Yes, you read that correctly. At least, that’s the plan as of this moment. With Vladimir Putin and Donald Trump, however, one can never be certain of anything until it actually happens.

The details are being fed to the media in bits and pieces from both sides; but as things now stand, a meeting is set for next Friday, August 15th, somewhere in Alaska, with a final itinerary yet to be ironed out.

My first thought upon reading about this development was of the outstanding ICC criminal warrant against Putin charging him with war crimes; so I did a little fact-checking. I was most surprised to learn that, although the U.S. did sign the Rome Statute that created the International Criminal Court in 2000, we never ratified it, and formally withdrew in 2002 over concerns that it would have left U.S. citizens — and specifically our military deployed overseas — vulnerable to political prosecution by other countries.

So the U.S. is not obligated to act on the ICC warrant, and Putin is free to come to the U.S. without worrying about being arrested.

And what a propaganda coup this is for him — not only being at the big kids’ table again, but on American soil to boot. The only thing better would have been an invitation to a state dinner at the White House . . . but maybe next year.

In the meantime, we have learned that Wednesday’s meeting between Putin and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff resulted in “a sweeping proposal [from Russia] for a cease-fire in Ukraine, demanding major territorial concessions by Kyiv and a push for global recognition of its claims in exchange for a halt to the fighting.” [Bojan Pancevski, Alexander Ward and Robbie Gramer, The Wall Street Journal, August 8, 2025.]

Putin is said to have told Witkoff he would agree to a complete ceasefire in return for Ukraine’s withdrawal of its forces from all of its eastern Donetsk region, leaving Russia in control of Donetsk, Luhansk, and the Crimean Peninsula. No decisive information has been provided as to the two other regions partially controlled by Russia — Kherson and Zaporizhzhia — which geographically lie, side by side, between Donetsk and Crimea.

Neither was any indication given as to the status of Russia’s other earlier demands, which included Ukraine’s giving up its ambition of joining NATO, agreeing to limit its military capabilities, and calling for new elections.

Nor has there been a statement as to any further concessions, other than the ceasefire, on Russia’s part.

*. *. *

I’m sure you’re familiar with that creepy feeling you get when you know something is amiss but you can’t quite put your finger on it. For me, it manifests as a tingling sensation that starts somewhere in the pit of my stomach, works its way upward to my chest, and hovers there — unshakable — like an Alfred Hitchcock movie, waiting for the psycho with the knife to pull aside the shower curtain.

And that’s what I’m experiencing now: something doesn’t feel right. What does Vladimir Putin have up his sleeve that he’s been hiding and now decided to spring on us? For that matter, why is Trump suddenly so optimistic? What has he offered or suggested to Putin that we — and, more importantly, Ukraine — aren’t going to like?

Brushing aside the expiration of his Friday deadline, Trump told the media on Friday that “It’s going to be up to him [Putin]. We’re going to see what he has to say.” He added that he, Trump, is close to reaching a peace deal between Russia and Ukraine, but that it is “very complicated. . . We’re going to get some back; there will be some switched.” [Sarah Ewall-Wice, The Daily Beast, August 8, 2025.]

And he said further: “I think we’re getting very close. You’re looking at territory that’s been fought over for three and a half years. There’ll be some swapping of territories to the betterment of both.” [Id.]

“Swapping of territories”? “To the betterment of both”? What does that imply? Is Russia going to offer Ukraine some sort of compensation for stealing its rich farmlands, valuable mining regions, and strategic Black Sea territories — say, a few thousand square miles of frozen Siberian tundra? Or will Putin offer to back out of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia . . . for now?

But regardless of what is offered, how can this conflict possibly be resolved to the “betterment” of Ukraine, when so much of it has already been decimated by three and a half years of relentless bombardment, and still more of it may simply be taken away?

What guarantees will Ukraine have against a future invasion? Putin’s word is meaningless.

And what sort of agreement will resurrect the thousands upon thousands of lives lost, or repair those that have been irreparably shattered?

No matter how hard you try, you can’t un-ring a bell.

*. *. *

And one other niggling little thought won’t go away, though it’s admittedly an odd one: Why suddenly choose to meet in Alaska, instead of Turkey or the Middle East? The Kremlin said the location is “quite logical” in view of Alaska’s relative proximity to Russia. Well, yes . . . if you live in Chukotka. But from Moscow, in western Russia, to the far east coast is a time difference of 11 hours.

So again, why Alaska? Is Putin planning to lay claim to our 49th state as well, reminding Trump that Alaskan territory — like Ukraine — was once part of the Russian Empire?

