Trust but verify.

March 30, 2022

[Audio version here]

          There were two positive reports on Tuesday about possible de-escalation in Putin’s war against the Ukrainian people. But a word of caution: No matter how much we want to believe good news, we have no reason to believe anything Putin or his representatives say. As the Russian proverb says, “Trust but verify.”(Ronald Reagan later appropriated that proverb to be used against the USSR in the waning days of the Cold War.) Let’s hope that the parties can achieve a negotiated resolution to Putin’s war, but we should not allow Putin to manipulate false hopes to obtain a strategic advantage against Ukraine.

          The first positive development is this: After Russia’s effort to capture Kyiv failed, Russia offered to suspend or reduce its attack on Kyiv as a sign of good faith in peace negotiations being held in Istanbul. See NYTimes, Russian Pledge to Ease Attack Is Greeted Skeptically by West. Skepticism is warranted. Remember that time, only six weeks ago, when Putin told the world that (a) Russian military exercises were completed, (b) his troops were returning to their home bases, and (c) the 150,000 Russian soldiers massed on Ukraine’s border did not represent a threat to anyone? Two weeks later, those troops staged an invasion of Ukraine. So much for Putin’s assurances.

          Even as Russia attempted to convert a military failure into a negotiating tactic, Russian troops continued their assault on Kyiv and other cities. According to Institute for the Study of War:

Russian forces continued fighting to hold their forwardmost positions on the eastern and western Kyiv outskirts even as badly damaged units withdrew to Russia from elsewhere on the Kyiv and Chernihiv axes. . . .  Russian forces continue to fight to hold their current front-lines near [Kyiv], however, remaining dug into positions to the east, northwest, and West.

          Secretary of State Antony Blinken aptly responded to Putin’s disingenuous offer as follows:

What I can say is this: There is what Russia says, and there is what Russia does. We’re focused on the latter. And what Russia is doing is the continued brutalization of Ukraine and its people. And that continues as we speak.

          While NATO should fervently hope that Russia’s offer will lead to a negotiated peace, the West should not relent in its efforts to provide Ukraine with the maximum aid possible without escalating the conflict into a global catastrophe.

          The second development relates to efforts to defuse talk of a nuclear confrontation. During an interview with PBS, Kremlin spokesperson Dmitry Peskov tamped down worries that the war on Ukraine would result in a nuclear conflict. Peskov said,

No one is thinking about using . . . a nuclear weapon. Let’s keep these two things separate . . . [an existential threat to] the state and special military operation in Ukraine. They have nothing to do with each other. . . . At the same time [Putin warned] different states not to interfere in the affairs between Ukraine and Russia during this operation.

          There is a lot to unpack in that short statement. Most importantly, it disclaims the intent to use nuclear weapons in the war on Ukraine (good). Second, it reaffirms that Russia reserves the right to use nuclear weapons in the event of an existential threat (nothing new). Third, it clarifies that the war in Ukraine is not an existential threat to Russia (good).

          I am not a Kremlinologist, but when the spokesperson for the Kremlin goes out of his way to clarify that Russia is not contemplating the use of nuclear weapons, that seems like a statement that has the approval of Putin. Given the bellicose statements made by Putin in recent weeks, this obvious attempt to lower the temperature is a welcome sign—subject to the need to “Trust but verify” everything that Putin says.

Trump calls on Putin to assist in finding political dirt on Hunter Biden.

          A foundational myth in many right-wing conspiracies is that Hunter Biden is the central figure in the [insert whacko conspiracy theory here]. Recall that Trump extorted Ukraine by demanding that President Zelenskyy fabricate political dirt on Joe Biden. Trump also begged Russia to interfere in the 2016 presidential election by “finding Hillary’s emails.” Republicans were unbothered by Trump’s repeated efforts to invite Putin into U.S. domestic affairs.

          On Tuesday, Trump combined his prior illegal requests into a new request for Putin to “release” information about Hunter Biden’s supposedly illegal business activities in Russia and Ukraine. See CNN, Trump brazenly asks Putin to release dirt about Biden’s family.

          As I noted yesterday, Trump can’t quit his love affair with Putin no matter how many war crimes Putin commits. That perverted dynamic will continue to undermine Trump’s support as the 2024 GOP nominee, emboldening presidential wannabes DeSantis, Cruz, Hawley, Pompeo, Haley, and Pence—setting up an ugly and bloody battle for the Republican nomination. Good.

          Trump continues to ask Putin to interfere in U.S. politics because Trump escaped accountability on the two prior occasions when he solicited Putin’s assistance. (Are you listening, Merrick Garland??) Trump’s new call for Putin’s assistance is illegal, insensitive, crass, and treasonous. But at this particular moment of death and destruction in Ukraine, Trump’s plea for help from Putin desecrates the sacrifice of the men, women, and children who have lost their lives in Putin’s war of attrition against civilian populations.

