1/ Hypothetical Mid-War 2024 Election Results in Ukraine 🗳️

Who would have won? These polls have the answer.

And it's not always Zelensky (👀Zaluzhnyi).

Data in the thread 🧵⤵️ 2/ SOCIS polled Ukrainians 2x in 2024 (in Mar/Dec), and in the reports, we see 3 key results.

First, a large majority of Ukrainians do not support holding elections during martial law (✅) but more interestingly, Zelensky wins or loses depending on the opponent.

According to the results, 4-star Ukrainian general and diplomat Zaluzhnyi beats Zelensky (68% to 32% in the 2nd round) in both polls.

And Zelensky beats Poroshenko (67% to 33% in the 2nd round), if Zaluzhnyi does not participate.

.@McFaul thank you for hosting the event, good to see you speak in person. The question period was too short!

❎ I know this was done with no ill intent, but I would ask that you try to avoid promoting the idea that Ukrainians think Russians have some “genetic flaw.” This was very unhelpful to the discourse and we do not believe that. Please do not seed fringe parts of the discourse into the mainstream. Not only does it drive allied liberal Russians and Ukrainians apart, but it felt like you created a strawman that @vkaramurza immediately latched onto.

There are legitimate criticisms of Russia having a long cultural history of imperialism and this type of talk stifles those discussions. It is actually a soft form of the propaganda that the Kremlin has pushed (that Ukrainians are irredeemable nazis, thus Russia’s aggression is justified).

This was brought up TWICE during the conversation but specifically seeded by you unnecessarily. It’s too easy for people to cling to statements like this.

Thank you. 🙇‍♂️ ❎ The second strawman I heard was the talk about breaking Russia into parts by @vkaramurza as if it’s the only other option to supporting bringing Russia back into the rule-based order. This is an unrealistic thing to discuss given the American establishment’s view on proliferation of nuclear material in the former Soviet Union. They will never let Russia Balkanize like Yugoslavia. And it is an explicit American policy to try to have just one nuclear power in Eurasia, as written by Ash Carter and implemented in the 90’s. This subject seems like it was just there as a rhetorical tool to impose some false dichotomy.

The liberation of Kherson, as much as the defence of Kyiv and Kharkiv, were what saved Ukraine.

Russia wanted a landbridge to Transnistria. A landlocked Ukraine would have eventually fell to Russian imperialism as the position was indefensible.

Wargaming Russia's Military Options in Ukraine (2015, Stratfor):
m.youtube.com/watch?v=LCMn-W…

@George_Friedman @PeterZeihan Even if we hit the worst case scenario and ALL of Eastern Ukraine was occupied, the Dnipro River is a very strong line of defence for what would have been a second line of defence. This line is as strong as anything else we currently have in the east.

1/ Mike Waltz (R-FL) is also being considered for the Sec of Def position. He shared his personal views on Ukraine on Oct 18, 2024

Imo, he more closely aligns with Trump’s current position and is more likely to be selected over Mike Rogers because of that

His key points (1/2):

- Ukraine asked for weapons before the invasion, to deter Russia

- Biden’s admin was trying to de-escalate with Russia and not give Putin “an excuse to invade”, thus refused to provide weapons

- He criticized Biden’s statement that the U.S. is not sure how it would respond to a “minor incursions” in Ukraine, and Biden lifting sanctions on Nord Stream + the Afghanistan withdrawal

- He compared Afghanistan and Ukraine, the idea of spending money, without a clear idea of what success looks like

- He states that liberating all of Ukraine including Crimea is “not realistic”

- The interviewer comments that the presidential drawdown authority running out in a few months

- Mike further criticizes Biden for waiting so long to make an oval address to explain the purpose of the war

- He complaints about how the Europeans in Afghanistan weren’t useful because the Western European capitals (German, French) restrained their soldier’s operations, only allowing them to shoot if shot at.

- He says this is the largest European land war since WW2, calling out some allies who are stepping up (Poles, Baltics, Romanians, British really contributing). But the largest economies like Germany, Italy, France, Spain, are still not living up to their bare minimum 2% commitment

- He says the burden sharing should be disproportionate on the European side of the ledger. Until we force those tough conversations to happen, [Western Europe] is going to keep getting away with it

- France has an economy 4x the size of Polands, but is contributing 1/4th

- Criticism of the German tanks sent to Ukraine, and a discussion of the replacement valuations on the equipment (vs the actual value). He doesn’t seem to believe Germany is being honest about the value of their contributions 2/ The discussion shifts to Russia’s allies, North Korea, Kursk, and Iran + China more overtly supplying Russia.

