and Kiev “sharply disagreed at times over strategy, tactics, and timing,”according to the Post. Instead of a focused assault towards Melitopol, theUkrainian leadership insisted on attacking in the direction of Berdyansk and Bakhmut/Artyomovsk as well.

Kiev initially demanded over 1,000 armored vehicles, which US Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin deemed “near-impossible.” Eventually, they received 1,500. However, some vehicles were criticized as “unfit for combat,” with issues like missing tracks and inadequate maintenance blamed on Ukrainian troops.

The US secured a supply of 155mm artillery shells from South Korea, since it could not produce enough by itself.Requests for F-16 fighter jets were denied due to cost concerns and their vulnerabilityto Russian air defenses.

The US also trained and equipped nine Ukrainian brigades in NATO methods of warfare. Simulations based on Ukrainian and Western intelligence projected Ukrainian brigades reaching the Sea of Azov in 60-90 days with up to 30-40% casualties.

“The plan that they executed was entirely feasible with the force that they had, on the timeline that we planned out,” a senior US military official told the Post. “They got everything they were promised, on time,” a senior US official said.

The attack scheduled for mid-April finally “lurched into motion” in early June. Ukrainian troops immediately got bogged down in minefields and mauled by Russian artillery.

“Incinerated Western military hardware – American Bradleys, German Leopard tanks, mine-sweeping vehicles – littered the battlefield. The numbers of dead and wounded sapped morale,” the Post noted.After just four days, General Valery Zaluzhny “tossed aside”American doctrine and planning, switching to smaller-scale infantry assaults.

The June 15 meeting at the NATO HQ in Brussels was “heavy with an air of frustration,”per the Post. Ukrainian Defense Minister Aleksey Reznikov – who would be fired in September – informed Austin thatover 50% of the US-supplied mine-clearing equipment was already destroyed.

Western reliance on armored maneuver and a breakthrough “didn’t work,” a senior Ukrainian defense official said. Another had disdain for the wargaming approach to planning the operation, pointing to the lack of accounting for drones and other technology.

“All these methods … you can throw them away,” he said. “Because it doesn’t work like that now.”

The 47th expected to take the village of Robotino within two days. It had not done so until August 28, and has since been pulled from that section of the frontline and rushed to shore up the crumbling defenses of Avdeevka, to the east.

“At almost every point along the front, expectations and results have diverged,” the Post noted,describing the morale in Ukraine as “waning” and its cause as “precarious.” One British official said that Kiev’s goal of reclaiming its 1991 borders would “take years and a lot of blood,” assuming it’s possible at all.

(Oh Shit it’s over.This being released is a sign the West is giving up and it’s their official way of notifying them. WAPO releasing this is the CIA mouthpiece.)

https://www.rt.com/russia/588498-ukraine-offensive-postmortem-wapo/

4 Dec, 2023 22:08

UK revises estimate of Russian casualties (KEK)

The “likely” figures are in line with claims by the Ukrainian military

The British Ministry of Defence claimed on Monday that 50,000 Russian soldiers have died and up to 240,000 have been wounded in the course of the Ukraine conflict, with another 20,000 killed and 40,000 wounded in the ranks of the now-disbanded Wagner group.

Between February 2022 and the end of November, the Russian military “likely suffered between 180,000 and 240,000 personnel wounded and approximately 50,000 killed,” the MoD said on X (formerly Twitter).

“Wagner Group mercenaries likely suffered approximately 40,000 wounded and 20,000 killed,” the MoD claimed, for a total of “around 220,000-280,000 wounded and approximately 70,000 killed.”

According to a note on the MoD website, “likely” refers to a probability interval of 55-75%.

The Russian government has “likely a low level of understanding about total casualty figures because of a long-established culture of dishonest reporting” in the military, the British claimed. (So the British has a high level of dishonest reporting)

London’s casualty estimatesappear to closely track with the numbers published by Kiev. The Ukrainian general staff published its own report on Monday, claiming that Russia has lost a total of 332,810 troops since February 2022.

Neither Russia nor Ukraine have released official loss figures for their own side, leaving room for outside speculation. The New York Times claimed in August that Russia had nearly 300,000 casualties – of which 120,000 were killed in action – to Ukraine’s 70,000 dead and 100,000 wounded, for example.

Meanwhile, the BBC and Mediazona – a ‘Russian independent media outlet’ founded by Western-backed ‘Pussy Riot’ activists – said to have confirmed the obituaries of 38,261 Russian soldiers as of December 1.

Aleksey Arestovich, a former aide to Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky,spoke of “up to 300,000” dead in Ukraine during an interview on Friday. The same day, at a press briefing, Russian Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu said that Kiev had suffered 125,000 casualties just since its ‘counteroffensive’ began in early June.

Ukrainian President Vladimir Zelensky has promised to unveil a new mobilization plan to make up for manpower shortages. According to Russian intelligence, Kiev’sWestern backers have pressured Zelensky into drafting teenagers, women, and the elderly. Some experts in Germany have warned that mobilizing more workers could collapseUkraine’s economy as well.

(God this speculation without war occurring is hilarious, “KEEP you attention on Ukraine, we demand it!” The West needs to put Ukraine out of it’s misery)

https://www.rt.com/russia/588507-british-estimate-russia-casualties/