Saturday, 26 March 2022

United States and allies have declared hybrid war on Russia: says Kremlin

The United States and its Western allies have declared a hybrid ‘total war’ against Russia said Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov.

“Today a real hybrid war, a ‘total war’ has been declared against us. This term, which was used by Nazi Germany, is now used by many European politicians when they explain what they want to do to the Russian Federation,” Lavrov said, according to state-run media.

He claimed, “And their goals are not hidden, they want to destroy, to break, to strangle the Russian economy, and Russia as a whole.”

“The desire by the West to maintain its dominance in international affairs, to subjugate everything and everyone and return to a unipolar world … these are, of course, illusions,” Lavrov also remarked, adding, “In fact, we are witnessing the culmination of the policy of containment of Russia, which the West has pursued for a long time.”

Lavrov’s comments appear to be an escalation in rhetoric from Russia’s leadership against the United States and NATO allies.

Since February 24, the start of the conflict, the United States, Europe, Japan, and other like-minded nations have placed heavy sanctions on Russian economy, Russian President Vladimir Putin, Lavrov, and other top Kremlin officials.

On Thursday, the White House announced even more sanctions against hundreds of Russian lawmakers, defense companies, and other entities.

The United States also placed a ban on Russian oil imports, although European Union countries have not done so, citing the bloc’s heavy dependence on Russian energy products.

On Thursday, about three-fourths of the United Nations General Assembly voted to demand aid access and civilian protection in Ukraine and claimed Russia was creating what they said is a dire humanitarian situation in Ukraine. 

Ukraine and Western allies have claimed Moscow is attacking civilians indiscriminately, which the Kremlin has denied.

But Russian ex-President and Deputy Head of Security Council Dmitry Medvedev claimed Friday that the sanctions won’t sway the Kremlin. 

The sanctions will only consolidate the Russian society and not cause popular discontent with the authorities, Medvedev told Russia’s RIA news agency in an interview.

“Let us ask ourselves, can any of these major businessmen have even the tiniest quantum of influence of the position of the country’s leadership?” Medvedev said. “I openly tell you: no, no way.”

 

War in Ukraine to wipe out 15 years of Russian economic growth

In today’s time media plays a more lethal role, as compared to weapons. The conventional media, controlled by the West, spreads disinformation by portraying bleaker outlook for the country under the US sanctions.  One such example is the details about Russia released by Institute of International Finance.

According to Institute of International Finance (IIF), Russia is likely to erase 15 years of economic gains by the end of 2023 after its invasion of Ukraine spurred a multitude of sanctions and prompted companies to pull out of the country.

The economy is expected to contract 15% in 2022, followed by a decline of 3% in 2023, leaving gross domestic product where it was about fifteen years ago. This was written by economists Benjamin Hilgenstock and Elina Ribakova in a preliminary assessment of the impact of the war, noting that further sanctions may change their view.

“Sharply lower domestic demand is likely to play a crucial role, while a collapse in imports should offset lower exports, leading to a marginally-positive contribution from net foreign demand,” the economists wrote.

“However, should further sanctions in the form of trade embargos be implemented, exports might fall more than we currently forecast.”

Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 spurred a collapse of its currency (ruble) and threw global supply chains and commodities prices into chaos. This also sparked mass departure of companies from the country. French automaker Renault SA is among the latest firms to pull out, announcing that it will halt operations at its Moscow plant. It is also considering the future of a longstanding Russian venture called AvtoVaz.

Even after the immediate hit to Russia’s economy, the economy will suffer for years to come from a “brain drain” the exodus of educated, middle class Russians with the financial means to leave the country.

Sanctions from United States and European Union, which control export of technology, including microelectronics, will also hinder technological development in Russia for years, according to the IIF.

At the same time, “self-sanctioning” by foreign companies which no longer want to do business with Russia will lead to a weakening of important sectors of the Russian economy, the report said.

 “The negative effect on medium- and long-term economic prospects could be even more important,” the IIF economists wrote.

