“. . . seek, and ye shall find . . .” Matthew, 7:7-8.

It’s true. I sought, and I found more information on Russell Bentley, who seems after all to have “turned up dead” eleven days after his disappearance on April 8th. The word is that he was most likely “picked up by soldiers mistaking him for an American or NATO spy.” [DailyMail.com, April 25, 2024.] Although if he’d been embedded with the Vostok Battalion for so long, how could he not have identified himself to them? . . .

At any rate, that just confirms what has already been reported about Russell’s mysterious disappearance. What is even more interesting, though, is what was previously unknown about him, at least to most of the world. His death has precipitated an apparent media storm in Russia, where he is said to have been a “propaganda favorite” of the government, including his most recent stint as a reporter for state-run Sputnik-TV. He was an American turncoat of the sort usually only dreamt of by the Kremlin, dropped right into their laps.

His murder has been depicted as a tragic error, understandably occurring when he was found photographing scenes of destruction in Russia-annexed areas of Ukraine. But was it indeed a mistake? It is now known that he had become involved in ultranationalist circles, “and his death has made him the latest in a number of leaders of the annexation of eastern Ukraine to show up dead . . .” It is still not clear why he really was detained on April 8th, or exactly how he was killed; but “unverified reports said he was kidnapped by ‘unknown people in military uniforms.’” [Id.] There were a few more grisly details, better left unsaid here. But his involvement with the ultranationalist movement, which generally promotes the opinion that Russia is not pursuing the war aggressively enough, immediately brings to mind the fate of the like-minded Yevgeny Prigozhin, the late leader of the Wagner Group, and his attempted revolt against the military. That sort of criticism does not sit well with Vladimir Putin.

*. *. *

But you may be wondering how a burly, middle-aged Texan wound up in Ukraine, fighting with the Russian military, in the first place. What must the first half-century of his life have been like? Was he poverty-stricken, neglected, abused? Were his parents “closet commies?”

The answers to those questions are: Fine, no, no, no, and no.

In fact, in an interview for a 2022 article in Rolling Stone, he revealed that he had grown up in the very exclusive Dallas, Texas, neighborhood of Highland Park, which he called “the Beverly Hills of Dallas.” He portrayed himself as the “black sheep” of his family, drawn to communist ideas and anti-Vietnam causes. He read, and admired, Ho Chi Minh and Che Guevara. He described himself as “anti-racist” and “anti-imperialist.”

Somewhere along the way, he became a drug dealer. He was convicted of drug trafficking in 1996, sentenced to five years in prison, and somehow escaped after three years, remaining at large until 2007. He was then recaptured and ordered to serve the remainder of his sentence in a maximum-security prison.

Inexplicably, he had managed in 1990 . . . well before his run-in with the law . . . to become a candidate for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota — a state as different from Texas as one could hope to find. His platform largely revolved around the legalization of marijuana; he won only 1.65 percent of the vote.

He was, in the simplest of terms, a born loser.

*. *. *

Russia’s invasion and annexation of Crimea in 2014 may have been the spark that ignited his fervor. He described it thus: “This is the battle, not just of Ukraine. This is the battle between good-and-evil for the future of the world. And right now, it’s looking like the world might just have a chance because us [sic] and our friends are kicking some Nazi ass right now.” [DailyMail.com, id., citing Rolling Stone.]

And in 2022, when Russia once more invaded Ukraine, he announced his support on Russian social media platform VKontakte: “Heading West with the Liberators of Ukraine. We may stop in Kiev, we may stop on the English Channel. We may liberate the USA.” [DailyMail.com, id.]

In reality, he was stopped in Donetsk, Ukraine.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/6/24

It has been a quieter week, in the sense of being unable to find updated information on any of the HOSTAGES already on my list, or reports of any new victims of Putin’s purges. I suppose that’s a good thing.

