In today's #vatniksoup, I'll introduce an American political strategist, Samuel Charap (@scharap). He's best-known for strongly arguing against the Western military support to Ukraine, and advising Ukraine to give up to imperialist Russia's demands.
1/18
Samuel Charap is a senior political scientist at the RAND Corporation, an American think tank largely funded by the US government. He also studied in Kyiv and at MGIMO, an elite Moscow university with close ties to Russian intelligence.
2/18
He's also member of the Valdai Discussion Club, a Moscow-based think tank that has been described as a "Russian equivalent to Davos", and Dutch sociologist Van Herpen wrote that the club is a soft power effort by the Kremlin in service of Russian foreign policy goals.
3/18
Throughout the years, Charap has called for negotiations between Kyiv and Moscow. Of course there's nothing wrong with that, but time has shown that a) Putin is not negotiating in good faith, and b) any treaty between Russia and Ukraine (or anyone) doesn't hold.
4/18
Sam's naive attitude towards the Kremlin and their trustworthiness can be seen for example in his 2019 op-ed, in which he called for Ukraine to implement its obligations under the Minsk 2, an agreement that was largely ignored and broken by both Russia and Ukraine.
5/18
In addition, Russia has violated the UN Charter, Nuclear NPT, Helsinki Accords, Belovezha Accords, Budapest Memorandum, Black Sea Fleet Treaty, Friendship Treaty, Treaty on Azov Sea and Kerch Strait, Border Treaty of 2003, Minsk agreements, and the Kharkiv Pact.
6/18
Charap's "peace at any price" stance is always easy to defend, since most people would love to have peace. But if we don't also talk about the costs of peace, the whole discussion is pointless.
7/18
At the 2023 Lennart Meri Conference, Ukrainian activist Olena Halushka asked Charap about the cost of Russia's occupation, referring to mass graves, filtration camps, and mass deportations of children. Charap stated that it's ultimately up to the Ukrainian leadership...
8/18
...to decide whether these consequences are worth the sacrifices in the battlefield. Interestingly, his op-eds and talks are always suggesting for Ukraine to "negotiate" with Russia, which would without a doubt lead to concessions and more of such horrible war crimes.
9/18
I have previously written about the consequences of Russian victory in Ukraine, and most of us can probably agree that this would be a horrible fate for any Ukrainian who is left in these occupied regions:
Also, we should also remind ourselves that the Kremlin hasn't been willing to negotiate for a long time now. In Mar 2024, Putin himself stated that holding negotiations while Ukraine is suffering from ammunition shortage would be "absurd".
11/18
Charap has also been a strong opponent of military aid to Ukraine. In Jan 2022, he published an article on Foreign Policy titled "The West's Weapons Won't Make Any Difference to Ukraine". Take a look at the maps below and tell me if you agree with Mr. Charap.
12/18
In Jun 2023, Charap published another op-ed, criticizing the West for focusing more on providing military aid, intelligence and economic assistance to Ukraine rather than calling for the two parties to negotiate on peace.
13/18
In his Aug 2023 New Yorker article titled "The Case for Negotiating with Russia", he suggested that Ukraine will have to make concessions to Russia, even though Ukraine has successfully liberated over half of the territories Russia occupied at some point.
14/18
All this wouldn't worry me too much if Mr. Charap and his silly talks about negotiations and criticism of military aid were ignored. But they're not. Charap's a regular visitor to the White House's National Security Council (NSC), headed by Jake Sullivan.
15/18
According to Michael @McFaul, Sullivan and Biden recently "bought into" the idea that sending too much military aid to Ukraine would cause Russia to use tactical nukes against the US. This is just speculation, but maybe Sullivan is actually listening to Mr. Charap?
16/18
But there's nothing new with Russia's threatening with nuclear weapons & Putin's people have been doing it since at least 2007. Many people, including Musk & Sacks, use these empty threats as an excuse to let Russia do whatever they want in Ukraine:
To conclude, of course there should always be room for diplomacy and back-channel conversations, but one should always remember the unreliability of the Kremlin.
And just a few days ago, Peskov said that Russia and NATO are already in "direct confrontation".
In this 4th Debunk of the Day, we’ll refute an absolute classic of vatnik BS, the crown jewel of peak dishonesty: whataboutism.
