Newspaper Reader.
Jan 11, 2026


Newspaper Reader.
Jan 10, 2026
David Brooks infatuation with Reinhold Niebuhr is equal to Brooks impersination of the very tallented Mario Buatta the Princed Chintz? With apologies to the very talented Mr. Buatta. Mr. Brooks does not write political commentary, but resorts to a feckless impersonation, of what actual political commetary might resemble, a pastisch of Walter Lippmann? Here are a selection of my comments on Neibuhr over time.
On The Theopolitics of Reinhold Niebuhr by Political Observer

I’ve just finished a Reinhold Niebuhr biography by Richard Fox published in 1985. That I find Mr. Niebuhr repugnant as person and Christian Moralist is a statement of my prejudice, without apology. I felt that I wanted to understand who the man was and where he came from. Those questions are answered in some detail in Mr. Fox’s biography, although Mr. Fox seems to be satisfied with hagiography rather that critical engagement with Mr. Niebuhr as theopolitician. Niebuhr appears to be a religious and political conformist swept along from Socialism to Cold War Liberalism: always a little too anxious to prove his patriotism, his Americaness. Niebuhr has become the object of a cult headed by President Obama, perhaps because of the tough minded moralizing represented by Christian Realism: which could be more accurately named Christian Imperialism. It has something in common with the Protestant Christian Politics of Woodrow Wilson, with an emphasis on the necessary use of violence, to reach political ends deemed important enough to warrant it. In the name of the greater political good, even as necessary to emancipate, if only temporarily, man from his natural sinful and irredeemable self-hood. This cliché of the Christian Tradition reeks of the self-hating Augustine, and his successors, who institutionalized the persistent, morally destructive Christian anti-humanism. Imperial Politics with a thin veneer of carefully cultivated piety is an American tradition. I would call Niebuhr hopelessly Middlebrow: more about the care and maintenance of bourgeois political respectability and the self-exculpatory, as key to ex post facto rationalizations identified as ‘Philosophy’ . I was impressed, and moved by one person’s character in Mr. Fox’s biography of Reinhold, and that was the love, devotion and steadfastness of his brother Richard. Engaging with the ‘Philosophy’ of Mr. Niebuhr using the valuable historical frame provided by Mr. Fox will enrich my further reading.
Political Observer
May 24, 2012
Posted on August 2, 2017 by stephenkmacksd

Niebuhr’s reputation as a primary American Philosopher demonstrates with stunning clarity the paucity of intellectual standards in America. He was no Sartre, Heidegger nor was even comparable to William James. He was, in fact, a tent preacher with intellectual and moral pretension. As Richard Fox’s near worshipful biography points out, time after time, Niebuhr was a craven political and moral conformist: in his days in Chicago he opined that the working class shouldn’t give up violence as a methodology and that he was Marxient thinker. Those pronouncements came back to haunt him when J. Edgar Hoover was stalking him. The political result was Niebuhr’s letter denouncing ‘The Left’, not to speak of formation the ADA, with ‘Vital Center’ author Arthur Schlesinger, Jr. Protecting ‘Liberal Free Speech’ but throwing ‘The Left’ to the McCarthy/Nixon wolves and their political capo J.Edgar Hoover. Please read Schlesinger’s diary entries from the early 50’s, where he makes noises like ‘Big Jim McLain‘, the use of the word ‘commies’ is indicative of the political myopia demonstrated by sons, who edited his diaries for publication. Accurate history is more important than covering your old man’s ass! Those entries, read in the political present express both the comedy and menace of Schlesinger’s obsequious political conformity.
Niebuhr shared something in common with ‘friendly witness’ Elia Kazan: the rationalization that bound their separate careers was that they both thought that their ‘radical pasts’ should not interfere with their very important, indeed vital life mission. Kazan’s was making movies and Niebuhr’s was winning converts to ‘Christian Realism’ ,which was in sum a riff on ‘render unto Caesar’ and the central belief in ‘Inherent Evil’ of the human person. Institutional Christian Self-Hatred is Augustine’s self-loathing for being human writ large, and his later epigones.
The reader can see the why of President Obama’s admiration for this ersatz ‘American Philosopher’, both share a belief in, not just the imperfectability of the human person, but its inherent ‘Evil’, allied with a political/moral rhetoric that appeals to the aspirations of their respective audiences. Christian Realism advocates/embraces not just the idea of the saved and dammed in eschatological terms, but in terms of the Cold War ethos. That ethos has now been applied, by Obama, to the Age of The War on Terror, and the utterly catastrophic Neo-Liberal Theology, that has been operative since the Reagan era. Note that Obama never praised FDR, but was fulsome in his praise for Reagan.
Almost Marx
Here is an excerpt from Alice Bamford’s review of Amanda Anderson’s ‘Bleak Liberalism’ in the New Left Review of May/June 2017. Which places ‘Liberalism’ and its primary thinkers like Schlesinger and Niebuhr, among others, to an examination of their political mendacity: which looks like a utter betrayal of what that ‘Liberalism’ could have been. If only its thinkers/defenders had exercised something like dissent as a singular moral/political imperative of that very ‘Liberalism’. Is the Liberal thinker/actor even capable of such an act of moral imagination?
Yet while ostensibly offering a defence of ‘political liberalism’, Anderson’s case rests on a near total abstraction from politics as such. Despite the pivotal role played by their thought in her narrative, the record of Anderson’s chosen Cold War liberals is never examined. Clergyman Niebuhr approved the atomic obliteration of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, applauded the development of the H-bomb, and advocated the ethnic cleansing of Palestine. Schlesinger colluded with (and lied about) the us invasion of Cuba, backed Kennedy’s wars in Indochina and counselled Americans under Johnson that ‘we must hold the line in Vietnam’, even telling Defense Secretary Robert McNamara, architect of escalation under both presidents: ‘You have been one of the greatest public servants in American history, and your departure from the government is an incalculable loss to this nation.’ Aron never spoke out against the French occupation of Indochina, or torture in Algeria; Camus not only refused to condemn France’s Algerian war, but backed the Suez expedition against Egypt. Berlin witch-hunted Isaac Deutscher out of a job in the British academy. Such particulars of the past, however, are too mundane for reference on the nebulous plane at which the history of ideas enters Bleak Liberalism.
https://newleftreview.org/II/105/alice-bamford-in-the-wake-of-trilling
A.M.