There is, of course, the ongoing saga of the (apparently) late Russell “Tex” Bentley, the American adventurer who fled his home in Texas in 2014 to serve in the Russian army in Ukraine . . . only to be deemed a “CIA spy” after ten years of loyal service to the Kremlin, and dealt with in ways as yet unconfirmed. He is reportedly deceased and thus not eligible for anyone’s hostage list; but look for more about him in tomorrow’s post.

*. *. *.

In the meantime, I once again implore you, please do not forget those who remain HOSTAGES; their families and friends haven’t. And here, one more time, are their pictures as a weekly reminder that they are real, and truly suffering. In no particular order, they are:

Brendochka
5/5/24

The United States and Russia already have their respective — and very different — definitions; now maybe we should ask a Georgian. (That would be a Georgian from the ancient country in the Caucasus Mountains, not the U.S. home state of peaches, peanuts, and Scarlett O’Hara.)

Because there is currently a great hullabaloo being raised in the capital city of Tbilisi over a proposed bill that’s been put forth in the Georgia Parliament that, if passed, would establish a law governing the activities of “Foreign Agents.”

The problem seems to be in defining a “foreign agent,” and then determining what such a creature would and would not legally be allowed to do if he or she wished to avoid penalties . . . and, not incidentally, just what those penalties would be. It’s a sticky wicket all around.

No, this little guy is not the type of “foreign agent” we’re talking about . . . or is he? In the U.S., he (or she) would more likely be referred to as a “secret agent,” or simply . . . well, let’s call a spy a spy, shall we? That is not what we mean when we refer to our Foreign Agents Registration Act (FARA). Not exactly.

FARA was enacted in 1938 primarily to counter Nazi propaganda, with an initial focus on criminal prosecution of subversive activities. Since 1966, though, enforcement has shifted primarily to civil penalties and voluntary compliance. It does not prohibit lobbying for foreign interests, nor does it ban or restrict any specific activities. It does require transparency, with an initial registration and periodic (every six months) filings of updates thereafter. Its explicit purpose is to promote transparency with respect to any possible foreign influence over American public opinion, policy, and laws . . . such as interference in our election process, with which we have become all too familiar in recent years.

This is not, however, how Russia sees a “foreign agent.” For the Kremlin’s purposes, that would be any individual or organization that allegedly is in the pay of, or under the influence of, or in any way associated with a foreign entity or individual that does not toe the official line, thus being assumed as guilty of “distributing false information,” “insulting the government or the military,” or — in the worst-case scenario — out-and-out treason. And the penalties are not mere fines; rather, they almost invariably involve long-term sentences of incarceration in Russia’s harshest prisons and penal colonies. And there are hundreds of inmates to substantiate it . . . as well as a few who did not, or may not, survive.

*. *. *

So, why did I say to “ask a Georgian”? Because there is presently a bill before the Georgian Parliament aiming to reintroduce a “Russian-style foreign agents’ law similar to one they were forced to withdraw a year ago.” [VOA News, April 26, 2024.] And the people of Georgia — a former Soviet Republic that has fought so long and so hard since the dissolution of the Soviet Union to establish and maintain a West-leaning, democratic government — have taken to the streets en masse to oppose its passage. Because they know the danger; they have lived it in the past, and refuse to accept it as their future.

The U.S. has expressed its concern to Georgian Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze in the form of a letter from a bipartisan group (unusual enough in itself) of 14 U.S. Senators, warning that passage of the bill could “undermin[e] Georgia’s European future and its relations with the U.S.,” and further that, if the legislation were to become law, “they [the group of 14] would be compelled to encourage a shift in U.S. policy toward Georgia.” [VOA News, id.]

Opponents of the proposed law say that it is designed to stifle the freedom of speech of Georgian individuals and organizations, including the activities of election monitors, by labelling them as “foreign agents” — “which in the post-Soviet context equates them to traitors.” [Id.] The Georgian government’s proponents, however, equate the law to the U.S. Foreign Agents Registration Act. But the Senators’ letter rejected that allegation:

“We must also make it clear that the reintroduced foreign agents’ law does not mirror any U.S. law and would be used to silence the civil society and media that play a significant role in advancing Georgia’s democratic institution.” [Id.]

