Ted Postol:

My grave concern is I know some of these characters who worked for Obama, and who now work for Biden. And I’m sorry to say it—I know it will be considered arrogant to say this—but they are ignorant. Let me be very clear: this is not an accidental statement on my part. They are outright ignorant. And they’re a bunch of—you know, they trained at these elite schools; they don’t know anything, but they think they know things.

I have taught at Stanford; I have taught at MIT; I have taught at Princeton and at Harvard. So I know what a lot of these people are, because they are very privileged—this is of course a generalization; there are certainly some extremely intelligent and thoughtful people among these. But a great bulk of these people are just completely in love with themselves; they are convinced that they know a lot more than they do; they will not listen, they’re not interested in learning—I mean, you try to present facts to them, they sort of walk away from you laughing.

And they are not experts. And it’s not a problem—it’s no problem at all that they are not experts. The problem is that they’re not interested in learning. So, you know, I had this character, a guy named Colin Kahl, he’s the deputy assistant secretary now for policy at the Pentagon. He doesn’t know anything. He was at Stanford, they made him a co-director of the center there. Rude beyond belief. And you know, he tells me at one point, I’m trying to discuss something with him—discuss something—he turns around and he says, I’ve got a job, I’ve got a real job, I don’t have time for this. This is a guy who’s at the Department of Defense, top levels now, possibly advising Biden.

This is the danger. And if we look at the Obama administration, we saw similar dangers. There’s a very interesting Atlantic Monthly article written by a guy named Ben Rhodes. Rhodes was the national security advisor for communications in the White House, and he wrote a totally fraudulent, supposedly government intelligence report that was released to the public about the nerve agent attack that occurred in Damascus in August of 2013.

And it’s very interesting; I would suggest your readers go read that Atlantic Monthly article. Because in his attempt to show everybody what a smart guy he is, he’s revealing that his main objective with Obama, with the president, was to get him to make a decision which would have been a disaster for the United States, but he [Rhodes] didn’t know it. But to attack Syria, before the public outrage from the misinformation people had about that nerve agent attack died down. In other words, he didn’t want the public outrage to die down before he forced or tricked or got Obama to make a momentous decision that would have been a disaster for the United States. A total disaster. [Ironically, it was Russian President Putin who pulled Obama’s chestnuts out of that fire.]

So Rhodes is bragging about in this article about the role he played. That’s a real window that people ought to use to look into the mindset of an individual who basically, through privilege and accident [check out Collegiate School in Manhattan, where he spent his formative years], became a national security advisor with no real knowledge of what’s going on.

So we’re in a dangerous situation. We have a lot of—I’m sorry, because I’m so disturbed by this—we have a bunch of punks, you know, 30-year-old punks who come from privileged backgrounds, claiming they’re experts in policy when they actually do not have the basic knowledge. And they’re advising presidents. And this is not a good professional system. we need to do something about it.

FAZ:

Niedersachsen und Bayern gehen gegen das „Z“-Symbol vor, das Zeichen der russischen Armee im Krieg gegen die Ukraine. Beide Bundesländer ordneten an, dass die öffentliche Verwendung des Symbols in Deutschland etwa bei Demonstrationen strafbar ist. Möglich sind bis zu drei Jahre Haft oder eine Geldstrafe.

Auch die nordrhein-westfälische Landesregierung prüft strafrechtliche Konsequenzen für das Verwenden des Z-Symbols in der Öffentlichkeit. „Der völkerrechtswidrige Angriffskrieg Russlands auf die Ukraine verursacht unsägliches Leid. Mir fehlt jedes Verständnis dafür, wie man sich mit diesen Verbrechen gemein machen oder sie gutheißen kann“, sagt NRW-Innenminister Herbert Reul (CDU) der Zeitung „Rheinische Post“. „Deshalb prüfen wir in Nordrhein-Westfalen alle Möglichkeiten, strafrechtlich gegen die Verwendung des Z-Symbols der russischen Armee vorzugehen.“

In Russland taucht der lateinische Buchstabe „Z“ vielerorts im öffentlichen Raum auf. Er ist als Symbol gut zu erkennen, da es ihn im kyrillischen Alphabet nicht gibt. Auch zahlreiche russische Militärfahrzeuge tragen das „Z“. Das „Z“ werde etwa auf Gebäuden, an Autos oder an der Kleidung gezeigt, um Zustimmung zum Krieg Russlands gegen die Ukraine zu zeigen, heißt es in einer Mitteilung des Innenministeriums in Hannover. Auch in Niedersachsen habe es schon „entsprechende Beobachtungen“ gegeben.