(Added August 3, 2017 7:33 AM PDT)
On The Cult of Niebuhr by Political Observer
Posted on October 18, 2011 by stephenkmacksd
How can one dismiss the Christian Realism of Reinhold Niebuhr? Because his special brand of intellectually inflected political conformism fits so handily in this modern age of outright attacks on citizens, by their own government? Of drone attacks on civilian populations, argued by government agencies to be the locus of terrorist activities? Of preemptive war against states possessing weapons of mass destruction? That he is a Christian Theologian add luster to his varied career as political apologist for the Cold War and the National Security State. While some might even argue that he is the thinking man’s Billy Graham, with a more persuasive intellectual resume. With his ally Mr. Schlesinger singing his praises, as an intellectual leader, and with their creation of what was to be the ADA, a refuge of Liberals anxious to establish their credentials as anti-communists: freedom of political expression for right and left wing social democrats only! One need only read Mr. Schlesinger’s tedious and self-congratulatory diary entries of the period; with his penchant for the use of the word ‘commie’, to identify political dissidents of that benighted age in America.
As for Mr. Niebuhr’s status as political philosopher, he has an intellectual breadth and a seemly ever changing, evolving set of ideas tending toward conservatism as he aged. The addition of the fallen nature of ‘man’, the sine qua non of the Christian mythology, appealed to the deep stain of Puritanism still active in the American consciousness: the world historical battle between good and evil as background. He was a public intellectual with something to offer Liberal and Conservative thinkers, a kind of Cold War Pragmatist, perfect for our age of suspicion, our age of terror, peopled by intellectual pretenders of all stripes.
Political Observer
Andrew Sullivan,Reinhold Niebuhr,’Christian Realism’ and President Obama by Political Observer
Posted on May 27, 2013 by stephenkmacksd
I find the public career of Mr. Andrew Sullivan puzzling, disappointing even infuriating. I started reading him when he was writing for The New York Observer and subsequently as he and Christopher Hitchens kept the debate of 9/11 within the bounds that they thought as reasonable, intellectually and politically acceptable, two stern enforcers of their continually evolving master ideas.
The two rhetorical policeman dismissing the charlatans who dared to express an opinion outside the the ken of these two intellectual capos. Vicious, dismissive and utterly ruthless to those they identified as unfit to comment on the most recent American Wound. Part of the collection of jingos and war mongers in the American intelligentsia that announced themselves in the subsequent day and weeks after the attacks on the World Trade Center.
Both became enthusiasts, celebrants of the Iraq War and just as quickly became disenchanted of their momentary celebration of the martial spirit, in the name of the honored dead and the need for retribution, even though their was no connection between the 9/11 perpetrators and Iraq, none.
That sorry, dismal, murderous folly is almost behind us or so Mr. Sullivan instructs us in his latest essay titled An End in Sight. He congratulates President Obama and, of course, himself in the process. But let me point to one telling paragraph:
“My view entirely. I’m struck too by his Niebuhrian grasp of the inherent tragedy of wielding power in an age of terror – a perspective his more jejune and purist critics simply fail to understand. This seems like a heart-felt expression of Christian realism to me:”
It is totally appropriate that Mr. Sullivan should frame his argument using the name of Niebuhr and his intellectual child ‘Christian Realism’ to add a certain theological/political gloss to his argument, that bit of cosmic melodrama that so appeals to his inflated sense of himself as a modern seer, prophet.
In that regard Mr. Niebuhr and Mr. Sullivan are kindred spirits in the celebration of God and the political realism, the Christian Realism that recognizes the importance of the state, as the indispensable political actor that can bring their respective religiously inflected politics into the realm of the actionable, the real. In a way, Mr. Sullivan and Mr. Niebuhr, in their respective personal and historical contexts, are acolytes of the dyad of state power/masculine power.
Political Observer.
Jan 10, 2026
Headline: Scott Anderson on Why Iran’s Real Revolution Might Be Coming
Sub-headline: Yascha Mounk and Scott Anderson discuss how economic collapse has created the conditions for regime change—and what this could mean for the country.
Editor: Never forget that Yascha Monk is the amauences to Intelectual Pretender Francis Fukuyama! Let me offer The Reader this brief selection of from this- what to name it but propganda, that arrives at the most unpropitous historical moment, while Venezuela and Greeland awate. Given this context, what might a prudent action plan regarding Iran be?
Mounk: So we recorded a wonderful, deep, historical dive into Iran in, I believe, July of last year. And I was really looking forward to releasing that episode and thought perhaps we can wait for some topical hook that’ll make that episode more relevant. And boy, did we get a topical hook over the last days.
There are these wonderful, inspiring pictures that also make me a little bit scared about what may be around the corner from Iran with just huge numbers of people taking to the streets to call for the end of the regime of the mullahs in a more open and more concerted way than probably at any point since 1979. What’s your read on the situation in Tehran and so many other cities around Iran today? Should we get our hopes up for an end to this regime?
Anderson: I think more than probably ever in the last 45 years, the regime is in serious, serious trouble. There have been moments in the past when it was in somewhat trouble.