 

Ukraine war marks beginning of a new world order

Joe Biden, President of United States believes the Ukraine war will mark the start of a ‘new world order’. In the middle of the COVID global pandemic, Klaus Schwab and global elites likewise announced a ‘great reset’.

Accordingly, the nations of the world would have to surrender their sovereignty to an international body of experts. They would enlighten the governments on taxes, diversity, and green policies.

When former President Donald Trump got elected in 2016, marquee journalists announced partisan reporting would have to displace the old, supposedly disinterested approach to the news.

In normal times progressives worry that they do not have public support for their policies. Only in crises do they feel that the political left and media can merge to use apocalyptic times to ram through usually unpopular approaches to foreign and domestic problems.

We saw that last year, fleeing from Afghanistan, the embrace of critical race theory, trying to end the filibuster, pack the court, junk the Electoral College, and nationalize voting laws.

These ‘new orders’ and ‘resets’ always entail far bigger government and more unelected, powerful bureaucracies. Elites assume that their radical changes in energy use, media reporting, voting, sovereignty, and racial and ethnic quotas will never quite apply to themselves, the architects of such top-down changes.

They preach, common folk must quit fossil fuels, but not those who need to use corporate jets. Walls will not mar our borders but will protect the homes of Nancy Pelosi, Mark Zuckerberg, and Bill Gates.

Hunter Biden’s lost laptop will be declared, by fiat, not news. In contrast, the fake Alfa Bank ‘collusion’ narrative will be national headline news for weeks.

Middle class lifestyles will be curbed as they are instructed to strive for sustainability and transition to apartment living and mass transit. But the Obamas will still keep their three mansions, and Silicon Valley futurists will insist on exemptions for their yachts.

In truth, the world is about to see a radical reset—of the current reset. It will be a different sort of transformation than the elites are expecting and one that they should greatly fear.

The world and the United States are furious over hyperinflation that may soon exceed 10% per year. Ordinary people will be lucky if it ends only in recession or stagflation, rather than a global depression.

The mess was created by those who propagated modern monetary theory. That silly university idea claimed prosperity would follow vastly expanding the money supply, keeping interest rates at de facto zero levels, running huge annual deficits, piling up unsustainable national debt, and subsidizing workers to stay home.

Natural gas and oil costs are now soaring to unsustainable levels—and to the point where the middle class simply will not be able to travel, keep warm in winter, or cool in summer.

Both in Europe and the United States left-wing governments deliberately curbed drilling and non-Russian pipelines. They shut down nuclear power plants and subsidized costly, inefficient solar and wind projects.

They ended up not with utopia, but with fuel shortages, high prices, and energy dependency on the world’s most repressive regimes.

The woke revolution in the West was supposed to teach us that the white male-dominated Western world is toxic. Its origins, ascendance, and current leisure and affluence were supposedly due only to systemic exploitation, racism, and sexism.

Few asked how a supposedly noxious West of some 2,500 years duration became the number one destination of millions of global non-Western migrants and offered the greatest degree of global prosperity and freedom for its citizens.

So a reset reckoning is coming—in reaction to the ‘new orders’ championed by Biden and the Davos set.

In the November 2022 midterms, Americans are likely to see a historic “No!” to the orthodox left-wing agenda that has resulted in unsustainable inflation, unaffordable energy, war, and humiliation abroad, spiraling crime, racial hostility—as well as arrogant defiance from those who deliberately enacted these disastrous policies. What will replace it is a return to what until recently had worked.

Closed and secure borders with only legal and measured immigration will return. Americans will demand tough police enforcement and deterrent sentencing, and a return to integration and the primacy of individual character rather than separatist fixations on the ‘color of our skin’.

The public will continue to tune out of the partisan and mediocre ‘mainstream’ media. They will see greater increased production of oil and natural gas to transition us slowly to a wider variety of energy, strong national defense, and deterrent foreign policies.