*. *. *

I do not propose to interpret the language of the Georgian bill. But I have seen the manner in which the Putin government has used their law to stifle any and all dissent. And if the fear of the Georgian people that the same thing would happen in their country is indeed legitimate — and all indications are that it is — then the people must be supported in their opposition, and the government of Georgia discouraged as strongly as possible from imposing any such Soviet-style restrictions upon their freedom-loving citizenry. Make no mistake: the future of their country is at stake.

And to the good people of Georgia, I wish the best of luck and success, now and in the future.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/5/24

She’s beautiful, she’s eloquent, she’s fluent in 30 languages, she’s a new spokesperson for the government of Ukraine . . . and she is not human. She is, in fact, a creation of Artificial Intelligence. And she scares the hell out of me.

Her name, inexplicably, is Victoria Shi. She doesn’t look Ukrainian; she doesn’t “look” anything at all. She could be anyone, from anywhere. She speaks English (which is the only language I’ve heard her speak) with a slight Ukrainian accent that is quite charming. From the brief video I viewed online, she seems to have one facial expression; one vocal intonation, though not a monotone; and one postural stance, though she moves her head and hands appropriately. She appears emotionless. But, somehow, what she says commands your attention, which is the whole idea.

And she answers questions like a well-trained, professional diplomat. She was interviewed by Ray Furlong of Radio Free Europe/Radio Liberty (RFE/RL), and she never missed a beat. (Check it out on Facebook, or on the RFE/RL website.) She answered questions as to why Ukraine felt it needed a virtual spokesperson, and even exhibited a sense of humor when she said she doesn’t sleep or eat and is therefore able to work 24/7. She explained how she was protected from being illegally cloned. She was perfect.

And that is what scares me. I’m afraid of technology. Well, too much technology, anyway. Drones are bad enough — horrible, actually — but clones?!! True, they can’t physically harm us real people (yet), but I’ll tell you why I fear them:

They can replace us.

Not all of us, but quite a few. First, there is that no-sleep-24/7 thing. She could replace three people in eight-hour shifts. What kinds of jobs? Customer service representatives come immediately to mind. Or schedulers and others who answer the phones in medical facilities. Think about that the next time you’re trying to get a refund for a faulty product, or find out about the results of your recent lab tests. Will that lovely voice on the other end of the line be able to handle your anger and frustration, or will you just keep hearing, “I’m so sorry you have been inconvenienced; be assured that your satisfaction is our first priority”?

Secretaries, bookkeepers, and other office workers are already becoming less and less visible because of automated processes that make it possible for one person to do the work of two, three, or more. It’s all assembly-line labor now, with no time for those chats by the water fountain . . . and it is mind-numbing and incentive-destroying.

And think about the people who previously held those jobs. Where are they working now? Retail sales? Those are rapidly being wiped out by online shopping. Fast-food restaurants? Sorry, but those are becoming more and more automated by the day as well, putting even greater numbers of people out of work. Before you know it, our city streets will be clogged with more Uber drivers than we would ever need . . . until driverless cars are perfected, that is. I suppose some of us could be retrained to build and repair all of the new technology, and to hell with job satisfaction. In a few years, no one will even remember what that was.

*. *. *

No, it’s not Victoria who terrifies me. There are many excellent applications for AI and other advanced technologies. But it’s what she symbolizes. Are we carrying it too far . . . or have we perhaps already done so? Are we truly headed for self-imposed obsolescence?