What’s different this time with these protests? The regime in the past has always been very adept at playing one segment of society off against another. The religious against the more secular, the rural against the urban. The Women’s Freedom protests of three years ago, they were able to talk about it being—she was a Kurdish woman, the woman who was killed by the morality police—to kind of play the ethnic card.
This time, that’s not going to work because this is an economic collapse that has happened with the devaluation of Iran. So everybody is affected. Playing off one side against the other is just not going to work this time. The second thing that’s quite different is you now have an Iranian president, Pezeshkian, who’s come out in sort of solidarity, or at least in sympathy with the protesters.
He doesn’t have an awful lot of genuine power—Supreme Leader Khamenei does—but what he has is a voice, and that voice cannot really be shut up. So you have a very different dynamic taking place now than you’ve ever had before.
Mounk: So we recorded a wonderful, deep, historical dive into Iran in, I believe, July of last year. And I was really looking forward to releasing that episode and thought perhaps we can wait for some topical hook that’ll make that episode more relevant. And boy, did we get a topical hook over the last days.
There are these wonderful, inspiring pictures that also make me a little bit scared about what may be around the corner from Iran with just huge numbers of people taking to the streets to call for the end of the regime of the mullahs in a more open and more concerted way than probably at any point since 1979. What’s your read on the situation in Tehran and so many other cities around Iran today? Should we get our hopes up for an end to this regime?
Anderson: I think more than probably ever in the last 45 years, the regime is in serious, serious trouble. There have been moments in the past when it was in somewhat trouble.
What’s different this time with these protests? The regime in the past has always been very adept at playing one segment of society off against another. The religious against the more secular, the rural against the urban. The Women’s Freedom protests of three years ago, they were able to talk about it being—she was a Kurdish woman, the woman who was killed by the morality police—to kind of play the ethnic card.
This time, that’s not going to work because this is an economic collapse that has happened with the devaluation of Iran. So everybody is affected. Playing off one side against the other is just not going to work this time. The second thing that’s quite different is you now have an Iranian president, Pezeshkian, who’s come out in sort of solidarity, or at least in sympathy with the protesters.
He doesn’t have an awful lot of genuine power—Supreme Leader Khamenei does—but what he has is a voice, and that voice cannot really be shut up. So you have a very different dynamic taking place now than you’ve ever had before.
…
Political Observer.
Jan 08, 2026

Editor: The final paragraphs of this – what to name it? Trump is a criminal!
It will take some time for the facts of the shooting to be clarified. Former ICE officials say that, in the past, allegations of excessive force were usually investigated internally. But Mr Miller’s quip about immunity suggests that this administration is not interested in punishing agents for behaviour that might lead to accountability if local police forces engaged in it. The Supremacy Clause of the constitution, which elevates federal law over state law, can make it tricky for local prosecutors to charge federal agents with a crime they may have committed while on duty. Judges reviewing whether such cases can proceed have recently tended to decide for themselves whether an officer acted reasonably, rather than allowing a local jury to weigh in.
Mr Frey urged Minnesotans to stay calm and peaceful in the aftermath of the shooting. He is no doubt remembering how quickly protests escalated in his city after the murder of George Floyd by police in 2020. For months Mr Trump has seemed to want to provoke protesters to violence in order to justify cracking down even harder on Democrat-run cities. Recent court decisions limit his ability to deploy the National Guard the way he did in Los Angeles, but that is not the only option the president has if things get out of hand. He has long toyed with the idea of invoking the Insurrection Act, which would allow him to send troops to cities. Once again, Minneapolis is at the centre of a storm.
Editor: Equvocation is the methodology of the scoundrel!
NYT:

Jan 08, 2026
How Trump humiliated Putin on the high seas
US president did not so much call Russia’s bluff as dismiss it outright
Adrian Blomfield Senior Foreign Correspondent
07 January 2026 7:43pm GMT
Ever since coming to power more than a quarter of a century ago, Vladimir Putin has yearned for Washington to treat him as the leader of a great power, an equal of the United States, as it did during the Cold War.
Instead, in the wintry waters of the North Atlantic, Mr Trump has treated Russia as a minnow, swatting aside its president in the most chastening way.
Moscow had staked its reputation and geopolitical credibility on protecting the rusting oil tanker boarded and seized by US forces south of Iceland on Wednesday.
It reflagged the vessel with Russian colours, added it to its official registry, issued formal diplomatic warnings to Washington and finally dispatched a submarine and other naval assets to shield it – all in vain.
In the process, Putin has once again demonstrated his inability to protect Russia’s clients and dependents.
He failed to save either Bashar al-Assad in Syria or Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, despite extending patronage to both men.
Now he has shown he cannot even safeguard a leaky rust bucket on the high seas.
……
When Putin intervened in the 19-day pursuit of the Bella 1 across the Atlantic – an operation likened to the slow-speed chase of OJ Simpson’s Ford Bronco along California’s freeways 31 years ago – the gamble must initially have seemed a reasonable one.
For the past year, nothing appeared capable of shaking the foundations of Putin’s relationship with Donald Trump.
The Bella 1, as it was then known, formed part of the so-called shadow fleet of tankers used to move oil from Russia, Iran and Venezuela in defiance of sanctions imposed by the United States, Britain and other Western allies.
That fleet has been a vital lifeline for Moscow, allowing Russia to sell oil, prop up its economy, fund its war in Ukraine and conduct a hybrid campaign against Europe, using shadow-fleet vessels to conduct sabotage operations against undersea infrastructure and launch drones into European airspace.
Pressure on the Kremlin intensified last month when the US imposed a maritime embargo on sanctioned oil tankers operating in and out of Venezuela.
US forces subsequently intercepted and boarded two shadow-fleet vessels and then attempted to stop the Bella 1 – which had been under US sanctions for 18 months on suspicion of carrying cargo for Hezbollah – in the Caribbean on Dec 20 as it neared the Venezuelan coast.