Remember what Putin recently said: “Wherever a Russian soldier sets foot, that’s ours.”

We might want to make sure that no one in his entourage holds a military rank.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
8/9/25

It’s evening in Moscow, mid-afternoon in Washington. And still there is no final word from the White House of concrete action on Donald Trump’s threatened secondary sanctions against Russia in the absence of any indication from Vladimir Putin of a desire to end to the war in Ukraine.

Following Wednesday’s meeting in Moscow between Putin and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, Trump spoke of the likelihood of a meeting between himself and Putin, possibly within the next week, to be followed by a three-way meeting to include Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. But hours later, when asked whether Putin would have to agree to meet with Zelensky as a pre-condition to an initial meeting with Trump, Trump replied:

“No, he doesn’t. They would like to meet with me, and I’ll do whatever I can to stop the killing.” [Shannon K. Kingston, Chris Boccia and Emily Chang, ABC News, August 8, 2025.]

According to former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor, if Trump and Putin meet with no concessions on Putin’s part, and without any real progress toward a resolution of the conflict, “It’s only an achievement for Putin. I don’t think it’s an achievement for the West, for the United States, for President Trump. Putin wants to be back as a player. He wants to . . . get out of this isolation. He wants to get out of being the pariah.” [Id.]

And Maria Snegovaya, a senior fellow at the Center for Strategic and International Studies (CSIS), said that a meeting with Trump would mark “the end of diplomatic isolation for Putin. He’s meeting potentially the most powerful presence in the world without necessarily giving any serious concessions or anything at all to the White House.” [Id.]

So it’s beginning to look as though Putin has done it again: bought further time for himself by offering to meet one-on-one with Trump — a tactic that would only benefit Putin by returning him to the world stage as an equal, rather than a political outcast . . . and at the same time offer him the forum he desires to reiterate his outrageous conditions for a peaceful settlement.

And Trump seems to have hesitated.

But the day isn’t over yet.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
8/8/25

It was a sad day, but it was the best solution to an agonizing, two-year-long struggle to find the truth and bring an end to what had become known simply as “Watergate.”

Trying to follow the Byzantine developments in a criminal conspiracy that began in June of 1972 with a break-in at Democratic National Committee (DNC) headquarters in Washington’s Watergate complex quickly became a daily pastime for the vast majority of adults around the world.

It was the worst scandal the U.S. government had ever seen, and it brought down the White House. Richard Nixon was impeached by Congress, and resigned shortly thereafter.

Speaking at the White House on August 8th, he addressed the American public:

“By taking this action, I hope that I will have hastened the start of the process of healing which is so desperately needed in America.” [“This Day In History,” History.com, August 8, 2025.]

For two years, Nixon had lied, tried (mostly unsuccessfully) to bully members of his administration into becoming part of the cover-up, and fought to maintain his credibility with the American people. But he failed, because the members of Congress and of the Justice Department did their jobs, and refused to be coerced.

In that respect, August 8, 1974, was a very good day for America . . . and for democracy.

Enough said.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
8/8/25

My brain is fried,
Feels like it died;
All cogent thoughts have fled.

I cannot write,
My efforts bite;
My mind has gone to bed.

I thought perhaps
A little nap
Would surely do the trick,

But woe is me,
’Twas not to be;
My candle’s lost its wick.

The news is bleak,
Another week
Of Putin, Xi and Trump.

I’ve had enough
Of all their stuff …
Been sitting like a lump.

And so I think
I’ll have a drink
Of something alcoholic,

And watch a flick.
No, nothing sick …
Perhaps, instead, bucolic.

I’ll lose myself
In something else
Besides the daily news.

I hope, my dear,
You’ll see it clear
My absence to excuse.

And by the morn,
I’ll be reborn,
No longer in a fog,

Once more opining,
And sometimes whining,
To bring you this, my blog.

*. *. *

In the meantime . . .
Good night, and sweet dreams.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
8/8/25

Three meetings between delegations from Moscow and Washington between February and June resulted in prisoner exchanges, but failed to bring a ceasefire in Ukraine any closer. Now, Donald Trump hopes that a face-to-face meeting between himself and Vladimir Putin will turn the tide.

But will it?