The prophets of the new world order sowed the wind and they will soon reap the whirlwind of an angry public worn out by elite incompetence, arrogance, and ignorance.

Courtesy: The Epoch Times

 

Friday, 25 March 2022

US oil and gas industry demands increasing local production over easing sanctions on Iran and Venezuela

Many decades ago I had read that United States wishes to keep global sources of energy under its control, directly or indirectly. This became crystal clear after impositions of economic sanction on Iran and Venezuela and invasion on Iraq and Libya. The latest attempt is imposition of sanctions on global energy giant, Russia.

Till yesteryear global supply of energy was controlled by ‘Seven Sisters’. Since other players, particularly OPEC Plus still enjoy substantial leverage, the new name of the game is ‘Shale Oil’. To keep shale oil producers economically viable, oil price has to be kept around US$70/barrel in the global markets.

Under the strategy of cutting supplies from major producers, the first casualty was Iran, then came Iraq and Libya and now the target is Russia. To achieve the success, two pronged strategy is being followed, containing oil supply from OPEC Plus members and boosting indigenous production. To achieve the target the US administration is already in touch with exploration and production (E&P) companies which have already started soliciting ‘incentives’, the latest news is:

The oil and gas industry of United States is positioning domestic crude production as the lesser of environmental evils, as it attempts to dissuade the administration of US president Joe Biden from easing sanctions on Iran and Venezuela.

A US ban on Russian crude imports earlier this month reframed talks to restore the 2015 Iran nuclear deal and rekindled diplomatic ties between Washington and Caracas, with market participants watching keenly for any developments that might offer incremental supply.

The US oil and gas stakeholders claim a move toward Iranian or Venezuelan barrels would signal a step back from the kind of environmental, social and governance (ESG) standards consumers, politicians and investors have called for in recent years.

"If you really care about ESG, compare the United States to other jurisdictions," Hunter Hunt, Chief Executive of Dallas-based oil and gas company Hunt Consolidated, told Argus earlier this month.

"We will have a higher commitment to the environment, a higher commitment to safety, and I think you will see a stronger understanding of all social concerns here in the US than you would see in Iran or Venezuela or other countries that potentially could fill the gap left by Russian oil."

Hunt's comments echo those heard elsewhere in the industry. AFPM President Chet Thompson on March 14, 2022 called against relying on countries with "less stringent environmental and safety standards" like Iran or Venezuela for energy.

ExxonMobil Chief Executive Darren Woods earlier this month said "production will shift to somebody else with potentially higher emissions" if climate hawks push US companies into decreasing production.

Seven Sisters

The Seven Sisters (oil companies) is a classification named by the Enrico Mattei who is an Italian politician for the seven giant oil companies that managed the oil industry worldwide until the 1970s. The company names of seven sisters are: Anglo-Persian Oil Company worked between 1908-1954 after that they became BP, Gulf Oil run within these years 1901-1985 after this year purchased by Chevron, Royal Dutch Shell, Chevron, Exxon later joined with Mobil, Texaco (1901-2000) acquired by Chevron in 2001.

The traditional period starts with the Seven Sisters giant oil firms as the authoritative strength in world petroleum businesses for the decades after World War II. Royal Dutch Shell, British Petroleum, Gulf, Exxon, Mobil, Texaco, and Chevron, the cartel operated authorizations to oil in sovereign nations with plentiful petroleum sources.

This adjustment proffered the Sister’s attribute powers over oil in Venezuela and newly named OPECs countries, and end of 1950, the Sister’s cartel maintained a 98.3% exchange portion of world petroleum production. BP, Chevron, Mobil, and Shell are remaining today, and we can say that they are the big four for the oil industry of today’s world. As for why this description is accepted.

After the 1940s, these seven big companies built a cartel that provided more than 83% of world oil production and became an oligopoly for the oil industry. They are in steadfast competition with each other, but when the rise of another company comes together, they blend and threaten that company. These companies could be termed a stop at least partially with the later OPEC countries.