Key Points (2/2):

- Re: Iran: China provides cash by buying illicit Iranian oil. He mentions Trump’s secondary sanctions threats to China - not allowing them to buy American oil if they buy Iranian oil. He doesn’t mention anything about secondary sanctions on Russia.

- Hezbollah and the Houthis apparently complained that they were out of cash to pay their fighters while under pressure from Trump. The belief is that internal uprisings may occur inside Iran if this is done again.

- he recommends going back to max pressure, drying the cash up, lifting American LNG bans and flooding the global market with oil. Trying to get the price down to $50/barrel, undermining the Iranian and Russian economies

- He complains that the U.S. is still buying Uranium for America’s nuclear industry from Russia, instead of opening more domestic mines and dealing with the legal environmental obstacles

- He mentions there’s not a single gas terminal allowed on the West Coast because of regulation (leaving East Asian countries with no choice but to buy Russian gas because we can’t export to them easily).

Mike Rogers (R-Ala.) who is being considered to lead the DoD, is a stalwart supporter of Ukraine. Here he is countering disinfo of misuse of military aid and speaking to how most the funds go to high-skilled jobs across America. Also, that it sends a signal to the CCP / China.

“I want to assure my colleagues that there has been no evidence of diversion of weapons provided to Ukraine, or any other assistance.

What most folks don’t realize is that the money DoD is spending on Ukraine is actually going towards creating high-skilled, good-paying jobs right here at home.

…

These includes jobs AZ to build stingers and javelins. Jobs in PA, OH, IA, MO to build ammunition. Jobs in TX, FL, AL to build Patriot missiles… Weapons factories in TN, FL, VA, WV.

Equally important to deterring China is standing by our commitment to Ukraine. Walking away sends the wrong signals to President Xi, and the Chinese Communist Party.

Let’s quickly come to a compromise that secures our border and keeps our commitment to Ukraine.” Regarding any confusion about two different people with the name Mike Rogers, Fox did confirm it was Mike Rogers from Alabama.

He can be found here: @RepMikeRogersAL

foxnews.com/politics/us-re…

Hot Take:

Ukraine should NOT help Moldova liberate Transnistria

If they do, the EU will bring Moldova in as an unoccupied nation, then Germany will create fake excuses for why Ukraine can’t join until fully de-occupied or until it accepts Russian annexation of occupied Ukraine If the EU lets in Moldova while partially occupied, Ukraine can enter the EU partially occupied

If Moldova enters the EU sans-Ukraine, the incentive for Romania to assist Ukraine may decrease and they may disengage

Ukraine should strategically try to enter the EU side-by-side with Moldova

en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romanian_…

1/ 🇺🇸America will never let 🇷🇺Russia fully lose, because of this one critical point:

They dread a repeat of the 1991 Soviet disintegration, with multiple new nuclear successor states emerging out of a post-Putin Russia (like the 4x that came out of the Soviet Union's collapse).

(Excerpt from page 108 of Soviet Nuclear Fusion by Ash Carter) 2/ This conflict of interest between Washington vs Central Europe creates a structural tension that will not subside no matter who wins any election.

1/ Published Feb 9, 2024, RAND basically made the case that it's in US interest to appease Russia after the war.

If I'm reading this right, this likely means that both Trump and Harris would seek a detente.

In my opinion, Trump likely at the start of 2025, and Harris by the start of 2026 after a surge of weaponry to Ukraine.

rand.org/pubs/research_…

rand.org/content/dam/ra… 2/ The study starts by creating a 4 axis grid. On one axis, we have a war outcome (favourable vs unfavourable). Realistically, it seems as though we're headed towards the "less favorable war" outcome under current policy decisions by Biden, though that can be changed under Harris with an influx of aid and removal of restrictions.

Outright victory or defeat is excluded from the study as less likely.

1/ Soviet Nuclear Fission: Control of the Nuclear Arsenal in a Disintegrating Soviet Union

➡️A must-read, pivotal 1991 Harvard study by Obama’s future Secretary of Defence that led to the US pursuing its Russia-first nuclear strategy at the expense of Ukraine

I've highlighted some key points in this thread 🧵

Created by a team of Harvard analysts, and led by Ash Carter, Soviet Nuclear Fission defined America’s strategy in 1991 and was a huge contributor to the pressure Ukraine received from the Nunn-Lugar initiative to disarm.

It lays out the American hierarchy of goals in dealing with a collapsing Soviet Union and its nuclear arsenal.

Excerpts:
⚠️1⃣"...an increased risk of conventional conflict in Eurasia is... an acceptable price to pay for elimination of the major nuclear threat to the United States."

