I’m talking about the Russian oligarchs (not the Washington Billionaires’ Club) — the ones who made their first millions from the economic chaos that followed the breakup of the Soviet Union 34 years ago this week, thereby gaining tremendous political influence under newly-anointed President Boris Yeltsin.

Among the biggest of the big shots in those early days of Russian-style capitalism were Boris Berezovsky, Mikhail Khodorkovsky, Mikhail Fridman, Vladimir Gusinsky, Vladimir Potanin and Roman Abramovich. Among them, they gained control of the most profitable major industries, including oil and gas, metals, banking, and the media. Wisely, they tied themselves to Yeltsin’s apron strings, for his financial benefit as well as their own.

Then along came Vladimir Putin. Having worked his way up from his years in the KGB, to a position as aide to reformist St. Petersburg Mayor Anatoly Sobchak, and then through the ranks of the Yeltsin hierarchy, he was perfectly situated as Prime Minister to step in when Yeltsin resigned the presidency on December 31, 1999. Serving as interim president until an election could be held the following March, his victory was practically assured — as it has been in every election since.

But despite his years with Sobchak, Putin was no reformer, as we now know all too well. And life for the oligarchs began to change when Putin informed them in no uncertain terms that they would be allowed to keep their fortunes and conduct their businesses . . . as long as they understood that he, and only he, was in charge of the government.

And some have continued to thrive by staying on Putin’s good side. For example:

> Mikhail Fridman, 61, was a co-founder of Alfa Bank, and remains a member of numerous Russian organizations, including the National Council of Corporate Governance in Russia and the Russian Union of Industrialists and Entrepreneurs. As of 2024, Bloomberg listed his net worth at approximately $13.1 billion.

> Vladimir Potanin, 64, is founder and president of Interros, which holds stakes in MMC Norilsk Nickel, Rosbank, Yandex, and others. He is said to be Russia’s fifth-richest businessman; Forbes estimates his net worth at $24.2 billion.

> Roman Abramovich, 59, is one of the most widely known of this little group today. He once owned London’s Chelsea Football Club, though he was forced to sell it in 2022 due to sanctions imposed after Putin’s invasion of Ukraine. He is said to have a good relationship with Putin, though he denies it, and has even been labeled by U.S. intelligence sources as Putin’s financial middleman. In 2023, Forbes estimated his net worth at $9.2 billion.

Others haven’t been quite so lucky.

> Mikhail Khodorkovsky, 62, once thought to be the wealthiest man in Russia, ran afoul of Putin in 2001 when he founded Open Russia, a reform-minded organization aimed at strengthening civil society in Russia. In 2003, his assets were frozen and he was imprisoned. After serving ten years, he was pardoned in 2013 and immediately left Russia, obtaining residency in Switzerland. He later moved to London, and continues to work, both independently and in conjunction with other exiles, in opposition to the Putin regime. Though he is no longer the multi-billionaire he had been in Russia — thought to have been worth around $15 billion from his energy and other holdings — he is still worth an estimated $170 million or more. But he knows that, at least as long as Vladimir Putin sits in the Kremlin, he can never go home again.

> Vladimir Gusinsky,73, is also living in exile due to legal problems in Russia. His original multi-billion-dollar fortune was largely derived from his media holdings, including Media-Most (which includes the NTV channel), the Sevodnya newspaper, and a number of magazines. He now enjoys both Israeli and Spanish citizenship, and has considerable investments in both countries. While his net worth is unknown, he did sell his remaining media assets in Russia for $300 million before fleeing in 2000, and it can be assumed that he has built on that in the past 25 years. Still, like Khodorkovsky, he has been forced to leave behind his homeland and the political and professional status he once enjoyed.