According to the freshest statement of the Financial Times, cartels of this century; Shell, Exxon Mobil, Chevron, BP, as well as four major oil giants, as well as Total and ENI. However, especially in recent years, non-OECD countries have included China National Petroleum Co. (CNPC), Gazprom Russia, ConocoPhillips, Petrobras Brazil, Petronas Malaysia, and Saudi Aramco.

However, the share and support of the four major oil giants among these companies, which have achieved significant progress in recent years, is not known. Some energy experts claimed that new companies’ growth occurred with the help of seven sisters.

These seven sisters, who established the international oil industry for nearly a century, developed them through incorporations, takeovers, and incorporations and brought them to the present day, have a higher income than the gross national product of many other countries, and the tonnage of the tankers they possess is higher than the naval forces of many nations.



 

 

 

 

 

 

Tribute to Madeleine Albright

Madeleine Albright was the first woman to serve as US Secretary of State and a ‘Grande Dame’ of foreign policy for the Democratic Party. She wrote books, served on think tank boards and warned of the risk of fascism in the Donald Trump era. 

She died on March 23, 2022 at the age of 84; the cause of death was cancer.

Appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1996, halfway through his two-term presidency, Albright became the highest-ranking woman in the US government at the time. As the top US diplomat, she called for the use of force as the conflict in Kosovo descended into ethnic cleansing. That was consistent with the hard line she had pressed during the Bosnian War, when she was Clinton’s ambassador to the United Nations. She later described the Rwandan genocide of 1994 and the failure to achieve a Mideast peace accord as among her biggest regrets.

“Madeleine’s courage and toughness helped bring peace to the Balkans and paved the way for progress in some of the most unstable corners of the world,” President Barack Obama said upon awarding Albright the Presidential Medal of Freedom, the nation’s highest civilian honor, in 2012.

Responding to news of her death, State Department spokesman Ned Price told reporters, “The impact that she has had on this building is felt every single day. She was a trailblazer as the first female Secretary of State and quite literally opened doors for a large element of our workforce.”

In a statement, Clinton called Albright “an extraordinary human being” and “a passionate force for freedom, democracy and human rights.”

Albright was famous for well-tailored suits adorned with pins or brooches, ranging from balloons to carnivorous animals and chosen to reflect a mood or an opinion. After learning that the Russians had bugged a conference room near her office at the State Department, for example, she wore a pin shaped like a huge bug.

Albright’s stature and style belied a commanding negotiating skill. When Yasser Arafat walked out of Paris talks in 2000, Albright told guards at the US ambassador’s residence to “Shut the gates!” As UN ambassador, she responded to Cuba’s 1996 downing of two unarmed Cessna aircraft: “This is cowardice.”

In an opinion column published February 23, 2022 in the New York Times, just before Russian forces invaded Ukraine, Albright took direct aim at Russian President Vladimir Putin. She disclosed that while flying back to Washington after her first meeting with Putin in 2000, she recorded her observations of him, “Putin is small and pale, so cold as to be almost reptilian.”

“Instead of paving Russia’s path to greatness,” she wrote in the column, “invading Ukraine would ensure Mr. Putin’s infamy by leaving his country diplomatically isolated, economically crippled and strategically vulnerable in the face of a stronger, more united Western alliance.”

In an interview on Bloomberg Television’s “The Close,” Leon Panetta, a White House Chief of Staff under Clinton, recalled Albright as “a Cold War warrior” who had been “raised to understand what communism was about and what the threat from Russia was all about.”

Thomas Pickering, who served under Albright as Under Secretary for political affairs, said in an interview on Bloomberg Radio’s “Sound On”, “She had little love, I would say, for Russia, and that skepticism and indeed suspicion about Russia has proven to be more true than I think any of us had reason to believe when I worked for her.”

An emigrant who fled Czechoslovakia at the dawn of World War II only to discover her own Jewish heritage more than a half-century later, Albright witnessed firsthand the displacement of those deemed undesirable.