Previously registered in Panama, Palau, Liberia and the Marshall Islands, the tanker was flying the Guyanese flag – fraudulently, according to US officials, who noted that it did not appear on Guyana’s shipping register.
The Russian, Indian and Ukrainian crew ignored orders to stop, turned the ship around and fled towards the Atlantic, repeatedly broadcasting distress signals to nearby vessels. The chase had begun.
As Christmas Day passed, the panicked crew hauled down the Guyanese colours, painted a Russian flag on the hull and appealed to Moscow, which they believed alone had the power to save them.
Under international maritime law, a vessel falsely flying a flag is regarded as stateless and may be boarded by the authorities of any state. A legitimately flagged ship, by contrast, enjoys protection from such interference.
On New Year’s Eve, Russia relented. It added the tanker – along with four others that had operated in Venezuelan waters – to its official shipping registry. The Bella 1, Moscow insisted, was no longer stateless. It was now a Russian vessel, sailing a Russian flag, registered to a Russian port. It was also given a new name: Marinera.
This, the Kremlin calculated, was a sanctuary of last resort – and surely sufficient. Personal ties between Trump and Putin aside, the United States might be expected to give up the pursuit, given that the vessel had turned back before reaching Venezuela, was not carrying oil and that boarding it risked breaching international law and triggering a diplomatic incident.
Yet as Bella 1 steamed towards what it hoped would be the safety of Russian waters, the Trump administration showed no sign of abandoning the chase.
Moscow doubled down, issuing a formal diplomatic reprimand demanding that Washington halt its pursuit. Then, in a final escalation, it dispatched a submarine and other naval assets to escort and protect the vessel.
The Russian president clearly hoped to deter the Americans with this show of force. Such tactics had worked before. In May last year, the Russian air force scrambled a fighter jet to prevent the Estonian navy from boarding the Jaguar, another shadow-fleet tanker, in the Baltic Sea.
But the United States is not Estonia, as Russia has now discovered. Trump did not so much call Russia’s bluff as dismiss it outright.
Backed by Britain, which provided naval and air force assets and authorised the use of its bases, the US seized the vessel, delivering the Kremlin a stinging rebuke.
Putin may have assumed that his warm personal relationship with Donald Trump would work in his favour. It did not. Indeed, the intervention may have further soured relations between Moscow and Washington, already strained after Putin claimed last month that Ukraine had targeted one of his residences with drones. Mr Trump initially expressed outrage on Putin’s behalf, but then – unusually – accepted a US intelligence assessment concluding that Russia had fabricated the claim.
The deception was not lost on the president.
At the same time, Mr Trump is likely to have been irritated by the Russian leader’s failure to heed a message his administration has been making with increasing force: South America is Washington’s backyard.
In early December, his administration published a new security strategy declaring that the region falls squarely within Washington’s sphere of influence under his so-called “Donroe Doctrine”, a muscular update of the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine asserting US primacy in the Western Hemisphere.
By reflagging a vessel attempting to breach the US blockade of Venezuela, Putin was directly challenging that doctrine – and Mr Trump did not like it one bit.
The Kremlin has seen potential upsides in the Donroe Doctrine. Russian officials hope the United States will become bogged down in South America, and there is scope for Moscow to exploit post regime-change instability in Venezuela by backing rival factions vying for power following Mr Maduro’s capture.
Beyond distracting Washington, such entanglement could also bolster Russia’s claim to dominance over Ukraine and other former Soviet states.
Yet even as Putin seeks advantage in Ukraine, he has watched Mr Trump deliver a serious blow to Russia’s global pretensions. The raid in Caracas demonstrated that the Russian air defences Mr Maduro so often boasted of were as ineffective as those that failed to protect Iran’s military facilities from Israeli and US strikes last year.
In what other Russian partners will see as a further sign of weakness, Putin has neither condemned Mr Maduro’s ousting nor commented on it at all – just as he was largely silent after the fall of Assad, despite Russia’s substantial military presence in Syria.
Painful though it will be, the Kremlin has little choice but to absorb its failure to defend the Bella 1.
Whether Mr Trump’s irritation with the Russian leader translates into a more sympathetic posture towards Ukraine remains to be seen. But one conclusion is unavoidable: in his latest display of raw power, the US president has laid bare Russian weakness before a watching world.
Editor: Putin could rescue the crew of this tanker, and render moot the Telgraph’s war mongering shill’s How Trump humiliated Putin on the high seas
US president did not so much call Russia’s bluff as dismiss it outright
Adrian BlomfieldSenior Foreign Correspondent
07 January 2026 7:43pm GMT
Ever since coming to power more than a quarter of a century ago, Vladimir Putin has yearned for Washington to treat him as the leader of a great power, an equal of the United States, as it did during the Cold War.
Instead, in the wintry waters of the North Atlantic, Mr Trump has treated Russia as a minnow, swatting aside its president in the most chastening way.
Moscow had staked its reputation and geopolitical credibility on protecting the rusting oil tanker boarded and seized by US forces south of Iceland on Wednesday.
It reflagged the vessel with Russian colours, added it to its official registry, issued formal diplomatic warnings to Washington and finally dispatched a submarine and other naval assets to shield it – all in vain.
In the process, Putin has once again demonstrated his inability to protect Russia’s clients and dependents.
He failed to save either Bashar al-Assad in Syria or Nicolás Maduro in Venezuela, despite extending patronage to both men.
Now he has shown he cannot even safeguard a leaky rust bucket on the high seas.
……
When Putin intervened in the 19-day pursuit of the Bella 1 across the Atlantic – an operation likened to the slow-speed chase of OJ Simpson’s Ford Bronco along California’s freeways 31 years ago – the gamble must initially have seemed a reasonable one.
For the past year, nothing appeared capable of shaking the foundations of Putin’s relationship with Donald Trump.