In June, at the meeting in Istanbul, the Kremlin presented its memorandum of demands for a “final settlement,” which were unchanged from previous statements: Ukraine’s ceding to Russia the regions of Crimea, Donetsk, Luhansk, Kherson and Zaporizhzhia; agreeing to accept a position of neutrality; giving up its long-stated goal of membership in NATO; rejecting foreign military involvement; and calling for new elections. In other words, Ukraine would become a shrunken, toothless nonentity, defenseless and completely vulnerable to Russia’s future goal of reabsorbing the former Soviet republic into Putin’s new Russian Empire.

And those demands have remained unchanged, as reiterated numerous times by Putin himself (as recently as last week) and confirmed by Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, Foreign Minister Sergey Lavrov, and the Russian Security Council’s notoriously hot-headed Dmitry Medvedev.

According to Russian political analyst Tatiana Stanovaya:

“The Russian side can frame this in a dozen different ways, creating the impression that Moscow is open to concessions and serious negotiation. But the core position remains unchanged: Russia wants Kyiv to surrender.” [Laura Gozzi and Vitaliy Shevchenko, BBC, August 7, 2025.]

So why should we expect a different result this time? Does Trump know something — perhaps gleaned from one of his phone calls with Putin — that he hasn’t revealed? Is Putin at last willing to offer a compromise on one or more of his demands? Or is he simply buying time, as he has done so often in the past, in order to continue his brutal attacks on Ukraine until total surrender becomes their only option?

Following Wednesday’s meeting in Moscow between Putin and U.S. envoy Steve Witkoff, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said that Washington now has a “better understanding of the conditions under which Russia would be prepared to end the war.” [Id.]

But what does that mean?

At this point, only one man knows for sure.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
8/7/25

The things I was going to do on Wednesday:

> Laundry
> Break down boxes for recycling
> Clean inside of microwave
> Organize photos into folders on iPhone
> Post an article on my blog

The things I actually got done on Wednesday:

> Posted an article on my blog

*. *. *

Blame it on my dreams. They’re always weird, but Tuesday night’s were so peculiar, and so detailed in their clarity, that I spent the better part of yesterday trying to analyze them.

Or blame it on the fact that the daily news was, as usual, so depressing and so repetitive that I just didn’t feel like facing it.

So I’m going to turn in early (it’s slightly after midnight Thursday, which is early for me), see what my dream world has in store for me tonight, and hope for a happy headline or two when I wake up.

But before I do, just a quick update on my favorite subject: the U.S.-Russia-Ukraine situation.

Following yesterday’s meeting between White House envoy Steve Witkoff and Vladimir Putin in Moscow, Trump’s press secretary, Karoline Leavitt, issued a statement today saying that the Russians “expressed their desire to meet with President Trump, and the President is open to meeting with both President Putin and President Zelenskyy.” [RFE/RL, August 6, 2025.]

Trump’s plan is to meet with Putin as early as next week at an as-yet-unspecified location, and to schedule a three-way meeting — for himself, Putin and Ukrainian President Zelensky — thereafter.

Yeah . . . good luck with that one. Putin has thus far refused to meet with Zelensky, because doing so would be tantamount to acknowledging Zelensky’s legitimacy as president.

And John Hardie, Deputy Director of the Russia Program at the Foundation for Defense of Democracies, issued this caution:

“We’ve kind of seen this movie before where Trump will threaten economic punishment if a deal isn’t made by a certain deadline, and then the Russians kind of offer some empty promise or meaningless talks, and the can gets kicked down the road. I would hope that is not going to be the case here.” [Id.]

Well, if it does turn out to be the case — again — then I know whose can I’d like to see kicked down the road. (Don’t ask.)

But we’ll see what happens in the next few days. In the meantime, good night (or good morning), and pleasant dreams.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
8/7/25

Trump said he could end Putin’s war against Ukraine within 24 hours of taking office in January. The world laughed at the absurdity of his claim.

The world was right.

Six months — and thousands of casualties — later, Russia’s onslaught continues to escalate.

Trump threatened; Putin shrugged. The U.S. and its NATO allies issued crippling sanctions against Russia; Russia adapted. China and India helped picked up the economic slack in Russia; Trump responded with more sanctions.

Sanctions, sanctions, sanctions. What else could we do?

Talks were held, three times, on neutral territory in Istanbul; Trump’s envoy made two trips to Moscow; Putin still refused to compromise on his demands, which would in effect leave Ukraine weak, vulnerable, and an easy target for future invasion. Trump gave him more time. The attacks increased.

Then Dmitry Medvedev inserted himself into the picture, tossing out the “N” word — the nuclear option. And everyone inhaled, held their collective breath.

Now what?