“In the end, no one who lived through the years of 1937 to 1948 was a stranger to profound sadness,” Albright wrote in “Prague Winter,” her personal account of the period. “Millions of innocents did not survive, and their deaths must never be forgotten.”

Albright was born Marie Jana Korbel on May 15, 1937, in Prague, one of three children of Josef Korbel, a diplomat, and the former Anna Spieglova. The family statement on her death gave her surname at birth as Korbelova. When the German army arrived in 1939, the family went into exile in London. 

At war’s end, they returned to Prague, relocating several months later to Belgrade where her father served as ambassador. At the age of 10, Albright was sent to boarding school in Switzerland.

When the Communist Party took control in Czechoslovakia in 1948, her father accepted a post on a UN commission on Kashmir. The Korbels stayed in New York. By then, Albright spoke four languages: Czech, Serbo-Croatian, English and French.

Gaining political asylum in 1949, they moved to Denver, where her father became a professor at the University of Denver. She met her future husband, Joseph Medill Patterson Albright, during a summer job at the Denver Post. They married in 1959, the same year she earned a bachelor’s degree in political science from Wellesley College in Massachusetts. They had three daughters -- Anne, Alice and Katharine -- before the marriage ended in divorce

A Catholic who became an Episcopalian in marriage, Albright learned of her Jewish ancestry ‑ along with the death of more than a dozen relatives, including three grandparents in the Holocaust ‑ in 1997 at age 59.

In her 2003 autobiography, “Madam Secretary,” she said of her own parents, “My guess is that they associated our heritage with suffering and wanted to protect us. They had come to America to start a new life.”

Albright obtained a Ph.D. in public law and government from Columbia University where she studied under Zbigniew Brzezinski, President Jimmy Carter’s future National Security Adviser. She also earned a certificate in Russian studies.

In 1976, Albright became the chief legislative aide to Democratic US Senator Ed Muskie of Maine. Two years later, Brzezinski recruited his former student as the National Security Council’s congressional liaison.

When Republicans came to power, she taught at Georgetown University and advised Democrats on foreign policy, including presidential candidates Walter Mondale and Michael Dukakis. In 1989, she became president of the public policy think tank Center for National Policy.

With Clinton’s victory in 1992, she became US Permanent Representative to the UN. In 1995, when as many as 8,000 Bosnian Muslims were slaughtered in Srebrenica at the hands of Bosnian Serbs, Albright presented evidence of mass graves to the Security Council. 

With the lessons of Rwanda fresh in mind, she argued for the use of force. Following the shelling of a Sarajevo market in August, the largest North Atlantic Treaty Organization mission ever got under way, leading to the Dayton Accords that ended the war.

When Warren Christopher, Clinton’s first Secretary of State, announced his plan to return to the private sector, Albright was nominated as his successor. The US Senate unanimously confirmed her appointment.

Albright sought the use of force again in Kosovo, where in 1998 a civil war had ensued. Dubbed “Madeleine’s War,” NATO engaged in combat for the second time in its history, launching air strikes in March 1999 without the approval of the Security Council.

“Madeleine Albright is somebody who grew up learning the lessons of Munich, the danger of appeasing dictators, and she feels we need this more-assertive foreign policy not to back down in the face of people like Milosevic,” historian Walter Isaacson told CNN in a May 1999 interview. By June, Slobodan Milosevic’s troops began to withdraw from Kosovo.

Her efforts toward an Israel-Palestinian peace weren’t as successful. “People ask about my greatest disappointment as Secretary. This was it,” she said in her memoir.

Albright also supported the expansion of NATO and pressured Iraq to end its blockade of UN weapons inspectors. When Iraq didn’t comply, the US and Britain launched a series of air strikes known as Operation Desert Fox.

In October 2000, she became the highest-ranking US representative ever to make an official visit to North Korea, meeting with President Kim Jong Il. “I am sad to say that the Bush administration didn’t pick up the hand of cards that we left on the table there,” Albright said on MSNBC in 2013.