> Boris Berezovsky is unquestionably the saddest case of all. One of the original oligarchs, he had been a government official, an engineer and mathematician, and a member of the illustrious Russian Academy of Sciences. In 1997, he was estimated to have accrued holdings of $3 billion, primarily from Russia’s main TV channel, Channel One. But his foray into politics was his downfall. After initially backing Putin’s election, and himself being elected to the State Duma, Berezovsky opposed Putin’s increasingly autocratic rule, resigned from the Duma, and joined the vocal opposition. Under threat of investigation, he fled Russia for the UK in 2000, where he was granted political asylum. But he was dogged by personal problems and financial losses, and was found, at the age of 67 on March 23, 2013, hanged in the bathroom of his Berkshire home. Nearly bankrupt, he had reportedly become depressed and isolated. But his death was classified by police as “unexplained” due to questionable findings by investigators and a pathologist. The final inquest resulted in an “open verdict,” with a statement by the coroner saying: “I am not saying Mr Berezovsky took his own life, I am not saying Mr Berezovsky was unlawfully killed. What I am saying is that the burden of proof sets such a high standard it is impossible for me to say.” [en.wikipedia.org.]

*. *. *

Today, it is estimated that there may be as many as 100 oligarchs in Russia, many of them billionaires. Despite sanctions since the start of the war in Ukraine, they continue to live their sumptuous lives . . . as long as they pledge fealty to Vladimir Putin. What they lack — what the first oligarchs enjoyed to the fullest — is political power. But they no longer seem to care.

Which sounds very much like billionaires around the world.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/29/25

Well, at least my worst fears were not realized: Volodymyr Zelensky left Mar-a-Lago visibly unscathed, and on a somewhat hopeful note.

According to Ukrainian journalist Vitaly Shevchenko, speaking to BBC News, Zelensky indicated that his latest 20-point proposal has been 90% guaranteed . . . though he didn’t say which 10% remained at issue. Presumably, that would involve Russia’s territorial claims on the Donbas and Zaporizhzhia regions, and the possibility of establishing a demilitarized zone (DMZ) or special economic zone along the Ukraine-Russia border.

University of Southern California Professor Robert English told the BBC that he felt the parties were trying hard to be optimistic in the face of the major sticking points not yet agreed to, but that there remained a good deal of work to be done.

And speaking alongside Zelensky on CNN, Donald Trump — well, he was just being Trump. He said they had made “a lot of progress,” and “had discussions on just about every subject,” including in his pre-meeting phone call with Vladimir Putin. He then added — taking on his real identity as a hotelier — that they had had a nice lunch, and hoped Zelensky had enjoyed the food.

To which the Ukrainian President — in Florida for the sole purpose of saving what is left of his country and not for the food — sidestepped that little non sequitur, instead reiterating that Ukraine is ready for peace. And he wisely remembered to thank Trump again for all of his efforts . . . but stopped short of genuflecting.

So there we are, without sufficient details on which to base a forecast, or even a guess, as to what we might expect from all of this year-end effort. There is, of course, still the post-meeting call to be held between Trump and Putin, which I doubt will hold many surprises in view of Putin’s immovable demands and his refusal even to agree on a ceasefire during negotiations.

And as we await the results of that upcoming talk, I can’t help visualizing that conversation taking place between a Russian Dr. Strangelove, with his finger on the nuclear button, and an American version of an innkeeper named Thenardier (from Les Miserables), “relieving” his guests of whatever he could get his grubby little hands on.

Such is the world we now inhabit. But how on earth did we allow it to get to this point?

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/28/25

In February of 1945, the leaders of Great Britain, the United States and the Soviet Union — Sir Winston Churchill, Franklin Delano Roosevelt and Josef Stalin — met at Yalta on the Black Sea coast of the Crimean Peninsula to discuss the final stages of World War II and the postwar reorganization of Europe. By May 8th, the war in Europe was over.

Today, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky has arrived in Palm Beach, Florida, for yet another meeting with Donald Trump. And once again, Trump chose to precede the meeting with a one-on-one, hour-long phone call to Vladimir Putin — presumably to gauge whether there has been any modification of Putin’s position regarding settlement of his so-called “special military operation” in Ukraine, but more likely to solidify their own agreement on how to convince Zelensky to accede to Putin’s principal territorial and security demands.

And — in sharp contrast to the gathering of equals at Yalta — this is what Zelensky has walked into:

Instead of the tripartite meeting he has been requesting — which Putin has steadfastly refused — Zelensky has once more been led into a viper’s nest of eight venomous reptiles hell-bent to claim credit for ending an unjust war, regardless of the ultimate cost to the victims or the future security of Europe.