Now, not everything that looks like whataboutism is wrong. Seeking consistency or comparing actions or responses is normal. 1/5
But when someone pulls some completely unrelated event, that happened to completely different people, a long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away, you know what you’re dealing with: a crass denial of the problem at hand, a bad-faith attempt to derail the topic. 2/5
Logic or chronology plays no role here, nor your opinion on these other topics. You could be the staunchest critic or supporter of these other actions thrown into the discussion, it doesn’t matter. It is irrelevant whether these other things are true or not, or bad or not. 3/5
In this 3rd Debunk of the Day, we’ll talk about… “ending” the war by surrendering or ceding territory.
Nearing four years of the 2-day “special military operation”, Russia is desperate to obtain through other means what they failed to conquer on the battlefield. 1/5
An endless army of vatniks therefore tries to demoralize both Ukrainians and supporters.
They sound noble: “anti-war” or concerned about the fate of Ukraine’s civilians, soldiers and cities. They claim that if we just stop fighting or helping, this horror would magically end. 2/5
What they never mention is… WHO started the war, WHO murders Ukrainians, WHO destroys Ukrainian cities: the same monsters they suggest Ukrainians be at the mercy of. Surrendering wouldn’t end the atrocities of the occupation, it would enable them. Surrendering wouldn’t even…3/5
In today’s Debunk of the Day (2), we’ll look at… nuclear blackmail. Vatniks love using Russia’s nuclear threats as a reason for surrendering or for not lifting a finger to help Ukraine: “see, they have nukes, we have to give them whatever they want”.
The argument is absurd: 1/5
Nuclear deterrence has been a reality for decades. Both the US and Russia have lost wars without resorting to nukes. We are not submitting to the whims of Pakistan or North Korea either. For vatniks, it’s just an insidious way of siding with Putin. 2/5
We can’t just give in to the Kremlin’s nuclear blackmail, to the threats their officials and propagandists make five times a day to scare us into letting them have something they know perfectly well is not theirs, with no limit to their appetite. 3/5 vatniksoup.com/en/nuclear-thr…
In today’s Vatnik Soup, we introduce a Ukrainian “scholar” and social media activist, Marta Havryshko (@HavryshkoMarta). She’s best known for spreading anti-Ukraine and pro-Kremlin narratives online, along with a habit of spotting neo-Nazis everywhere in Ukraine.
1/20
Marta hails from Ukraine, where she studied history at Ivan Franko National University of Lviv. She received her PhD in history in 2010. Her academic work focused on gender-based violence and wartime atrocities, including publications on sexual crimes in occupied Ukraine.
2/20
She is currently working as a visiting Assistant Professor at the Strassler Center for Holocaust & Genocide Studies at Clark University in the US. According to the center’s website, Marta teaches courses on antisemitism, racism, and gender-based violence in armed conflicts.
In today’s (first) Debunk of the Day, we’ll talk about… “realistic expectations”.
Russia has the GDP of Italy. NATO — which Russia claims to be fighting — has 20 times their GDP, and a much stronger and more modern military. 1/5
Russia’s full scale invasion was supposed to take 2 days, but we’re nearing 4 years. They’ve lost a million men. Their economy is in shambles.
And yet we're letting them set their red lines instead of massive sanctions, strong support for Ukraine, and an immediate sky shield. 2/5
Russia thought their war was “realistic” because we’d let them get away with it. It wouldn’t be “realistic” to invade a European nation and redraw borders by force if the West had a strong and united response.
What’s “realistic” is what public opinion tolerates and accepts. 3/5
In this first (and maybe last?) Basiji Soup, we’ll look at… the Islamic Republic of Iran, its disinformation operations, its hypocrisy, how it sells its atrocities as virtue and its repression as morality, how it serves the Kremlin, and the current protests against it.
1/20
Basijis are members of the most fanatical part of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC). In a broader sense: Iranian regime loyalists & propagandists. They may be fewer than vatniks or wumaos, but the goal is the same: destabilize the West to protect a brutal regime.
2/20
The regime oppressing Iran is a “theocratic” authoritarian state around a “Supreme Leader” hiding behind religion to justify its crimes: censorship, repression, executions, torture and terror — similar to Russia and its “holy war” against Ukraine.