Following her government career, Albright returned to Georgetown as a professor. In 2005, she founded emerging markets investment adviser Albright Capital Management LLC within her Albright Group consultancy. She combined the firm with Stonebridge International in 2009 to form the Washington-based Albright Stonebridge Group, a global business strategy firm.

In addition to her autobiography and “Prague Winter,” Albright wrote best-selling books, including 2009’s “Read My Pins: Stories from a Diplomat’s Jewel Box.”

Even into her 80s, Albright’s defense of the ideals of democracy remained strong. The ascendency of authoritarian leaders was “a more serious threat now than at any time since the end of World War II,” she wrote in a 2018 essay in the Times that coincided with the publication of her book “Fascism: A Warning.” She added, “The possibility that fascism will be accorded a fresh chance to strut around the world stage is enhanced by the volatile presidency of Donald Trump.”

She led the nongovernmental organization National Democratic Institute for International Affairs and the Pew Global Attitudes Project. She also served on the Pentagon’s Defense Policy Board and the boards of the Aspen Institute, Center for American Progress and the Council on Foreign Relations.

Albright never lost sight of the way her career broke through glass ceilings and made a point of promoting the careers of women throughout her professional life. In fact, she made famous a mantra: “There’s a special place in hell for women who don’t help each other.”

 

Tuesday, 22 March 2022

Key takeaways from Imran Khan’s Address to OIC Foreign Ministers

According to Reuters, Pakistani Prime Minister Imran Khan on Tuesday suggested that close ally China and Islamic countries mediate in the Russia-Ukraine conflict and try to bring about a ceasefire.

The Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) is holding the 48th Session of the Council of Foreign Ministers, which more than 600 delegates are attending, including Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi as a special guest, in the Pakistani capital, Islamabad.

"May I suggest that OIC during its discussion with foreign ministers, we should think about how we can mediate, how we can bring about the ceasefire," Khan told the gathering.

"I want to discuss how, maybe OIC along with China, we can all step in and try to stop this conflict which is going to have, if it keeps going the way it is, it would have great consequences for the rest of the world."

Khan's comments came hours after China and Pakistan echoed concerns about "spill-over effects of unilateral sanctions" on Russia, according to a statement by the Chinese foreign ministry.

Khan was in Moscow to meet President Vladimir Putin the day Russian forces entered Ukraine. Pakistan has expressed concern about the repercussions of the invasion but also stopped short of condemning it.

Pakistan abstained from the UN General Assembly vote that condemned Russia's aggression against Ukraine.

According to Pakistan’s leading English Newspaper, Prime Minister Imran Khan delivered a keynote address at the inaugural session of the 48th Council of Foreign Ministers (CFM) of Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) at the Parliament House in Islamabad on Tuesday.

While talking about the OIC's role, he said, "We have failed both the Palestinians and the people of Kashmir. I am sad to say that we have been able to make no impact at all."

The premier said Western countries did "not take the OIC seriously" because "we are a divided house and those powers know it.

"We (Muslims) are 1.5 billion people and yet our voice to stop this blatant injustice is insignificant."

Khan said international law was on the side of the people of Palestine and Kashmir, adding that the United Nations Security Council's resolutions backed the right of the Kashmiris to self-determination through a plebiscite. However, the international community never ensured that right was given, he said.

Referring to India's stripping of occupied Kashmir's special status in August 2019, he said nothing happened because they (India) felt no pressure. "They feel we can just pass a resolution and then go back to our usual business."

He said India was changing the demography in occupied Kashmir by bringing in settlers from outside but "no one has pushed about it because they think we are ineffective."

Afghanistan and Ukraine

The premier also spoke about the global situation, expressing his apprehension that the world is "headed in the wrong way".

A new Cold War had almost started and the world could be divided into blocs, he said, stressing that unless 1.5 billion Muslims take a united stand, "we will be nowhere."

