Strident hawks who have Russians in their closet
These former world leaders and others are publicly maximalist, but now have financial connections to Kremlin-linked oligarchs, and even Putin.

Last week saw former Finnish Prime Minister Sanna Marin retire from politics after a poor election showing, and join the Tony Blair Institute, where she will be “advising political leaders on their reform programs.” The news raised some eyebrows for several reasons.

For one, former British Prime Minister Blair’s long history of advising authoritarians for money, as well as the Institute’s own funding from the Saudi government, already sits awkwardly with the non-profit’s original rationale of at “articulat(ing) a vision of liberal democracy that can garner substantial support,” as well as “progressive values.” Also there is Blair’s leading role in the invasion of Iraq, which sits squarely at odds with Marin’s hawkishness on Russian President Vladimir Putin’s similarly illegal and disastrous invasion of Ukraine. Over her tenure, Marin rejected U.S. President Joe Biden’s suggestion of giving Putin an “off-ramp” to end the war, offered to transfer fighter jets to Kyiv, and declared she would back Ukraine’s war effort for as long as 15 years, because a lack of military victory would lead to “decades of this kind of behavior.”

But there’s also the fact that Blair’s institute was until recently at least partly funded by sanctioned Russian billionaire Moshe Kantor, a figure with close ties to the Kremlin and the largest shareholder in the strategically significant Russian fertilizer company Acron. As prime minister, Marin was one of the leading supporters of Western sanctions on Russia, calling for them to impact “the everyday lives of ordinary Russians,” and vowing that Finland would grit its teeth through the “long winter” their blowback would cause.

Thanks to those sanctions, Fins paid €5 billion more in electricity costs over 2022 and the country tipped into a recession, even if a mild winter meant predictions of blackouts didn’t materialize. This was all meant to be worth it to defend the “values of a free and democratic world.”

Yet here Marin is, taking a paid position with an institute partly funded by a sanctioned, Kremlin-connected billionaire, and run by someone responsible for an illegal invasion of his own.

Marin is not the only Western hawk who has displayed such hypocrisy. Since August, Estonian Prime Minister Kaja Kallas has been embroiled in a potentially career-jeopardizing scandal over her husband’s business interests, when it was revealed a trucking company he co-owned continued to do business in Russia long after Moscow’s invasion began. Worse, the company was part of the supply chain providing Russian security forces with tear gas — which means Kallas and her husband were indirectly profiting off the Kremlin’s repression of anti-war protesters.

Yet Kallas has been a strident hawk on the war. She has labeled calls for negotiations “very dangerous,” has repeatedly called diplomacy to end the war mere “appeasement,” banned tourist visas for ordinary Russians while urging others to do the same, and demanded tighter sanctions while admonishing local companies to find a “moral compass” and avoid deals that would let Moscow circumvent sanctions. Thanks to those sanctions, Estonia saw the EU’s single biggest price hikes for food and fuel. (...)

Love your enemies?

 VV wrote:
I suspect the opportunity to take out not only Prigozhin but also the top leadership of the Wagner group had a lot to do with the time, place, and manner. The three crew members were just collateral damage of which, as you correctly say, Putin could not care less. 

Putin the monster decides to take out Prigozhin. Well, we all knew that was inevitable. But he has to also take out nine other people as collateral damage? The pilots and crew had to be sacrificed? 
 
Terrorist. Animal. Pure evil.
  
I can't envision a death that would be too cruel for him.
 
The sooner he is in the ground... the better.   

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:
Hmm.  Strange how so many are unwilling to inject some alternative views and differing opinion into their view of the world.  Because it's intellectually difficult to process? I dunno.

I'm a long-time supporter of Israel, since at least the first intifada.  I see largely good in Israel, however I realize there's always a few bad apples - and some bad policies coming from leadership.  The recent actions by their parliament to remove Israel's supreme court's ability to block government policies & laws is a bad move - a black eye on democracy. (Consider: Arabs are about 21% of Israel's population  - and there are currently 10 Arabs in Israel's Knesset)

When info arrives that's challenging to one's beliefs - not everyone is prepared or willing to analyze it.  And this is how we break apart into differing camps with high walls, unwilling to talk to each other - because the other side are 'idiots' and always dead wrong - about everything...

 Beaker wrote:

Everyone's probably got some disconnect like that. I have a friend who's liberal in all things when it comes to US politics and policy but don't you dare question Israel's warmongering or really don't question anything about Israel. 

 ScottFromWyoming wrote:

Yeah.  It's rather unexplainable how people arrive at this thinking.  Perhaps they were born / grew up during the cold war and that the fear of being nuked out of existence remains an unconscious influencer — that in their mind, allows them to excuse the inexcusable.  Scary to think just how far that thinking could go and the damage it could cause.

In that example of the Russian ex-pat, I dunno ... loyalty to the country of birth above all else, no matter what the deed they have to find a way to justify?

 Beaker wrote:

It's so weird to see how, 40 years later, people who hated Russia are now supporters of whatever they want to do.

THIS vvvvv

And just in case you thought this was only about Ukraine.

Uber Russia-hawk Victoria Nuland rises to acting deputy secretary of state
She’s done as much as anyone to sour US-Russia ties; now, she is one of Washington’s top diplomats.

Interview with Timothy Snyder in the FT, discussing Russia, among other things.

more authoritarian handiwork

 

 R_P wrote:
Was wondering how Russia cheerleaders would spin Prigozhin's road trip, and boy howdy did this get dizzy. A classic history-salad spew of misdirection.

Well obfuscated, sir!

Mr. Prigozhin Goes to Washington

 westslope wrote:

Well, your perspective is pretty warped. I mean you are the one with all the anti-american and anti western in general statements. Hint: being anti Putin has no relationship to his views on the west

 westslope wrote:

FWIW I am not actually sure Putin will come out weaker from this. What is certain however, is that Russia is a couple of degrees of magnitude more chaotic than most of us realize. If that is your thing.. be my guest.

 NoEnzLefttoSplit wrote:
Well, I think you are wrong on all counts NoEnz.   From my perspective, your politics are clearly anti-American and anti-German.  I doubt you hate Americans and Germans; you simply do not know any better.