Aligned against Zelensky, in addition to Trump (fourth from left, with his chin characteristically stuck up in the air), were Secretary of State Marco Rubio; Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth; special envoy (and real estate mogul) Steve Witkoff; Trump son-in-law (and fellow real-estate guru) Jared Kushner; Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Dan Caine; General Services Administration’s federal acquisitions service commissioner Josh Gruenbaum (for whatever reason); and — most poisonous of all — White House deputy chief of staff for policy Stephen Miller (second from right, glaring menacingly at the photographer).

That is what passes for diplomacy at Mar-a-Lago.

The day is far from over, and anything could happen. I will, of course, be following events closely; but at the moment, I don’t have a good feeling about this.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/28/25

In the spirit of the approaching New Year, and as promised yesterday, I’ve decided to focus on the positive and have been searching for quotes that are optimistic, uplifting, and perhaps even humorous.

Today, my eye landed on the words of Benjamin Franklin: a man well-known, not only for his statesmanship, but for his mischievous sense of humor as well . . . though in this case, I’m quite sure it is my own, often diabolical and sometimes even twisted, interpretation that sees the funny side of this:

“Be at war with your vices, at peace with your neighbors, and let every new year find you a better man.”

What Ben meant, of course, was that you should become a better person in the new year.

But my immediate reaction was: “Yes, please! I’ve been looking for a better man for years, and haven’t found him yet.”

Either way, I think Ben’s sentiment is a good one for 2026 . . . especially after what we’ve all been through in 2025.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/28/25

This week, as the calendar moves inexorably toward a new year, mankind once again hopes against all reason that January 1st will somehow, magically, cure all of our ills, heal our wounds from the horrors of the past 12 months, and bring peace and joy to a world reeling from the effects of man’s inhumanity to man.

Admittedly, those hopes are illogical — as naive, perhaps, as the New Year’s resolutions we continue to make each year; but they somehow give us the strength to face another year of uncertainty, for none of us can know what lies ahead. And, while I no longer bother with a list of resolutions I know I won’t keep beyond the second week of January, I do still have my hopes for the world in general.

At the top of that list, as it has been for the past two years, is my prayer that the political hostages being held by Vladimir Putin and his allies will at long last be freed from the prisons and penal colonies and returned to the comfort of their homes and their families; and that the constant threat of war under which the world has been living will be eased, allowing reason and true diplomacy to regain a foothold.

And to that end, here they are again . . . the hostages known to me who are still waiting for their prayers to be answered:

*. *. *

Europeans Under Threat:

The people of NATO and EU member states

Prisoners of War:

The 19,500 Kidnapped Ukrainian Children
The People of Ukraine

Immigrant Detainees in Russia:

Migrants from the Central Asian nations of Kazakhstan, Kyrgyzstan,
Tajikistan, Turkmenistan and Uzbekistan

Endangered Exiles:

Mikita Losik
Yulia Navalnaya
Countless Journalists and Other Dissidents

Political Prisoners:

In Azerbaijan:

The “Azerbaijan 7”:
— Farid Mehralizada
— Ulvi Hasanli
— Sevinj Abbasova (Vagifqiai)
— Mahammad Kekalov
— Hafiz Babali
— Nargiz Absalamova
— Elnara Gasimova

In Belarus:

Andrei Chapiuk
Uladzimir Labkovich
Andrzej Poczobut
Marfa Rabkova
Valiantsin Stafanovic
Yuras Zyankovich

In Georgia:

Mzia Amaglobeli

In China:

Chenyue Mao (American)

In Russia:

The “Crimea 8”:
— Oleg Antipov
— Artyom Azatyan
— Georgy Azatyan
— Aleksandr Bylin
— Roman Solomko
— Artur Terchanyan
— Dmitry Tyazhelykh
— Vladimir Zloba

James Scott Rhys Anderson (British)
David Barnes (American)
Gordon Black (American)
Hayden Davies (British)
Antonina Favorskaya
Konstantin Gabov
Robert Gilman (American)
Stephen James Hubbard (American)
Sergey Karelin
Timur Kishukov
Vadim Kobzev
Darya Kozyreva
Artyom Kriger
Michael Travis Leake (American)
Aleksei Liptser
Grigory Melkonyants
Nika Novak
Leonid Pshenychnov (in Russian-occupied Crimea)
Nadezhda Rossinskaya (a.k.a. Nadin Geisler)
Sofiane Sehili (French)
Igor Sergunin
Dmitry Shatresov
Robert Shonov
Grigory Skvortsov
Eugene Spector (American)
Laurent Vinatier
Robert Romanov Woodland (American)

. . . and, of course, the thousands whose names and locations are unknown to me.