Trump responded angrily, and rightly so. This time Putin listened, advised caution; Medvedev became silent; Trump issued sanctions against India, threatened the same against China.

But Russia announced that it no longer considers itself bound by its self-imposed moratorium on deployment of nuclear-capable intermediate range missiles, citing U.S. and allied efforts to develop similar weapons for deployment in Europe and elsewhere.

Russia’s Foreign Ministry said that such efforts by the U.S. and others create a “direct threat to the security of our country [and carry] significant harmful consequences for regional and global stability, including a dangerous escalation of tensions between nuclear powers.” [Associated Press, August 5, 2025.]

And Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov, when asked where and when Russia might deploy its intermediate-range weapons, replied that it’s not something to be announced in advance, saying:

“Russia no longer has any limitations, Russia no longer considers itself to be constrained by anything. Therefore Russia believes it has the right to take respective steps if necessary.” [Id.]

Welcome back to 1962.

Yesterday, envoy Witkoff headed for Moscow for the third time and met with Putin for about three hours. Trump said the meeting was “highly productive” and represented “great progress” toward a settlement of the conflict in Ukraine.

“Everyone agrees this War must come to a close, and we will work towards that in the days and weeks to come,” Trump wrote on social media. But he added that there would not be a ceasefire by his deadline of Friday, August 8th. No explanation was given. [Matthew Luxmoore, Alexander Ward and Alex Leary, The Wall Street Journal, August 6, 2025.]

Later today, a senior U.S. administration official said that Trump intends to meet soon with Putin, based on an offer allegedly made by Russia during Witkoff’s visit. Again, no details were available. [Id.]

*. *. *

To those of us who lived through it, the memories of those days of nuclear brinkmanship are all too fresh. And a repeat performance is the last thing the world needs. In the ‘60s, cooler heads prevailed, and the world was saved from annihilation.

Today, there are no cooler heads.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
8/6/25

First, let’s get the terminology straight: Either “platypuses” or “platypi” is a permissible plural of “platypus.” My personal preference is platypi, because it is so perfectly pretentious and peculiar.

Multiples of platypi are referred to as a “paddle.” This is not a reference to its nose/beak/snout — or whatever that particular protuberance is called. The fact is, a group of the adorably ugly little critters constitute a paddle of platypi.

And, just for fun — or your next game of Animals of Australia Trivia — a baby platypus is called either a platypup or a puggle. So a whole platoon of them would be . . . sorry . . . a Perfectly Precious Paddle of Platypus Puggles.

*. *. *

Thus ends our zoology lesson for today . . . and hopefully, also the abundance of alliterations. Now, about the Prime Minister . . .

That would, of course, be the late, great, and sometimes quirky Sir Winston Churchill. Seriously . . . what other PM would be the principal protagonist (sorry) in a tale about “an egg-laying mammal with the face and feet of a duck, an otter-shaped body and a beaver-inspired tail”? [Tiffanie Turnbull, BBC News, August 3, 2025.]

It seems that Sir Winston, in addition to big, smelly cigars, had an affinity for animals, both domestic and exotic. And in 1943, as World War II raged and crept ever closer to the shores of Australia, that nation’s Foreign Minister, H.V. “Doc” Evatt — in desperate need of support from the British motherland — thought of a way to curry favor with Churchill.

Although it was illegal to export platypi from the Australian continent, desperate times called for desperate measures. And despite the fact that no platypus had ever survived such a long journey, Evatt set about putting his plan into action. He would find a way to send Churchill a paddle of half a dozen duckbilled platypi as a gesture of good will.

Or, to be honest, a bribe.

So Evatt called upon conservationist David Fleay to assist with the mission. But Fleay, being more concerned with the welfare of the animals than Churchill’s personal menagerie, objected. Many years later, he wrote in his book Paradoxical Platypus:

“Imagine any man carrying the responsibilities Churchill did, with humanity on the rack in Europe and Asia, finding time to even think about, let alone want, half-a-dozen duckbilled platypuses.” [Id.]

Fleay couldn’t talk Evatt out of his scheme, but did manage to convince the Foreign Minister to send just one platypus instead of six. So they captured a puggle from a nearby river, named him Winston (for obvious reasons), and constructed an elaborate platypusary for the long sea voyage. It had every comfort a puggle could want: hay-lined burrows, fresh Australian creek water, some 50,000 worms (they’re voracious eaters), and special treats of duck egg custard. They also hired an attendant — a gentleman’s gentleman, if you will — to attend to Winston for the 45-day journey.