⚠️2⃣"…the United States should prefer that the Soviet nuclear complex remain firmly in Moscow’s hands…”

⚠️3⃣“…it involves the championing of Moscow’s preservation of nuclear superpower status.”

⚠️4⃣"...what is preferable for the United States may not be so attractive in Warsaw or Kiev."

✅5⃣“It could be in the U.S. interest to have Moscow worried about the nuclear threat from the Ukraine.”

⚠️6⃣“Threaten to withhold recognition and aid unless non-nuclear status is assured.”

⚠️7⃣“The United States could...discourage the inclusion of now-sovereign republics in international institutions such as the UN.”

✅8⃣“If the Ukraine exercises the nuclear option… would have a reasonable prospect of… establishing a fairly stable deterrent relationship with Moscow; it can be imagined as a potential medium nuclear power along the lines of Britain and France.”

✅9⃣“It is distinctly possible that the United States will need to cope with outcomes it does not prefer but cannot prevent… Successor state proliferation may occur.” 2/ Ash Carter

Ash Carter was the director of the Center for Science and International Affairs (CSIA) at Harvard University's John F. Kennedy School of Government, where he was also a professor.

He later became assistant secretary of defense for international security policy under President Bill Clinton where he was put in place to work on nuclear non-proliferation programs that removed nuclear weapons from Ukraine, Kazakhstan and Belarus.

He later became Obama’s Defense Secretary in 2015.

.@Noahpinion is consistently negative about Ukraine's nuclear capability, while promoting about Japan, South Korea, Taiwan and Poland getting a deterrent.

Meanwhile, none of those 4 countries have domestic Uranium reserves (according to ChatGPT) nor have they had or maintained nuclear weapons in the past. Here's the percent of their energy that comes from nuclear. Ukraine is at twice the levels of South Korea, even in 2023.
ourworldindata.org/nuclear-energy

𝟭/𝟭𝟬

𝗧𝗵𝗲 𝗖𝗮𝘀𝗲 𝗳𝗼𝗿 𝗮 𝗨𝗸𝗿𝗮𝗶𝗻𝗶𝗮𝗻 𝗡𝘂𝗰𝗹𝗲𝗮𝗿 𝗗𝗲𝘁𝗲𝗿𝗿𝗲𝗻𝘁 (𝟮𝟬𝟮𝟰)

I've decided to rock the boat a bit and put forward some reasoning for why I think Ukraine should begin its nuclear program if Trump is elected on Nov 5, 2024, and why it is the most rational thing for a Ukrainian leader to do if they wanted to save Ukrainian lives this coming century.

Note that the urgency would be reduced if Harris wins the election, proves herself to have a more assertive policy towards Russia than Biden has, and is able to bring Ukraine into NATO through diplomacy (staving off the third Russian-Ukrainian war). 𝟮/𝟭𝟬

𝗧𝗿𝘂𝗺𝗽, 𝗡𝗔𝗧𝗢 𝗩𝗲𝘁𝗼𝗲𝘀 & 𝗪𝗶𝘁𝗵𝗱𝗿𝗮𝘄𝗮𝗹 𝗼𝗳 𝗦𝘂𝗽𝗽𝗼𝗿𝘁

Trump will almost certainly block NATO entry for Ukraine and will pull most military aid (perhaps with the exception of loans that force Ukraine to buy American arms at unaffordable prices for Ukraine and lead to them losing the war by having to spend more than Russia, for less materiel).

NATO entry requires unanimous approval. Even if Biden was in support, with many countries such as Hungary opposed, it would be very difficult to get all these countries into alignment. US pressure is necessary to make that happen, as it would be the American nuclear umbrella protecting Ukraine and its regional allies.

We have already seen surveys of what European countries would do when America pulls back. And many of them would pull back as well. If you combine the loss of American arms support for Ukraine alongside a potential cascading partial decline of European support, we could see a 50% - 60% decline in support for Ukraine from 2025 onwards.

This makes continuing a conventional conflict very difficult for Ukraine, the end-game of which may be a pyrrhic victory for Russia.

This puts Ukraine into a position where (1) NATO entry is off the table, and (2) maintaining status quo has a time limit (depending on how long their stockpiles take to get depleted with less equipment coming into Ukraine than it would be expending).

Just when you thought it couldn’t get any worse, here’s Biden personally lobbying to disarm Ukraine on Nov 25, 1991, just as they become independent - to save Russia the headache.

> “The Soviet desire to get US support to destroy these weapons is not all because they worry they will be used against the United States. They worry they will be used against them (Russia).

> The Ukraine has a significant number of nuclear warheads on their landmass. They declare independence tomorrow, mr. president. They nationalize, in effect, all those weapons that are now on their territory.