It’s things like this that keep me awake at night . . . but also make me glad I am the age that I am, with not that many years left to witness what humankind is doing to itself. Sometimes I think we owe our children an apology for this world we’re leaving to them . . . but then I realize that they’re the ones who invented all this technocrap.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka (the real live me)
5/4/24

It was obvious from the get-go that this was going to be an odd one, when a middle-aged self-styled communist from Texas, having defected to Russia in 2014 to join the army and fight “Nazis” in Ukraine, suddenly disappears after ten years — purportedly kidnapped and brutally murdered because he is suspected of being a CIA spy.

Sound like a Tom Clancy novel? Nope, sorry . . . it’s real life. I’m telling you: you just can’t make this stuff up.

They (the Russians) keep saying he’s dead. But where is his body? Is there a murder without a corpse? And what about . . .

Wait a second. The most logical way to approach this would probably be to create a timeline of events, insofar as I know them; so let’s try that.

*. *. *

In 2014, Bentley joined the Russian forces fighting in the Donbas region of eastern Ukraine. He married a Ukrainian woman, Lyudmila, with whom he has since lived in Petrovsky, Donetsk. According to Al Jazeera (April 29, 2024), “He reportedly obtained Russian citizenship in 2021, and last year started working as a correspondent with the pro-Kremlin Russian news agency Sputnik.”

For a good ol’ boy from Texas, Bentley certainly did develop a unique philosophy of his own throughout the first 55 years of his life:

“Bentley had described himself as a ‘poet’ and had said the US today is ‘governed by a group of original fascists and oligarchic companies, enemies of Russia and humanity as a whole.’

“He said he devoted his life to fighting against them, especially after the US invasions of Afghanistan and Iraq, which he claimed were ‘based on lies, and their committing crimes against humanity there.’” [Al Jazeera, April 29, 2024.]

Fast-forward to April 2024:

April 8: Russell Bentley is allegedly kidnapped. Wife Lyudmila waits about a week before reporting this to the police, who opened a criminal case that has now been turned over to a “military investigation committee.”

April 17: An article about Bentley’s disappearance appears (unlike Bentley himself) in the Daily Beast.

April 18: Finding Bentley’s story fascinating, I write my first blog chapter about him, at which time there is very little hard information, but a whole lot of questions.

April 19: An announcement is made on X by Margarita Simonyan — editor-in-chief of the Russia Today (RT) news channel, and reportedly a “close confidante” of Vladimir Putin — to the effect that Bentley has died in Donetsk “fighting ‘for our people.’” [Al Jazeera, id.] At or about the same time, Bentley’s former battalion, the Vostok Battalion, issued a statement on Telegram saying that “those who killed Russell Bentley . . . [will be dealt] exemplary punishment.” [Al Jazeera, id.]

April 20: The New York Post reports: “The body of Russell Bentley, a 64-year-old U.S. Army vet, was recovered in the Russian-controlled region of Donetsk Oblast, Reuters reported.”

April 24: Allison Quinn of the Daily Beast reports that “Unconfirmed reports have been circulating among Russian military bloggers to the effect that Bentley ‘suffered a gruesome death at the hands of Russian troops who mistook him for a spy.’’ And Lyudmila Bentley stated on Telegram: “I know that his remains have been seen. But then I’m told that there are no remains. How is that?”

April 27: I post a follow-up, still with a plethora of questions but no solid conclusions.

April 29: Along comes the aforementioned Al Jazeera article under the headline: “Russell Bentley: Pro-Russia fighter from US dies after Donetsk ‘abduction,’” with a sub-head reading: ‘Russians call for ‘revenge’ after the 64-year-old US-Russian citizen, who’s fought against Ukraine, dies.”

*. *. *

Now, wait just a damn minute here!

According to the Daily Beast report of April 24th, Russian military bloggers are saying he “suffered a gruesome death at the hands of Russian troops who mistook him for a spy.” But now, according to Al Jazeera, “Russians” — they don’t say which ones — are calling for revenge. Against whom? Themselves? An entire battalion? Or just the specific perps? Have they actually been identified? And, one more time, where in hell is Russell Bentley’s body . . . or what’s left of it?