No other people had suffered as much as the people of Afghanistan, he said, adding that for the first time in 40 years, there was "no conflict" in the war-torn country. "The only danger now is through the sanctions [imposed on Afghanistan] and non-recognition", which could cause a humanitarian crisis, he cautioned.

Talking about the ongoing war in Ukraine, Khan suggested that the OIC foreign ministers should discuss how the body could "mediate; try to bring about a ceasefire and an end to the conflict".

If the war continued, it would have "great consequences for the world", he cautioned. "All countries that are non-partisan are in a special position to be able to influence this conflict."

He again repeated his suggestion that the foreign ministers discuss the issue, adding that he would also talk about it with Chinese Foreign Minister Wang Yi about how the OIC, along with China, "can influence the events in Ukraine and stop this and have some ceasefire and resolve this conflict".

Meeting agenda

During the two-day conference, more than 100 resolutions will be overviewed. The agenda of the meeting covers a review of the developments affecting the Muslim world since the last CFM held in Niamey in 2020 and efforts undertaken by the secretariat for the implementation of resolutions adopted in previous sessions, especially on Palestine and Al Quds.

The participants would also deliberate on the situation in Afghanistan and India-held Jammu and Kashmir.

Issues pertaining to Africa and Muslims in Europe and developments in Yemen, Libya, Sudan, Somalia, and Syria, will also be taken up at the meeting.

The agenda, moreover, includes Islamophobia and issues related to international terrorism and cooperation in economic, cultural, social, humanitarian, and scientific domains.

On March 23, foreign ministers will visit the venue of the Pakistan Day parade. Later in the day, FM Qureshi along with OIC Secretary General Hissein Brahim Taha will hold a joint press stakeout following the conclusion of the session.

Heads begin to roll in Russia, claims western media

According to European media reports, Russian President Vladimir Putin has ordered the house arrest of two senior Federal Security Service (FSB) officers. Colonel-General Sergei Beseda, Chief of the FSB’s “Fifth Service,” reportedly was detained along with his deputy, Anatoly Bolyuk, charged with providing flawed intelligence about Ukraine and their improper use of operational funds.

Separately, Oleksiy Danilov, Ukraine’s National Security Council Chief, claimed that several Russian generals have been fired. The implications portend more suffering yet to come, but likewise opportunities to increase pressure on the Russian leader from within.

Perhaps emulating Joseph Stalin, this could be the onset of a purge and Putin’s desperate ploy to provide his domestic audience with a fall guy for self-inflicted wounds. His call to rid Russia of ‘scum and traitors’ as ‘a necessary self-purification of society’ might be Putin’s theatrical unveiling of not merely a further crackdown against the Russian people, but also his version of a ‘cultural revolution’ to bring further to heel those around him on whom he has counted to take and maintain power. If I were one of the oligarchs or siloviki, those from Russia’s intelligence services who profiteered on Putin’s kleptocracy, I’d be more than just a little worried.

Putin’s rhetoric is victimization, villains and heroes. He casts himself as the people’s champion. Putin chose the FSB, a machine organized and conditioned to execute his autocratic vision and tell him what he wants to hear — whether or not it conforms to reality.

Putin has relied on the FSB as his principal source of power and protection, not merely at home, but also across the former Soviet states over which he is determined to restore Russia’s dominion. His reorganization of the FSB from the KGB’s ashes should have told us precisely the direction he planned to take.

Putin’s outlook was made clear to me during my first meeting as the CIA’s chief of station in a former Soviet state with the local FSB chief, the “Rezident,” a general known for crushing the anti-Russian rebellion in Chechnya. He looked the part of a film noir Cold War villain, comically uncomfortable in the posh local restaurant. FSB protocol required that he bring another officer; Moscow prohibited its officers from meeting alone with the CIA.