But alas! The two Winstons were not destined to be united. Winston (the duck-billed one) — after crossing the Pacific, navigating through the Panama Canal and into the Atlantic Ocean, and despite all of the care and duck egg custards — passed away in the final stretch of the voyage.

When the ship reached England, and Sir Winston (the cigar-smoking one) was delivered of the other Winston’s corpse, he wrote to Evatt that he was “grieved” to report that the platypus “kindly” sent to him had died. “Its loss is a great disappointment to me,” he wrote. [Id.]

For years, the story was kept secret in order to avoid any negative publicity. But eventually, word got out, and claims were made that the ship had encountered a German U-boat and the platypus had been shaken to death in a barrage of blasts. David Fleay later wrote:

“A small animal equipped with a nerve-packed, super sensitive bill, able to detect even the delicate movements of a mosquito wriggler on stream bottoms in the dark of night, cannot hope to cope with man-made enormities such as violent explosions.

“It was so obvious that, but for the misfortunes of war, a fine, thriving, healthy little platypus would have created history in being number one of its kind to take up residence in England.” [Id.]

*. *. *

But people are not always satisfied with the easy answer. Some 80 years later — last year, in fact — Ph.D. student Harrison Croft began an investigation to find the truth of Winston’s demise. Searching archives in both Canberra and London, and with another team working in Sydney, they found extensive records, including David Fleay’s personal papers that had been donated to the Australian Museum, and the logbook of the attendant who had been hired to accompany Winston.

What they saw after digitizing and studying the materials was an absence of any recorded explosions along the way. But there were notes of Winston’s rations having to be reduced due to the loss of some of the worms, as well as the likelihood that the ship’s environment had been too hot for the sensitive little guy.

While they don’t rule out the submarine shell-shock story, the researchers conclude that his exposure to prolonged higher temperatures alone would have been enough to kill poor Winston.

*. *. *

But, although Winston’s story had a tragic ending, that is not the last of this Platypus Presentation.

In 1947 — having successfully bred a platypus in captivity for the first time — David Fleay convinced the Australian government to allow the Bronx Zoo in New York to receive three platypi as a friendly gesture to further ties with the United States.

The three were named Betty, Penelope and Cecil. They received a huge welcome when their ship docked in Boston, and were then delivered by limousine to New York City, where the Australian Ambassador was waiting to feed them their first worms in America.

Unfortunately, Betty did not live long after arrival, and Cecil had to make do with just one wife. He and Penelope quickly became celebrities, and their wedding received tremendous press coverage. But while Cecil was raring to go, Penelope was having none of it. The media turned on her, and she was described as a “brazen hussy … one of those saucy females who like to keep a male on a string.” [Id.]

But in 1953, Penelope’s hormones must have begun to rage, because their keepers reported four days of “all-night orgies of love [fueled by] copious quantities of crayfish and worms.” [Id.]

And Penelope soon began nesting. But after four months of anxious waiting, and lavishing Penelope with the royal treatment and double rations, when zookeepers checked on her nest before a throng of reporters, they found . . .

. . . nothing. No babies. Just a “disgruntled-looking” Penelope, who immediately plunged from being the darling of platypus-lovers to a fallen woman, accused of having faked the whole thing in order to “secure more worms and less Cecil.” [Id.]

Despite the huge disappointment, life in the Bronx Zoo went along peacefully for another four years until, in 1957, Penelope somehow disappeared from her enclosure. When a weeks-long search failed to locate her, she was declared “presumed lost and probably dead.” [Id.]

And a day after the search was called off, Cecil died . . . according to the media, of a broken heart.

Although why he would grieve for such a controlling, deceptive, frigid wife, who only consummated their marriage for four days out of their ten years together, I cannot imagine.

Still, there’s no accounting for matters of the heart, is there?

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
8/6/25

If all y’all Republicans down there in Texas are so determined to continue with your redistricting, why not go whole hog, and gerrymander your cheatin’ selves straight back to your roots?

For those of you who skipped history class, here’s your chance to catch up. From 1821 to 1836, after Mexico gained its independence from Spain (that’s in Europe), Texas was part of Mexico. I know that’s a surprise, but it’s true.

Anyway, in 1836, the folks in Texas decided to declare their independence, and they formed the Republic of Texas. But then the United States decided it wanted Texas for itself — even before they knew about all the oil buried there — and they annexed it in 1845. Mexico and the United States went to war in 1846, and by the time it was over in 1848, Texas, and a whole lot more territory, had become part of the United States.