Seven-hour gap in Trump call-logs during insurrection.

          Bob Woodward and Bob Costa reported in The Washington Post that the White House call log contains a 7-hour gap for calls to and from Trump on January 6th. Reporting on testimony and contemporaneous statements from Senators and Representatives establish that Trump made and received numerous calls during that seven-hour gap. See Talking Points Memo,  Trump Was 100% Making Phone Calls During The Jan. 6 Attack: Here’s The List.

          Like everything else involving Trump and January 6th, this new disclosure makes clear that Trump was conscious of his guilt in inciting the insurrection and was attempting to cover it up. And like everything else that the Select Committee is working valiantly to achieve, it is a poor substitute for a criminal investigation of Trump. The Committee will spin its wheels seeking to fill in that gap with paper tiger subpoenas that languish in Merrick Garland’s inbox. The Justice Department could compel production of those same records under pain of immediate contempt for refusing to comply with a grand jury subpoena. Are you listening, Merrick Garland?

An unnerving “near-miss” in the Supreme Court.

          Late last week, three Justices in the reactionary majority voted to uphold a lower court order that would have forced the Navy to deploy three Navy SEALs who refused vaccinations for Covid-19. See Slate, Three Supreme Court justices tried to force the Navy to deploy unvaccinated SEALs. Although Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas were outvoted 6-3, the three Justices said that courts can overrule personnel decisions of military commanders that allegedly infringe on the religious liberty of soldiers.

          The rationale offered by Gorsuch, Alito, and Thomas would effectively insert federal judges in the chain-of-command of military personnel decisions whenever an unhappy soldier claimed that a decision infringed their religious liberty. Such a rule would destroy the “good order and discipline” necessary to run a military unit and undermine the authority of commanders.

          This latest decision highlights a disturbing trend among the conservative justices on the Court. In their view, the rights explicitly mentioned in the Constitution trump all other rights. Rights that are not mentioned—the right to marry, to plan a family, to travel, to be free of discrimination based on sex—are not protected by the Constitution and may be regulated (or denied) by state legislatures. Court observers and military experts are stunned by the position taken by Alito, Thomas, and Gorsuch. We should expect more the same—unless we enlarge the Court to dilute the radical views of the reactionary majority.

Podcast interview on Wednesday, March 30th with Rural Democracy Initiative

          Democrats frequently bemoan the fact that Republicans seem to have a “lock” on rural voters. Not true! There are dedicated Democrats fighting the good fight every day to ensure that Democrats can win in rural areas. On Wednesday, March 30th at 7:00 PM Eastern / 4:00 PM Pacific, I will interview Renee Linde of Rural Democracy Initiative to learn how Democrats can win in small towns and rural communities.

          If you are interested in helping Democrats build winning coalitions in rural areas, listen live to my podcast by downloading the Callin app and search for Today’s Edition with Robert Hubbell. As always, I will post a link to the recorded podcast the day after the interview.

Concluding Thoughts.

          My comment yesterday that I didn’t understand why Biden’s favorability ratings were so low drew LOTS of reaction from readers. As usual, many of the comments from readers blamed Democratic messaging. If that is true, it is a problem that can be fixed. (That is part of what Renee Linde is going to discuss in the podcast on Wednesday—how to talk to rural voters in a way that speaks to their concerns).

          One comment made by several readers made sense to me. They noted that polls are vehicles for respondents to express their feelings about life in general. The complicated morass of emotions that reside below the surface in most people finds a focal point in one person: The President. So, at some level, polls more accurately reflect how voters feel about themselves than they do about the president’s job performance. But . . . feelings are real, and many voters express those feelings in the polling booth. Biden and the Democrats have their work cut out for them to overcome the negative feelings driving voters to give Biden low marks.

          There are, of course, other factors at work. But the above explanation feels right. Biden is on a winning streak; he is doing a masterful job managing the U.S. response to the Ukrainian war; he has presided over the largest job-creation boom of any president; he has secured passage of two major pieces of legislation during his first year in office; and he has appointed dozens of federal judges. And, if you haven’t noticed, he is speaking with renewed vigor and confidence in his press briefings.

          Here’s my point: Whatever the reasons for Biden’s low favorability ratings, they are not structural. It is far easier to correct messaging about “soft” problems than it is to correct structural problems—such as the lack of concrete plans to govern or the complete absence of proposed solutions to the nation’s problems. Not everyone may agree with Biden’s legislative priorities, but at least he has priorities. His opponents do not. That contrast will come into sharper focus as the midterms draw nearer—at which point voters’ feelings about Biden will have a concrete point of comparison. In that comparison, Biden should do just fine.

          Talk to you tomorrow!