*. *. *

With this, my last Sunday tribute of 2025 to the world’s political hostages, I wish each and every one of you strength, hope, and a joyous end to your travails as you return to the embrace of your families and friends. May you all have a truly Happy New Year.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/28/25

Since I started this blog some three years ago, I have shared 1,916 posts with you (1,917 including this one). It started out as a sort of autobiographical travelog of the more adventurous years of my life, and morphed into a conglomeration of topics from world events, to memories of my childhood, to a mischievous sea otter named Laverna.

Always on the search for something new, I’ve decided to usher in 2026 with a New Year’s Day retrospective of my posts of the past year — not all of them, certainly, but a couple of the highlights from each month — as a reminder of what we have all experienced, and somehow survived, over the past 52 weeks.

So that’s what I’ll be working on for the next few days, in addition to keeping abreast of the daily news. Wish me luck . . . there’s a lot of material to go through. (Not nearly as much, of course, as the Epstein files; but at least I don’t have to deal with all the redactions.)

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/27/25

In fact, do not read Kafka even if you’re not depressed . . . because if you’re not, and you do, you soon will be.

I was thinking yesterday about my idyllic summer of 1991 in Prague, which is when — along with the incredible history, architecture, culture, food and beverages of Czechoslovakia (now Czechia, or simply the Czech Republic) — I first became interested in the writings of Franz Kafka, perhaps the most famous of all Czech writers.

I wondered at the time how anyone who only lived to the age of 40 could have sunk so deeply into despair as to produce such dark, often dystopian works of fiction as “The Metamorphosis” and “The Trial” . . . until I learned that his writing was most heavily influenced by Dostoevsky, Nietschze, and Poe — great writers all, but not exactly uplifting.

And today of all days — when many people are already suffering from an annual case of post-holiday letdown — I should have known better than to go searching for a quote from Kafka. But, perversely, I did it anyway. What I was looking for was actually something to do with thoughts of the future, in keeping with the approach of a new year. But what I found instead were these:

“I write differently from what I speak, I speak differently from what I think, I think differently from the way I ought to think, and so it all proceeds into deepest darkness.”

“I cannot make you understand. I cannot make anyone understand what is happening inside me. I cannot even explain it to myself.”

“I have spent all my life resisting the desire to end it.”

. . . and, just for kicks, his immortal:

“The Meaning of life is that it stops.”

While I hesitate to approach the end of the year on such a demoralizing note, it has, after all, been the shittiest of years; and so it’s probably a suitable choice . . . in a rather dystopian, Kafkaesque way.

Perhaps I’ll have something a little cheerier tomorrow . . . say, from Eleanor Roosevelt, or Erma Bombeck. In the meantime, I’m . . .

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/27/25

I couldn’t resist this one.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka

Habits of a lifetime can be difficult to break. And for an unrestrained, obsessive-compulsive, avaricious, power-mad narcissist, there wouldn’t be any reason to bother trying, because their ingrained sense of entitlement would never allow them to consider that they might be less than perfect.

Take, for example, a person whose entire life has been spent acquiring things: childhood toys, then cars, houses, businesses, real estate, wives, unlimited amounts of money. It’s easy to understand how, in extreme cases, such an individual might lose the ability to accept the fact that there are limits to what is, or is not, acquirable.

And we are all well acquainted with one such individual, who has clearly lost sight of the fact that even he cannot have everything simply because he wants it.

It could be argued that he already has everything: enormous wealth, position and ultimate power — and that there is nothing left for him to aspire to. But to an acquisitionist (if there is such a word, and if there isn’t, there should be), there must always be something else. Even his name on the Kennedy Center, a $400 million ballroom, and a ridiculous new class of battleships named for him are apparently not enough to slake his thirst for more.

Because now he is going after entire countries. He has periodically set his sights on Panama, Canada and Greenland, but hasn’t taken concrete steps toward achieving those goals . . . until recently. And Greenland turns out to be his first target of choice.