And one further question: Why did Al Jazeera enclose ‘abduction’ in quotation marks? Is there still uncertainty as to who did what to whom on April 8th?

I’m sure his widow, the grieving Lyudmila, would like some answers.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/3/24

What’s that sound? I seem to hear a puzzled “WHO???” coming from all directions. You mean you’ve never heard of Ramzan Kadyrov?

It’s understandable, really; his is not exactly a household name. But if you’re one of the odd group of individuals who call ourselves Russophiles, you will know that he is the brutal overlord who, with the blessing of Vladimir Putin, sits at the head of the government of the Russian Republic of Chechnya.

But you don’t have to be a Russophile to be aware of the role Chechnya has played in Russia’s war against Ukraine, sending thousands of troops into the battlefield. Or the fierce, animalistic brutality with which those troops are known to fight and to treat both their military adversaries and innocent civilians. Kadyrov is Putin’s Puppet, doing his master’s bidding without question or hesitation . . . or conscience.

It hasn’t always been this way, though. In the 1990s, Chechnya fought two separatist wars with the Russian government . . . and lost. Kadyrov’s father, Akhmad Kadyrov, was head of the Chechen government then, and ceded the second war to Putin’s administration in 2003 . . . a move that proved both smart and fatal. He was rewarded with the presidency of the Chechen Republic in 2003; and he was assassinated in 2004. The seat was then occupied by one Alu Alkhanov for three years until he was dismissed by Putin in 2007, at which time our friend Ramzan turned 30 (the age at which one is eligible for the presidency in Chechnya). And he has been Vladimir Putin’s best friend in the Caucasus ever since.

Now, however, rumor has it that Ramzan Kadyrov, at the tender age of 47, is terminally ill, possibly as a result of the pancreatic necrosis with which he was diagnosed some five years ago. But details are sparse, due largely to the Kremlin’s efforts to convince the world that Kadyrov is still in good health.

Now I hear you asking: “Why?” Excellent question. Indeed, why would the loss of one man, merely the head of a Russian republic and not a sovereign nation, be of such importance?

Because of the order of succession. Normally, one of Kadyrov’s sons would inherit the office, as Ramzan did when he became of age. But Ramzan Kadyrov’s sons are just 18 and 15 years old. Instead, there are two individuals considered as likely successors: Major General Apti Alaudinov, commander of the Chechen Akhmat mercenary units in Ukraine, and Adam Delimkhanov, Kadyrov’s counsel and representative of Chechnya in the Russian Parliament.

As elucidated by Mark Galeotti of The Sunday Times:

“This is why Kadyrov’s likely death matters so much. If attempts to install a new leader cause splits in the Chechen elite, then this is likely to become not just a political but an armed dispute.”

And as one Russian political commentator succinctly put it: “There are too many men with guns and grudges there to be able to assume that things won’t turn bloody.” [Elliott Goat, The Week UK, April 30, 2024.]

And therein lies Putin’s problem. In simplest terms:

“Were the region to descend into armed conflict, the Russian president would have to decide whether to divert troops from Ukraine to restore order or risk losing Chechnya altogether.

“His brutal handling of the would-be breakaway territory 25 yeear ago made Putin’s name and established him as a ruthless and uncompromising leader. A quarter of a century on [in other words, now], it could prove his undoing.” [The Week UK, id.] [Emphasis is mine.]

And that’s why it matters.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/2/24

Just three days ago I reported on the detainment of Russian journalist Konstantin Gabov in Moscow on charges of “extremism” — the most common excuse being used these days for the silencing of Putin’s most vocal critics.

And then I learned that on the same day — Saturday, April 27th — yet another journalist, Sergey Karelin, was also arrested, but near his home in the Murmansk region of Russia some 125 miles above the Arctic Circle, accused of “participation in an extremist organization.”

Karelin, who holds dual Russian-Israeli citizenship, previously worked for a number of media outlets including the Associated Press (AP), and Deutsche Welle (DW) (prior to DW’s being banned in Russia in 2022). His fate remains to be determined, pending trial in two months (or more).