> They become an INSTANT nuclear power, mr. president. With a government, we know naught of, in circumstances we cannot contemplate, and, for the Russian republic… a new dimension with which they have to deal.” This was done with the knowledge that Russian nationalist leaders were already threatening the Baltics, Kazakhstan and Ukraine with military action.

2004: “Following the nullification of the initial presidential elections by the Ukrainian Supreme Court and several days of demonstrations in the streets, the two presidential candidates in Ukraine participated in a televised debate: the current Prime Minister Viktor Yanukovych, and opposition leader Viktor Yushchenko.”

c-span.org/video/?184927-… > On Dec 3, the Supreme Court of Ukraine declared the results of the Nov 21, 2004 run-off ballot invalid and ordered a repeat of the 2nd-round ballot.

> The re-run ballot was held on December 26. Viktor Yushchenko was declared the winner with 53% of the vote to Yanukovych's 44%

FEB 6, 1994 Criticism in the Ukrainian parliament about Kravchuk signing the NPT.

“How would we guarantee that Russia is going to call back their pretensions about Crimea, about Sevastopol.”

Q&A was cut after this Q was asked. As we now know, signing the NPT cost Ukraine Crimea Remember, not everyone was stupid enough to think that it was a good idea to get rid of your nuclear deterrent while your historical adversary, occupier, & genocidal aggressor retained theirs.

This was independent Ukraine’s first surrender.

Photo credit:
rferl.org/a/the-destruct…

1/ ‘𝗥𝘂𝘀𝘀𝗶𝗮𝗻𝘀 𝗮𝘁 𝗪𝗮𝗿’ 𝗱𝗶𝗿𝗲𝗰𝘁𝗼𝗿 𝘀𝗽𝗼𝘁𝘁𝗲𝗱 𝗶𝗻 𝗗𝗼𝗻𝗲𝘁𝘀𝗸 𝗶𝗻 𝟮𝟬𝟭𝟰

I've uncovered footage of Anastasia Trofimova in occupied Ukraine on ~Dec 10, 2014 with Elizaveta Glinka (“Doctor Liza”)

According to the annotations, she’s seen at the Children’s Regional Hospital of Donetsk approx. 3 mo after she supposedly started work at RTD

Given the controversy thus far, I think this piece of context is in the public interest to know

Komsomolskaya Pravda (KP) Clip (scroll down):


KP Photo:


Channel 1 Russia Clip:
kp.ru/daily/26317/31…
kpmedia.ru/product/2499229
1tv.ru/news/2014-12-1… 2/ ⚠️ Warning / Disclaimer ⚠️

Some of the cited info comes from Russian state media & may be seeded with war propaganda. 2014 was filled with lies aired by Russia to justify their actions.

E.g., in July 2014, Channel One Russia promoted the anti-Ukrainian lie of UA soldiers crucifying a 3-y.o. boy - a lie started by Aleksander Dugin, which was later refuted and retracted by the network.

You’ll notice Channel One Russia is present both in Donetsk and Moscow.



en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crucified…
ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D0%A0%D0…

1/ Parallel Documentaries: A Tale of Two Films
Russians at War (2024) & Propaganda Brigade (2024)
Русские на войне & Агитбригада

Today I'd like to discuss the parallels between two documentaries, both filmed in 2023 by two former colleagues at RTD (Trofimova & Yakovleva).

Propaganda Brigade (A.K.A. Pep Squad):



Russians at War Trailer:
en.rtdoc.tv/films/1025-pep…
archive.is/crlNW

2/ Both were filmed in occupied Ukraine in 2023 - from the Russian perspective.

One filmed by Trofimova, the other by Yakovleva (Trofimova’s former boss at RTD for 6 years who is listed in many of her film credits as the head of RTD). They just missed each other in occupied Ukraine by about 3 months, but possibly overlapped in Moscow.

One film was screened in the West. The other was screened across Russia.

Both seem to have similar goals - getting their respective audiences to sympathize with Russian troops in occupied Ukraine - for different reasons.

Trofimova's message is that we should "stop the war" (Western-targeted messaging), and her film helps accomplish this by humanizing the Russian soldiers & making her audience feel guilty, thus undermining support for Ukraine.

Where as Yakovleva's film concludes a different solution to attain peace, i.e., that "we need to unite & achieve victory" (Russian-targeted messaging). Her film helps accomplish this by emotionally connecting people in Moscow and far away regions to those fighting in occupied Ukraine. This propaganda strategy is meant to help increase willingness to mobilize, volunteer rates, as well as make non-participatory Russians feel guilty for not doing their part / sacrificing.