The Bella 1, as it was then known, formed part of the so-called shadow fleet of tankers used to move oil from Russia, Iran and Venezuela in defiance of sanctions imposed by the United States, Britain and other Western allies.
That fleet has been a vital lifeline for Moscow, allowing Russia to sell oil, prop up its economy, fund its war in Ukraine and conduct a hybrid campaign against Europe, using shadow-fleet vessels to conduct sabotage operations against undersea infrastructure and launch drones into European airspace.
Pressure on the Kremlin intensified last month when the US imposed a maritime embargo on sanctioned oil tankers operating in and out of Venezuela.
US forces subsequently intercepted and boarded two shadow-fleet vessels and then attempted to stop the Bella 1 – which had been under US sanctions for 18 months on suspicion of carrying cargo for Hezbollah – in the Caribbean on Dec 20 as it neared the Venezuelan coast.
Previously registered in Panama, Palau, Liberia and the Marshall Islands, the tanker was flying the Guyanese flag – fraudulently, according to US officials, who noted that it did not appear on Guyana’s shipping register.
The Russian, Indian and Ukrainian crew ignored orders to stop, turned the ship around and fled towards the Atlantic, repeatedly broadcasting distress signals to nearby vessels. The chase had begun.
As Christmas Day passed, the panicked crew hauled down the Guyanese colours, painted a Russian flag on the hull and appealed to Moscow, which they believed alone had the power to save them.
Under international maritime law, a vessel falsely flying a flag is regarded as stateless and may be boarded by the authorities of any state. A legitimately flagged ship, by contrast, enjoys protection from such interference.
On New Year’s Eve, Russia relented. It added the tanker – along with four others that had operated in Venezuelan waters – to its official shipping registry. The Bella 1, Moscow insisted, was no longer stateless. It was now a Russian vessel, sailing a Russian flag, registered to a Russian port. It was also given a new name: Marinera.
This, the Kremlin calculated, was a sanctuary of last resort – and surely sufficient. Personal ties between Trump and Putin aside, the United States might be expected to give up the pursuit, given that the vessel had turned back before reaching Venezuela, was not carrying oil and that boarding it risked breaching international law and triggering a diplomatic incident.
Yet as Bella 1 steamed towards what it hoped would be the safety of Russian waters, the Trump administration showed no sign of abandoning the chase.
Moscow doubled down, issuing a formal diplomatic reprimand demanding that Washington halt its pursuit. Then, in a final escalation, it dispatched a submarine and other naval assets to escort and protect the vessel.
The Russian president clearly hoped to deter the Americans with this show of force. Such tactics had worked before. In May last year, the Russian air force scrambled a fighter jet to prevent the Estonian navy from boarding the Jaguar, another shadow-fleet tanker, in the Baltic Sea.
But the United States is not Estonia, as Russia has now discovered. Trump did not so much call Russia’s bluff as dismiss it outright.
Backed by Britain, which provided naval and air force assets and authorised the use of its bases, the US seized the vessel, delivering the Kremlin a stinging rebuke.
Putin may have assumed that his warm personal relationship with Donald Trump would work in his favour. It did not. Indeed, the intervention may have further soured relations between Moscow and Washington, already strained after Putin claimed last month that Ukraine had targeted one of his residences with drones. Mr Trump initially expressed outrage on Putin’s behalf, but then – unusually – accepted a US intelligence assessment concluding that Russia had fabricated the claim.
The deception was not lost on the president.
At the same time, Mr Trump is likely to have been irritated by the Russian leader’s failure to heed a message his administration has been making with increasing force: South America is Washington’s backyard.
In early December, his administration published a new security strategy declaring that the region falls squarely within Washington’s sphere of influence under his so-called “Donroe Doctrine”, a muscular update of the 19th-century Monroe Doctrine asserting US primacy in the Western Hemisphere.
By reflagging a vessel attempting to breach the US blockade of Venezuela, Putin was directly challenging that doctrine – and Mr Trump did not like it one bit.
The Kremlin has seen potential upsides in the Donroe Doctrine. Russian officials hope the United States will become bogged down in South America, and there is scope for Moscow to exploit post regime-change instability in Venezuela by backing rival factions vying for power following Mr Maduro’s capture.
Beyond distracting Washington, such entanglement could also bolster Russia’s claim to dominance over Ukraine and other former Soviet states.
Yet even as Putin seeks advantage in Ukraine, he has watched Mr Trump deliver a serious blow to Russia’s global pretensions. The raid in Caracas demonstrated that the Russian air defences Mr Maduro so often boasted of were as ineffective as those that failed to protect Iran’s military facilities from Israeli and US strikes last year.
In what other Russian partners will see as a further sign of weakness, Putin has neither condemned Mr Maduro’s ousting nor commented on it at all – just as he was largely silent after the fall of Assad, despite Russia’s substantial military presence in Syria.
Whether Mr Trump’s irritation with the Russian leader translates into a more sympathetic posture towards Ukraine remains to be seen. But one conclusion is unavoidable: in his latest display of raw power, the US president has laid bare Russian weakness before a watching world.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/authors/a/aa-ae/adrian-blomfield/
Editor : Mr. Adrian Blomfield’s 1240 word diatribe ends in the bit of whistling in the dark: But one conclusion is unavoidable: in his latest display of raw power, the US president has laid bare Russian weakness before a watching world.
Jan 07, 2026
Editor: Here are the final paragraphs of Stephens political intervention. It’s all the space that ‘Stephens Chatter’ deserves!
…
For top-level hard-liners like Cabello and the defense minister, Vladimir Padrino López, the choice should be the one previously offered to Maduro: Club Med or Club Fed — exile in Turkey or turkey sandwiches in a New York prison. Maybe they’ll choose more wisely than their former boss.