*. *. *

Not enough for you? Then add Sergey Mingazov to the list. A journalist for Forbes, Mingazov was also placed under two months’ house arrest at his home in Khabarovsk (near the Chinese border) on Saturday, where he will await trial after being detained “for allegedly spreading fake news about the Russian army.” [Zarah Ullah, Katharina Krebs, Darya Tarasova and Christian Edwards, CNN, April 28, 2024.] His attorney has said that the specific charge was “reposting a publication about the events in Bucha [Ukraine] on Telegram.” [Olga Voitovych, Darya Tarasova and Jessie Gretener, CNN, April 27, 2024.] According to authorities, this amounts to “spreading ‘knowingly false information’ about the Russian armed forces ‘under the guise’ of reliable reporting.” [CNN, Id.]

While under house arrest, Mingazov has been banned from using the internet, and is restricted in his contacts with people other than relatives, investigators, lawyers, and medical professionals. It may be better than sitting in a Russian prison, but make no mistake: he is still a political hostage whose future does not look bright.

*. *. *

The Kremlin’s crackdown on the media has taken other forms as well. Several cases have been filed in absentia against Russians who have fled the country. And in February, German WDR radio correspondent Bjorn Blaschke was fined 40,000 rubles ($428) for “having discredited the Russian army.” According to an anonymous source at independent media outlet Ekho Moskvy, “Blaschke was pulled off a train by police while traveling from Vladivostok to Moscow for a tweet posted in 2022 linking the offensive on Ukraine to the rising cost of wheat and fuel in several African countries. WDR pulled the correspondent out of Russia after his arrest.” [Javier G. Cuesta, El Pais International, April 27, 2024.]

He was one of the lucky ones.

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
5/1/24

To those who have missed the first 399 chapters of my blog (which I share daily on Facebook), allow me to give you a brief introduction to . . . well . . . me. My name is Brenda; my pen name is Brendochka, which is the nickname given to me many years ago by some Russian friends in Moscow, which is a long story that you will find in the earliest chapters of my aforesaid blog (at brendochka.com) if you would just read it.

Well, about me: I am retired. In the interest of full disclosure, I’m really pretty old. I have some disabilities and personal circumstances that keep me from doing many of the things I used to enjoy, mainly traveling. The two family pets are lovely but not very amusing; I’m not in the process of redecorating; and I haven’t found any interesting antiques to show you. Most of my friends are dead, and the few remaining ones live far, far away. So, there’s nothing really worth photographing. (I’ve even written about this — check out my 4/22/24 chapter on “The Inevitability of Invisibility.”)

What I do have, though, are words. Lots and lots of words. And I love putting them down “on paper,” so to speak, and sharing them with anyone who has the time and the interest to read them.

So I started this blog. I never expected it to go viral, but it was doing fairly well, especially after I began sharing it on Facebook. (The other day, someone in India read seven chapters.) However, I think it may have run its course, because my regular readership has dropped to . . . okay, so far today it’s zero. I think I know why, but I’d really like your input. If anyone is out there, that is.

Hello? HELLO??? Oh, there you are. Good . . .

To continue: I don’t post pictures of my activities because, as I said, I don’t have any really interesting ones any longer. Also, I am the least photogenic person I know. Do you really want to see photos of me sitting here tapping away at my iPad, or giving the dog her daily scratches, or maybe taking a stroll around the neighborhood? I thought not.

But I do write about interesting things that are happening in the world. That stuff fascinates me, and I tend to ramble on about it. Especially foreign affairs, and most particularly having to do with Russia. (If you had read my first 28 blog chapters, you’d understand why.) And sometimes I veer off onto subjects that just pop into my head, like the “joys” of aging, or lifestyles of yesterday vs. today, or what I really think of people like Donald Trump or Elon Musk or Kim Kardashian. Just stuff, and mostly in a humorous vein.