Continuing to insist that the United States absolutely needs — and has some sort of divine right to — possession of their land, their resources, and their people, he reiterated, in conjunction with his announcement of the ludicrous battleship project, that:

“We need it for national protection. We need Greenland for national protection. They have a very small population and I don’t know, they say Denmark but Denmark has spent no money there with military protection. . . . They say Denmark was there 300 years ago with something with a boat but we were there with boats too, I’m sure.” [Alan Herrera, Comicsands.com, December 24, 2025.]

Okay, where do I begin? With the fact that the United States did not exist as a nation 300 years ago? Or is it too much to hope that Trump might, just once, get his history and his math straight?

Actually, yes, that sadly is too much to hope for. So let’s go directly to the 57,000 people of Greenland.

Greenlanders are citizens of Denmark and of the European Union. They don’t want to be part of the United States. Period. They have made that abundantly clear numerous times, including during the diplomatically disastrous visit of J.D. Vance in March of this year, when he was met by anti-US demonstrations.

And then there is something called a legal issue. Greenland, while mostly self-governing since 1979, remains an autonomous territory of Denmark, which has responsibility for the island’s defense and foreign policy. And Denmark isn’t selling.

So what does Trump do? He appoints a “special envoy” — Louisiana Governor Jeff Landry — to Greenland, causing Denmark’s foreign minister, Lars Lokke Rasmussen, to summon the U.S. Ambassador to discuss the matter. And on December 22nd, Rasmussen issued a statement saying that Landry’s appointment clearly indicates that Trump is still trying to claim ownership of the island — which, of course, would include its vast natural resources — and adding:

“We insist that everyone including the U.S. must show respect for the territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Denmark.” [Kim Hjelmgaard, USA Today, December 22, 2025.]

To which Trump responded on social media:

“Jeff [Landry] understands how essential Greenland is to our National Security, and will strongly advance our Country’s Interests for the Safety, Security, and Survival of our Allies, and indeed, the World.” [Id.]

Not to mention those rare earth elements, numerous minerals, and reserves of oil and gas waiting to be tapped. Let’s not forget those.

But Greenland is not a commodity to be traded on any stock exchange. It is a country — around 836,000 square miles of land (about three times the size of Texas), some 57,000 human souls, and a proud history of its own. Trump may covet it, because it is indeed strategically located and rich with natural resources. But that doesn’t mean he has a right to grab it.

Recently-appointed head of the U.S. Arctic Research Commission Thomas Dans — an investor, professed Russia expert, and MAGA political strategist — wrote about Landry on WhatsApp:

“Governor Landry and Louisianans supply an exceptional base of knowledge and experience across the global stage. Energy, infrastructure, tourism, shipping and trade are all priority areas for our future relationship with Greenland.” [Id.]

Well, that’s just great. But can’t all of those priority goals, as well as a military presence, be attained by means of trade agreements and treaties? Do we need to bully our way in?

Unfortunately, when the occupant of the Oval Office is a professional bully, this is what happens. And the US risks losing another close ally . . . and likely any hope of accomplishing our actual security goals in the area by friendly, diplomatic means.

As Foreign Minister Rasmussen said in a broadcast on Denmark’s TV2:

“I am deeply upset by this appointment of a special envoy. And I am particularly upset by his statements, which we find completely unacceptable.” [Billy Stockwell, Betul Tuncer, CNN, December 22, 2025.]

And Greenland’s Prime Minister, Jens-Frederik Nielsen, added that, while the territory was willing to cooperate with the US and other countries on the basis of mutual respect:

“The appointment of a special envoy does not change anything for us. We decide our own future. Greenland belongs to Greenlanders, and territorial integrity must be respected.” [James Landale and Rachel Hagan, BBC, December 22, 2025.]

And that should be the final word . . . but will it be?

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/27/25

Well, here we are. Christmas is behind us once again, except for the tasks of finding space for all of the gifts and disposing of the wrappings.

And as we look forward to the end of a monumentally difficult year and the start of a new (and hopefully better) one, I find the perfect sentiment for today to be one expressed by the late essayist and author Susan Sontag:

“I want to make a New Year’s prayer, not a resolution. I’m praying for courage.”

I suspect we could all use an extra helping of that.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
12/26/25