Both narrative strategies benefit Russia in their respective target markets.

RT: "The TIFF film festival in Toronto cited security threats from Ukrainian activists"

TIFF helped write this headline.

They were willing participants in this charade. There was absolutely no violence at what was 2x peaceful protests. The cancellation of the film itself has become the propaganda.

@TIFF_NET holds responsibility for their actions and needs to publicize why they made such an extreme claim as the reason they paused the film's screenings, or their leadership needs to step down.

Where is the accountability.

archive.is/mX6MY By making such an aggressive claim in their declaration, they handed over the ammunition to create this propaganda against the Ukrainian community. And it has been spread across the internet now.

The Russian Federation’s “ministry of culture” seems to have some ties to TIFF.

2021: “In recent years, Russian cinematography has overwhelmed the international film scene with its raw energy and great potential. From art-house films to mainstream blockbusters, beautifully shot contemporary feature films and series provide spectacular glimpses into the essence of Russian culture. In this session you will learn that Russian content is extremely promising and relevant. RCW by Roskino will showcase the trailers of 20 projects offered by production, distribution, and sales companies representing Russia at the TIFF Industry Conference.”

2020:

2021:

tiff.net/events/industr…
tiff.net/events/spotlig…
roskino.org/tiff#!/tab/354…

More confirmation that ROSKINO is affiliated with the Russian ministry of culture:

roskino.org/eng/keybuyers

1/ War Propaganda, "Art" Festivals & Documentaries

Today, I'd like to draw a parallel between RT's film festival, TIFF & the Venice Biennale.

Also, I have upped the # of RT-affiliated* films Trofimova has worked on from 11 -> 13, as I found +2 from 2020.
2/ Russia is currently hosting a war-propaganda documentary festival called:

"RT.Doc: Time of Our Heroes"



Among the festival's past speakers is Vladimir Solovyov and Margarita Simonyan (Editor-in-chief of RT)rtfestival.ru
archive.is/81rEM

I was wrong. Anastasia Trofimova doesn't just have 4 documentaries funded by RT. She has at least eleven. Her entire career has been working with RT.

This implies repeat contact with Russian state media.

RT Filmography w/ links ⬇️
Trofimova's RT funded films:

• 2015, Syria: Her War: Women vs. ISIS
• 2015, Iraq: Victims of ISIS
• 2015 (?), Lebanon: Generation Standstill
• 2017, Congo: Congo, my precious
• 2017, Syria: The Road to Raqqa
• 2018, Iraq: Iraqi Safe House
• 2018, Russia: Champions of the Spirit
• 2018, Iraq: Mosul Between War and Peace
• 2019, Iraq: Rivers of Discord: Iraq’s Water Crisis
• 2019, Iraq: Sons of the Graveyard
• 2020, Russia: ENSLAVED (Рабство: XXI век)

Then she makes this movie on occupied Ukrainian territory without the permission of Ukraine:

• Ukraine, 2024 (?): Russians at War

Website: trofimova.works/films

1 trofimova.works/her-war
2 trofimova.works/victims
3 trofimova.works/generation
4 trofimova.works/congo
5 trofimova.works/road-raqqa
6 trofimova.works/iraqi-safe-hou…
7 trofimova.works/champions
8 trofimova.works/mosul
9 trofimova.works/rivers
10 trofimova.works/sons
11 trofimova.works/enslaved

IMDB:
1 imdb.com/title/tt722293…
2 imdb.com/title/tt522768…
3 N/A
4 imdb.com/title/tt722298…
5 imdb.com/title/tt742876…
6 imdb.com/title/tt801165…
7 imdb.com/title/tt875944…
8 imdb.com/title/tt903099…
9 imdb.com/title/tt108315…
10 imdb.com/title/tt120725…
11 N/A

Vimeo: vimeo.com/user168200233

1 vimeo.com/687494926
2 vimeo.com/687496647
3 vimeo.com/701440058
4 vimeo.com/687511037
5 vimeo.com/691071069
6 vimeo.com/691072853
7 vimeo.com/691072679
8 vimeo.com/688718931
9 vimeo.com/700981641
10 vimeo.com/700967676
11 vimeo.com/693832288

1/ Quick comparison of which 🇺🇸 Presidents visited Eastern Europe (during their term) after the USSR fell on Dec 26, 1991.

There was a 14 year gap from 2008-2022:
✖️Obama (visited RU)
✖️Trump

No one visited 🇺🇦 after Russia's invasion in 2014 until 2023 (✔️Biden)

See🧵below⬇️ 2/ George H. W. Bush
🇺🇦 1991
🇷🇺 1991, 1993
🇵🇱 1992

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_i…