For more pliable elements of the regime, a different choice: Go to free and fair elections, accept the inevitable defeat and become just another political party or else be banned from politics for life. For military officers and paramilitary leaders, accept an amnesty in exchange for a pledge of loyalty to the next government. Alternatively, face prosecution and, if indictable, extradition to the United States.
All this requires if not an immediate election, then the guarantee of one sooner rather than later. On Monday, Trump said there was “no way” an election could be held in the next month. OK, how about within six months? There needs to be a clear road map for that “judicious” transfer of power Trump spoke of when he announced Maduro’s capture.
Above all, there needs to be legitimacy. Trump’s capture of Maduro is being criticized as an invitation to Russia and China to behave similarly. This ought to be absurd: There is all the moral difference in the world between capturing an indicted dictator like Maduro and seeking to overthrow and conquer elected governments in Kyiv and Taipei. And with due respect to international law, it cannot become a shield behind which despots everywhere can do as they please to their own people.
Maduro’s capture was met with jubilation by exiled Venezuelans because for 25 years they and their families have had to endure one of the cruelest regimes anywhere and do so with precious little attention or sympathy from self-described progressives who otherwise claim to champion human rights and democracy. Trump now has a chance to prove he can be a better friend to freedom than his critics, assuming he doesn’t squander the moment, as he’s so wont to do.
It will take an election — free, fair and fairly soon.
Newspaper Reader.
Jan 06, 2026

…
Zuckerberg has continually promised improvement. And afterward, he has always grown wealthier. More powerful. And his business has continually grown even more questionable.
In fact, as internal documents show, at the time of the questioning, 100,000 minors were being harassed daily on Meta’s platforms, and the company knew about it. In emails to company management, employees complained that there was much more that Zuckerberg could do and that more money could be invested. But the boss spent years ignoring such complaints.
Zuckerberg, indeed, is a man of two faces.
On the one hand, he plays the father of three who reads to his little daughters in the evening. A man who fights for good, through whose services the people were given a voice during the Arab Spring and dictators were toppled. An executive who admits mistakes and eliminates them. An owner who has transformed his company into a model of diversity, equality and liberalism – just to be on the right side of history.
On the other hand, he is a cold technocrat. The programmer with nerves of steel who simply “further developed” the idea for Facebook from his classmates. Who spies on his own users. Who largely abolished fact-checkers, thus provoking a flood of fake news.
Books, portraits and even a feature film examine these two Zuckerbergs. And the world has been puzzling for years over which version of this man will ultimately prevail: Jekyll or Hyde. The good-natured cuddly type in a hoodie or the ruthless, power-hungry mogul who subordinates everything to his own success.
Almost one year into Donald Trump’s second term, the answer seems clear. Trump’s MAGA takeover of America hasn’t just changed the U.S. It has also changed the Facebook boss. Nice Mark, it seems, is no longer needed in an America where selfishness and ruthlessness are considered the highest virtues. Nice Mark can go.
What’s interesting is how quickly Zuckerberg has shed that role. How smoothly he has adapted to the new power structures. It raises the question: Is the new, hard Mark the core of his character? One he has kept hidden for years for strategic reasons? Or is this transformation also just another about-face?
…
Newspaper Reader.
Jan 06, 2026

Jan 05, 2026

Here is Fellow Traveler Quico Toro with the bad news!
Venezuela’s New President Is No Moderate
In fact, Delcy Rodríguez is a regime extremist.
Quico Toro
Jan 5
Here is One after another, Venezuelans lined up to share instances of her awfulness: her tireless whitewashing of the regime’s crimes, the international sanctions she was under, her leadership of the sham constitutional convention Maduro had used to void the opposition’s win in parliamentary elections in 2024, and especially the close links she’s reputed to have with SEBIN, the hated secret police behind Venezuela’s most notorious political prison and torture center.
To Venezuelans who had spent over a decade seeing in her one of Nicolás Maduro’s most ardent and uncompromising acolytes, calling her a “moderate” is an outrage. Here’s a woman who has held all of the most important offices of state—oil minister, minister of foreign affairs, president of the constituent assembly, vice president—and has never allowed any hint of sunlight to appear between her and Maduro.
Earlier today, Delcy Rodríguez became the new president of Venezuela.
…
Victimhood
Quico Toro is a contributing editor at Persuasion and the founder of Caracas Chronicles. Like eight million other Venezuelans, he was forced to flee Venezuela’s dictatorship.
Editor: The reader can only wonder at the absence of Historical Memory that afflicts Quico Toro, and his cadre of Neo-Cons: who pass themselves off as the victims, now the prisoner of the American Fachist’s Trump, Pete Hegseth, Marco Rubio!
Should the reader look to the rich history of Latin America from at the the rise of Fidel Castro, Che Guevara ,The Sandinistas, The Contras, etc.
Editor: Even William James, via Alexander Livingston, offers this: ‘Damn Great Empires! William James and the Politics of Pragmatism’

Old Socialist.
Dec 27, 2025
Christmas Specials | An uprising in St Petersburg
Two centuries ago, Russian revolutionaries tried to change the world
Bloodied and exiled, the Decembrists failed. But they made a start
IT WAS A wintry night in St Petersburg and revolution was in the air. A piercing wind whipped off the frozen Neva river as, before dawn, the conspirators hurried to Senate Square, close to the Winter Palace. They drew up their troops beneath the stern stare of Peter the Great’s bronze statue; the gilded spire of the Admiralty pierced the inky sky. Before long the imperial cavalry would arrive, and the cannons, and the tsar. “We are going to die, brothers!” exulted one of the rebels. “Oh, how gloriously we are going to die!”