But, as you can see, I have never mastered the art of brevity, and I’m thinking that’s possibly why people don’t take the time to read me. Maybe Facebook just isn’t the right place for what I have to offer.

So if you’ve made it all the way through to the end of this monologue, could you perhaps do me a small favor and check out one or two of my blog chapters (still at brendochka.com), and let me know whether you think I should stop sharing them on Facebook. That’s all. I’m not going to stop writing the blog — just won’t take up all your valuable data space on FB with my thousands and thousands of words . . .

All right, I’ll shut up now. Thanks for sticking with me this far.

Brendochka
4/30/24

It’s a story as old as history itself.

Juliet, of course, pined hopelessly for her Romeo, but couldn’t overcome their meddling parents.

Elizabeth Bennet had her Mr. Darcy, but all that ridiculous pride and prejudice got in the way.

And remember your visions of Catherine Earnshaw as she longed to rendezvous with the brooding Heathcliff on the endless moors of England?

*. *. *

Those were all fiction, of course. But if life imitates art, or vice-versa, then why shouldn’t I also announce to the world that I have fallen — totally unexpectedly, hopelessly, ridiculously — “in love” with the most charming, eloquent, and witty man. Oh, not romantically in love, of course; that would be ludicrous considering our differences. But I have to confess that, on a more existential level, I absolutely adore . . .

Dmitry Peskov.

Yes, you heard me correctly. I’m talking about that Dmitry Peskov: darling of the news media, wit, raconteur, press secretary for none other than Vladimir Putin himself . . . Dmitry Sergeyevich Peskov.

I can’t help myself; I just cannot resist a man who makes me laugh. And yesterday, he went and did it again.

Let me give you a little background (I’ll try to be brief). You surely remember who Alexei Navalny was — the Russian dissident who was such a thorn in Putin’s side that he wound up being sentenced to 30 years in a Siberian prison camp. And you know that he died under suspicious circumstances at that camp; that there was a huge, angry reaction from the public following his death; and that most of the world blames Putin for his demise . . . and not without good reason.

Well, of course, the Kremlin has steadfastly denied that Putin had anything to do with Navalny’s fate, declaring that he never takes a personal interest in such matters, but leaves their handling to the appropriate government agencies. And just a few days ago, Putin received a “gift” from U.S. intelligence sources, when a finding was issued and reported upon as follows:

“Alexey Navalny’s February death in a remote Arctic prison camp likely wasn’t directly ordered by Vladimir Putin, despite Navalny’s outspoken criticism of the Russian president, the Wall Street Journal reported Friday.

“Despite the suspicious circumstances of the opposition leader’s death, the outlet reported Putin may not have intended Navalny to be killed when he was.

“The Journal, citing ‘people familiar with the matter,’ reported that several US intelligence agencies, including the CIA, the Office of the Director of National Intelligence, and the State Department’s intelligence unit, share this opinion.” [Katherine Tangalakis-Lippert, Business Insider, April 27, 2024.]

While the reports were offset by a confirmation that the official U.S. position is still that the Russian government “bears ultimate responsibility for Navalny’s death,” the onus seemed to have been removed from Putin personally.

And if that isn’t just the biggest, most beautiful May Day gift old Vladimir Vladimirovich could have asked for . . .

But my friend Dmitry Peskov wasn’t having any of America’s largesse. Apparently, he’s never heard the old saying about not looking a gift horse in the mouth, because his mouth just couldn’t resist its usual hilarious response, as reported in Saturday’s press:

“Russia has dismissed a report claiming Vladimir Putin did not order the killing of famed dissident Alexei Navalny, who died in an Arctic prison in February.

”Dmitry Peskov, Putin’s spokesman, told Russia’s state-run media on Saturday that he had seen the Wall Street Journal report, which cited an assessment by U.S. intelligence agencies, and that there was little reason to believe it. He derided its logic and said it wasn’t worth looking into.