That’s a very simplified version of the history of your great state, but I wanted to be sure y’all understood that Texas started out in Mexico, and that all y’all Texans are really the sons and daughters of Mexican immigrants to the United States.

So I’m thinkin’ that maybe, if y’all ain’t happy with the way things are, or you’re not willin’ to do things accordin’ to our laws, you might want to consider goin’ back to Mexico and lettin’ us get on with the important things in our lives.

As for your oil, I’m sure we can make up the difference from places like Oklahoma and Alaska, and that can be our gift to Mexico for takin’ you back.

Happy trails, y’all.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
8/5/25

P.S. Just one more thing: To all the Texas Democrats who left the state this week to prevent a vote on an illegal redistricting measure . . . good work. I’m sure we can find jobs for you in the 49 remaining states.

On March 22, 2024, 149 people were killed and at least 600 injured in a horrific terror attack on the Crocus City Hall entertainment center outside of Moscow. Shortly afterward, the Islamic State-Khorasan, known as ISIS-K, claimed responsibility; both U.S. and French intelligence agreed that ISIS-K was solely responsible for the attack.

The following day, four Tajik nationals were arrested and accused of having committed the atrocity. The four — Dalerdzhon Mirzoyev, Shamsidin Fariduni, Muhammadsobir Faizov, and Saidakram Rachabalizoda — are shown below as they appeared in court following their arrest, obviously having been badly beaten while in custody. One appeared, in a video posted on Telegram, to have had an ear cut off.

Yesterday — more than 16 months after the attack — the four suspects were at last brought to trial, along with 15 other individuals arrested in the meantime on various charges of involvement. Not surprisingly, three of the four principal defendants pleaded guilty before a three-judge panel at the Second Western District Military Court; the fourth, Saidakram Rachabalizoda, pleaded “partly guilty.” [RFE/RL, August 4, 2025.]

From the start, human rights groups have expressed concerns that their trial would not be a fair one. One — activist Karimjon Yorov — said:

“In normal democratic countries, this would never happen — confessions were beaten out of people accused of a terrorist attack and they [the authorities] don’t even hide it.” [Id.]

And some have questioned the arrests of the other 15 charged with ancillary offenses, such as renting apartments to those actually involved in the attack . . . whether or not there was proof they had knowledge of the circumstances.

Gennady Gudkov — himself a former FSB officer and deputy in the State Duma — has said:

“In my opinion, they simply recruited scapegoats. It is difficult to understand the degree of their guilt. I have the impression that this trial is an excuse for not conducting a real investigation.” [Id.]

At Trial, in the Defendants’ Box – August 4, 2025

This has all taken place in the shadow of Moscow’s tightening of its immigration policies, the increase of ethnic profiling and arbitrary arrests of Central Asians, and the numerous instances of racist attacks by far-right nationalist groups. New legislation was enacted a year ago giving police greater powers to expel migrants without court orders.

Human Rights Watch (HRW) said in a March 2025 report: “While failing to condemn these xenophobic actions, Russian authorities have also intensified their targeting of Central Asian migrants.” [Id.]

And Russian officials say that a new system will be activated in September combining biometric registration, location tracking, and intensified police oversight to monitor migrant workers — all in the name of of national security and social order. [Id.]

*. *. *

But apparently, one set of suspects was not enough for the Kremlin. Taking advantage of an opportunity to manufacture justification for its “special military operation” against Ukraine, Russia’s Investigative Committee has promoted the theory — and claimed to have evidence — that Ukraine was behind the terror attack.

John Kirby, then White House National Security Council spokesman, said at the time that Russia’s attempt to place blame on Ukraine was “nonsense and propaganda.” Adding that Washington had sent a message to Russia’s security services two weeks before the attack occurred, and that there had been multiple such advance warnings about potential extremist attacks on concerts and other large gatherings in Moscow, he said:

“It is abundantly clear that [Islamic State] was solely responsible for the horrific attack in Moscow last week. In fact, the United States tried to help prevent this terrorist attack and the Kremlin knows this.” [RFE/RL, March 28, 2024.]

*. *. *

Are these four men from Tajikistan actually guilty of the heinous attack on March 22, 2024? We’ll never know for sure, as we have only the Russian authorities’ word as to the thoroughness of their investigation, and the methods used to elicit the guilty pleas.

What we do know is that, once charged, their fates were sealed. Now, as with every trial in Russia, the verdicts are a foregone conclusion; we only have to await news of their sentences.

As to the other 15 defendants . . . at this point, it’s anyone’s guess.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
8/5/25