Though barely remembered in the West, that fateful day 200 years ago—December 26th 1825 in the modern calendar—was a hinge in time. Had the conspirators prevailed, their country’s history, and the world’s, might have been drastically different. As it was these men, known as the Decembrists, were transmuted into myth. As with many myths, interpretations of theirs vary. To Russia’s authorities, then and now, they were traitors. To admirers, they are champions of the flickering hope that another Russia is possible.
Revolutions are typically fomented by the uppity middle classes. This plot went right to the top. The Decembrists were the flower of Russia’s aristocracy: young men inspired by the American and French revolutions, the Enlightenment and Romantic nationalism. They were immersed in literature, modelling themselves on Roman heroes. Kondraty Ryleyev, a ringleader, railed in verse against “despotism’s heavy yoke”. Alexander Pushkin, the era’s bard, was a sympathiser. “Here is Caesar,” wrote Pushkin. “Where is Brutus?”
Crucially, they were military officers, mostly in the imperial guards, who had fought in the Napoleonic wars. As Sergei Muravyov-Apostol, another leader, put it: “We were the children of 1812.” That was when Napoleon invaded Russia; two years later Russian forces entered Paris. They returned flushed with the pride of liberators—and with visions of bringing citizenship and rights to a vast land blighted by arbitrary rule, in which a third of the population were serfs. Their revolt was, in part, an example of the blowback of war.
As Yuri Lotman, a historian, observed, the Decembrists represented a new psychological type. They were the first generation of Russian aristocrats to distinguish between service to the monarch and to society and the nation. They had earned their honour and dignity, they believed, not been granted them from above. Still, at first they hoped the tsar, Alexander I, would oversee reform of his downtrodden empire. But though he espoused liberal plans, even enacting a few on the empire’s fringes, he backtracked.
The Decembrists formed secret societies, based in St Petersburg, the imperial capital, and what is now Ukraine. Initially neither subversive nor altogether secret, they hardened into a conspiracy for a coup d’état.
Russian history was littered with coups, but the Decembrists’ aims were unique—even if they did not entirely agree on them. The most radical advocated a republic, others a constitutional monarchy. Still, they shared common goals. Having fought alongside conscripted serfs, all demanded their emancipation. They also wanted representative government, the rule of law and an end to caste-based privileges, including their own. Passionate patriots, they envisaged their country as a modern nation state. “All the nations of Europe are attaining laws and liberty,” declared a manifesto. “The Russian people deserve both.”
Autocracies are most vulnerable at moments of succession. Russia’s came sooner than the Decembrists expected—maybe too soon—when Alexander died suddenly. Since he was childless, his ostensible heir was his brother Constantine. But he had secretly renounced the throne, meaning another brother, Nicholas, would succeed. Because of the secrecy, however, imperial troops began swearing oaths to Constantine. So did Nicholas, lest he look like a usurper. Briefly, reported the Times of London, Russia had “two self-denying emperors, and no active ruler”.
This was an opening for the Decembrists, who set about agitating against Nicholas. Tipped off about the revolt, he instructed that a new oath of allegiance—to him—be sworn on December 26th. And so, on a frigid morning, the Decembrists led the troops who embraced their cause to Senate Square. Their plan was to seize the Winter Palace, arrest the tsar, install an interim government and convene an assembly. For a while they had the quiet, snow-covered square to themselves. Then forces loyal to Nicholas moved in.
In hindsight, the ensuing drama is doubly poignant. First, because many Decembrists didn’t expect to succeed. Rather they thought it was their duty to Russia—and each other—to make a stand. “There may be little prospect of success,” conceded Ryleyev, but “a beginning must be made.” They saw themselves as tragic actors on the stage of history, hoping for vindication by posterity rather than immediate victory.
Yet in a narrow sense, they might have won. The best chance for revolutionaries is often at the very start, when regimes are caught in confusion, and so it proved. Thousands of largely supportive civilians crowded around the square. The rebels could have seized the cannons that trundled across the cobbles. Above all, they might easily have killed Nicholas, who rode around imperiously, shooing away onlookers. Alexander Bulatov, a hero of 1812, stood nearby with two pistols, but found he couldn’t pull the trigger.
What if the Decembrists had won the day? The rebellion might have been swiftly quashed. Russia could have devolved into civil war, then slid back into despotism. Or, just conceivably, reform would have eased the discontent that led to the Bolshevik revolution of 1917. Communism might not have overrun Russia—in which case Nazism might not have risen in Germany…
So much for hypotheticals. In reality, the Decembrists were undone by haste and disorganisation. Their leader, Sergei Trubetskoy, didn’t show up. His courage is unlikely to have failed (he was a hero of the battle of Borodino); perhaps he foresaw that the amateurish plot would lead to a bloodbath and crackdown. Without orders, the mutineers shivered in their ranks in ten degrees of frost. Overall they numbered around 3,000. Nicholas’s much larger force encircled them.
It was one of those bleak winter days in St Petersburg when it never truly gets light. Both sides were loth to kill their compatriots; soldiers crossed themselves in the icy air. At length Nicholas ordered cavalry charges in a bid to disperse the rebels. The horses were repulsed, partly by stones and firewood hurled from the crowd. Several officials who interceded with the conspirators were shot. Bishops vainly beseeched them to retreat. “Our last minutes are close,” exhorted Ryleyev, “but these are the minutes of our freedom!”
“Give orders that this place should be swept by cannons,” Nicholas was advised, “or resign the throne!” Four artillery pieces were duly brought forward. No one moved. First came warning shots, at which the rebels shouted “hurrah!” Then grapeshot was loaded; it is said that the gunner refused to fire, so an officer did instead. As blood oozed across the snow, dazed insurgents tried to flee across the Neva. Some drowned when cannons smashed the ice. At least 1,271 people were killed, including many civilians.
By six o’clock it was over. The bullet-ridden Senate building was hastily replastered. Bloodstains were covered with fresh snow. Corpses were shoved into frozen canals. And the conspirators were rounded up.