Our contact was an education for me, a Russian-speaking CIA operations officer who had worked the target beyond Russia’s borders. The FSB chief wanted to let me know whose turf this was and how the game was played in his house. While we toasted collaboration to fight the evils of terrorism, he depicted the local officials as “members of his team” and the territory as an extension of “greater Russia.”

Although the CIA’s natural official counterpart is Russia’s Foreign Intelligence Service, the SVR, it was the Kremlin’s internal security agency, the FSB that ran the show across the former Soviet states. Putin, while FSB director in the 1990s, structured it as such, providing what had been the KGB’s former counterintelligence directorate with a disproportionately larger share of its parent organization’s power and influence. The KGB’s Foreign Intelligence directorate would become the less muscular SVR.

The Fifth Service, or Operational Information Department, was established as a new FSB branch to collect intelligence on the former Soviet states and conduct “active measures” to assure they continued to gravitate around Moscow’s orbit. That meant everything from propping up pro-Kremlin regimes to neutralizing threats from those aiming to move their countries closer to the West.

From 1999 to 2009, the Fifth Service grew and took charge of Russia’s brutal war in Chechnya, where the FSB, not the army, called the shots. It was the Moscow apartment building bombings in September 1999, which killed 300 and wounded over 1,000 that then-Prime Minister Putin used to justify that war, claiming the attacks were undertaken by Chechen militants. The bombings, as it turned out, allegedly were the FSB’s handiwork under Putin’s direction.

Putin does not trust the army, a sentiment likely validated by its poor performance and his natural KGB-era disposition. The KGB spied on Russia’s armed forces, to purge them of reactionary elements, often the country’s best and most faithful officers. Putin’s FSB is modeled after Stalin’s chekists, the secret police, his most trusted means to reconstitute a Soviet-era structure that keeps the public’s civil liberties and those possessing any power within his tent well in check.

My FSB counterpart preached the need to target families who offered leverage against hooligans, as he referred to Russia’s enemies. Better to preempt them early, he said, ridiculing America’s surgical approach. He argued that such enemies were cockroaches whose nests had to be destroyed. The pests turned out to be his own people. The general was ethnically Chechen.

Whatever value Putin might believe exists in casting aside his most important supporters has no upside for him — but possibly does for us. Colonel-General Beseda, the reportedly detained Fifth Service chief, had been in his job for years and was the driver behind Putin’s strategy. He literally knows where the bodies are buried. That Beseda’s reporting and counsel likely was spun to align with Putin’s own warped view of the world and misguided expectations for the invasion of Ukraine is a product of the Russian leader’s own making. In such a system, who’s going to tell Putin anything different? But having done Putin’s dirty work and placated his demand for absolute obedience, only to be thrown to the wolves, Beseda’s removal will reverberate throughout the Kremlin, even if Putin leaves in place his FSB boss, Gen. Alexander Bortnikov.

Unlike Defense Minister Sergey Shoigu and SVR Director Sergey Narayshkin, Bortnikov might enjoy greater protection as a career officer, rather than a professional politician. Bortnikov’s elimination could pose too great a risk, given his network and command over the safety net on whose survival Putin depends.

Putin’s desperation does not bode well for whatever guard rails we would hope to constrain him. A purge undermines Putin’s image of infallibility and strength and could precipitate threats from those who see his desperation as an exploitable vulnerability, or an incentive to act before they’re next. As he chances antagonizing the hammer and shield with which he maintains power — the FSB — and mistrusting the army’s ability to win his war abroad, the dynamic could draw him inward, forcing reconsideration of his Ukrainian campaign.

Facilitating this dynamic with continued external pressure, and perhaps internal meddling, is not without risk, but it may be the best means with which to force Putin to pay a dear price for his actions. A purge of scapegoats among those he has enriched, coming as Russia’s economy collapses, could boomerang and create a byzantine backdrop of palace-plotting that compels him to compromise or causes his fall. But insular and paranoid as Putin’s decisions seem to suggest he has become, a darker alternative is his choosing to go down with the ship — and possibly taking us with him.