Der niedersächsische Innenminister Boris Pistorius (SPD) sagte, wer durch das „Z“-Symbol öffentlich Zustimmung zum Angriffskrieg von Russlands Staatschef Wladimir Putin gegen die Ukraine zum Ausdruck bringe, der müsse in Niedersachsen mit strafrechtlichen Konsequenzen rechnen. „Es ist mir absolut unverständlich, wie das stilisierte ,‘ sogar bei uns dafür genutzt werden kann, um diese Verbrechen gutzuheißen.“ Der bayerische Justizminister Georg Eisenreich (CSU) warnte: „Sympathisanten, die in Bayern das Kennzeichens ,Z‘ der russischen Streitkräfte öffentlich verwenden“, könnten sich wegen der Billigung von Straftaten strafbar machen.

I don’t know what to say anymore. Irony hardly seems possible.

BBC:

Ukraine: No Russia regime change plans, says Blinken

US Secretary of State Antony Blinken has denied that the United States has any plans to bring about regime change in Russia or anywhere else.

Mr Blinken’s comments come a day after President Joe Biden said his Russian counterpart, Vladimir Putin, should not be allowed to remain in power.

Mr Biden made the unscripted remark at the end of a speech in Poland.

…

This was clearly an attempt at rolling back – the concern is that this is going to put more pressure on Putin and make him more uneasy.

Given that he is the head of a country that is struggling militarily, and is in control of a nuclear arsenal, the concern on the Americans‘ part is that they don’t want to back Mr Putin into a corner.

Calling out for regime change directly could cause instability and increase unpredictability.

And the last thing you want in these circumstances is unpredictability.

Mr Biden’s comment prompted strong criticism from veteran US diplomat Richard Haass.

The comments „made a difficult situation more difficult and a dangerous situation more dangerous“, tweeted Mr Haass, who is president of the US Council on Foreign Relations.

„That is obvious,“ he added. „Less obvious is how to undo the damage, but I suggest his chief aides reach their counterparts & make clear the US is prepared to deal with this Russian government.“

Mr Haass returned to the subject after the White House qualified President Biden’s remarks, saying: „The White House walk back of @POTUS regime change call is unlikely to wash.

„Putin will see it as confirmation of what he’s believed all along. Bad lapse in discipline that runs risk of extending the scope and duration of the war.“

The hubris in the language here is impressive.

New York Times, 25.06.2018:

A dictator bent on rebuilding an empire will never erase a people’s love for liberty. Brutality will never grind down their will to be free. Ukraine will never be a victory for Russia, for free people refuse to live in a world of hopelessness and darkness. We will have a different future, a brighter future, rooted in democracy and principle, hope and light. Of decency and dignity and freedom and possibilities. For God’s sake, this man cannot remain in power. God bless you all. And may God defend our freedom, and may God protect our troops. Thank you for your patience. Thank you. Thank you.

transcript

Newsweek:

Many initially believed the comment was Biden calling for the removal of Putin, but in a statement, a White House spokesperson clarified that Biden was not calling for regime change.

„The President’s point was that Putin cannot be allowed to exercise power over his neighbors or the region,“ the statement said. „He was not discussing Putin’s power in Russia, or regime change.“

Politico:

But the walk back only prompted the question of why Biden uttered the line in the first place and whether he had consciously meant to convey the message. The words had not been in his prepared remarks.

Biden sounds so disjointed. Starting with campaign appearances two years ago I noticed that he rarely seems very animated. He continually seems exhausted, inattentive, as if he’s barely tracking. Handlers seem to guide him on and off stage.

The new gate, new buildings under construction, new, wide paths, streetlights, fresh signs, freshly painted danger signs on the bunkers all contribute to a bit of a Disneyland feel.