Furious, Nicholas personally interviewed the leaders at the Winter Palace. He was surprised to see Bulatov among them; Bulatov said he was astonished to see Nicholas—because he had very recently meant to kill him. Offered a pardon, another Decembrist replied that it was precisely the tsar’s ability to override the law that provoked the revolt. The men were held in squalor, chained or isolated on Nicholas’s whim.
Interrogated at night, they were pressed to implicate themselves and each other in attempted regicide. In June 1826 scores were sentenced to decades of hard labour and exile in Siberia. Swords were broken over their heads in symbolic executions. Though capital punishment had been suspended in Russia for 50 years, five leaders were condemned to die.
It is never completely dark during the “white nights” of a St Petersburg summer. In the milky light of a July morning, the five were led to the gallows. Three of the ropes snapped. “Oh Lord, they can’t even hang people properly in Russia,” deadpanned Muravyov-Apostol after his tumble. New ropes were fetched.
The rest were clapped in irons and packed off to Siberia. The tsar instructed their wives to divorce them, but 11 women followed the men into exile, leaving behind their titles, fortunes and children. Arduous journeys led to dismal prisons and labour in mines. Kept in chains for over two years, the men told a jailer they had but one request: “not to insult or humiliate them”.
Their doomed revolution inspired both Tolstoy and Lenin
The Decembrist families suffered and survived together. When their penal servitude ended, some settled in Irkutsk, near beautiful Lake Baikal. You can—or could—visit two of their houses, the blue timberwork decorated with ornate window frames in the 19th-century Siberian style. They painted, made music, studied, taught and farmed. By the time Nicholas’s successor pardoned them in 1856, many had died.
Their story, however, does not end with their demise on a malfunctioning gallows or in the Siberian taiga. The struggle over their memory has been as fierce as the carnage on the square.
After the uprising, newspapers obediently described it as a riot by a handful of “madmen”. An official report of 1826 portrayed the Decembrists as traitors, bent on anarchy and the empire’s collapse.
But for generations of Russian writers they have been emblems of honour and self-sacrifice; the gallows became a martyr’s cross. Alexander Herzen, a liberal thinker, first formulated this version of their myth, seeing them as Roman heroes willing to die “to awaken a new life”. Leo Tolstoy planned to write a novel called “The Decembrists” (his protagonist was to be “an enthusiast, a mystic, a Christian”). As he plunged into their back story, it became “War and Peace”.
After 1917 the Decembrist myth was appropriated by both Bolsheviks and dissidents. Lenin inducted them into the pantheon of Soviet heroes, presenting his own rise to power as the climax of a revolutionary saga that began in 1825. Statues and streets were dedicated to them. This veneration gave cover to those who instead saw them as epitomes of selflessness.
The kgb sabotaged tributes to the uprising, an officer recalled. His name? Vladimir Putin
In 1967 a play about them by Leonid Zorin was staged in Moscow. At its heart was the moral dilemma of revolution: can it be right to shed blood for a higher goal? The Decembrists’ ideas resonated with the audience of Soviet intelligentsia (which included Alexander Solzhenitsyn). “We travelled half the world, liberating it from a tyrant,” the Trubetskoy character said, evoking the mood of Russian soldiers after the second world war as much as 1825. “And what have we found when we came back? Tyranny at home!”
After Soviet tanks extinguished the Prague Spring in 1968—and with it hopes for reform in Moscow—Alexander Galich dedicated a poem to the Decembrists. Distributed through samizdat, it asked: “Do you dare to come to the square?” Soon, in a landmark of the dissident movement, eight protesters walked onto Red Square bearing signs with slogans such as “For your freedom and ours!” Just as the Decembrists looked to Rome for models, the dissidents looked to the Decembrists, whose Romantic brilliance contrasted with the grey, unheroic Soviet world.
On the uprising’s 150th anniversary, the fight over their legacy spilled back onto St Petersburg’s streets. Artists and poets gathered on Senate Square. “For a moment of freedom,” one of their placards read, “I’m ready to give my life!” They were detained, the placard tossed, like the rebels’ corpses, into the frozen Neva. A KGB officer later recalled that, when dissidents planned commemorations for the Decembrists, the kgb put on rival events in the same place. “We’d show up with a brass band. We would lay our wreaths.” Foreign observers would “yawn a couple of times and go home”. The officer’s name was Vladimir Putin.
Even in Mr Putin’s nightmarish presidency, the Decembrists remain an inspiration for some and a moral threat to others. Mikhail Khodorkovsky, a one-time oligarch who spent a decade in a Siberian camp, invoked them at his show trial in 2005. Alexei Navalny inherited their civic nationalism and sense of mission, and finally their martyrdom. Conversely, in May 2025 the Decembrists’ case was relitigated at a Kremlin-sponsored conference in St Petersburg. The justice minister decried their “lack of honour”, arguing that their punishment was too lenient. The main lesson was that “the Russian state cannot afford to be weak.”
Were the Decembrists anything more than glorious failures? In the short term the regime they loathed grew more draconian. As often in Russia’s past, reckons Andrei Zorin, a historian (and the playwright’s son), the actions of “the purest and most noble people” inadvertently set back reform. Anti-Putin protests have likewise led to crackdowns and war.
From one point of view the men of 1825 were hopeless dreamers, too aloof or naive to see that Russia’s size and history mean it is doomed to eternal misrule. Or perhaps it is still too early to say. The Decembrists’ rebellion lasted only a few hours, but 200 years on, they remain a beacon of individual dignity in undignified times. A beginning must be made, and it was.
Editor: Reader thank you for your patience ! Here are the final papagraphs of this ‘Economist History’ as the Manufactured War in Ukraine seems to be reaching its toxic end-game? Before Volodymyr Zelenskyy and his retinue decamp?
Political Cynic.