“‘I would not say that this is high-quality material that deserves any attention. Some very empty reasoning,’ Peskov said.” [Amanda Yen, Daily Beast, April 27, 2024.] [Emphasis is mine.]

. . . thereby completely negating what Putin has been insisting all along.

*. *. *

Now, I have no clue as to why the U.S. Government would have issued such a statement in the first place, though I’m sure there’s some weird logic behind it somewhere, probably having to do with international diplomatic considerations, or possibly just an overly-developed sense of “fair play.” But neither do I understand why Dmitry would respond as he did. I mean, everyone knows he’s funny as hell, but I really don’t think that’s what he was going for here.

Dima . . . dear, sweet Bubbeleh . . . let me give you a quick lesson in basic etiquette, which works on both a personal and a professional level: When someone hands you a gift, you don’t refuse it. You accept it graciously . . . you smile . . . say thank you . . . and then you . . .

. . . shut the f*ck up!!!

Just sayin’ . . .

Brendochka
4/30/24

It’s late Sunday night, nearly Monday morning, and I’ve got . . . nothing. Nada. Zip. I’ve gone blank.

Not that there isn’t anything to write about. There’s always news, after all. It’s just that I’m momentarily burned out on all of the horror that confronts us every day, day after day. So I thought I’d just cheer myself — and hopefully you — up a bit with some of the absurdities and plain old silliness of life, past and present. I did not make any of this stuff up; I’m not that clever. It’s all from the pages of The Book of Useless Information (Publications International, Ltd., 2011). The book, by the way, was manufactured in China. For whatever that’s worth.

So here we go, with the first “Did you know . . . ?”

Charles Dickens was a master of inventiveness when it came to making up names for his characters. Who, for example, could ever forget Uriah Heep (from David Copperfield), Bumble (from Oliver Twist), or Pumblechook (from Great Expectations)? But after reading the list contained in my Book of Useless Information, I have a new favorite. And I anticipate that you, my readers, will not require an explanation of the reason that this fellow made it directly to the No. 1 spot on my list of all-time great names. Without further ado, from Dickens’ The Old Curiosity Shop, I present to you:

Dick Swiveller.

Okay, so much for the Monday morning blahs. I’m on a roll now.

*. *. *

I love music, most kinds. I even enjoy an occasional opera, though I must admit the plots, in addition to being unnecessarily complicated, are frequently downright depressing. Allow me to elucidate (if we’re talking about opera, I think it’s okay to use the upscale vocabulary).

— Tosca (by Giacomo Puccini, 1900): Floria Tosca is a celebrated singer whose lover is arrested by a corrupt police chief. She kills the police chief, but her lover is executed, and she commits suicide. * * * Now, there’s a plot that could have been wrapped up in 40 minutes of running time on an episode of Columbo. But no . . . onstage at the Met, it’s two hours and forty-five minutes of eye-rolling and breast-beating, not including two intermissions. Oy!

*. *. *

— La Boheme (also by Puccini, 1896): Set in the Latin Quarter of Paris, this opera focuses on the love affair between Rodolfo, a poet, and Mimi, a seamstress. The couple tragically separates for some reason or other, but they reunite shortly before Mimi dies of tuberculosis. * * * I wonder if that’s where the idea for the 1936 Greta Garbo movie “Camille” came from. In the movie, though, the dying heroine didn’t sing. She just coughed a lot.

*. *. *

— La Traviata (by Giuseppe Verdi, 1853): In Italian, “traviata” supposedly means “fallen woman.” Appropriately, then, this opera is the tale of a courtesan who is spurned by her respectable lover before dying in his arms. * * * Come on, now! “Respectable”? By whose definition? He’s been hanging around with this fallen woman, then he dumps her. That’s not respectable.

*. *. *

And one more, before I get seriously depressed:

— Madame Butterfly (by the prolific Puccini again, 1904): Possibly my favorite, both because of its hauntingly beautiful arias and the incredibly adorable name of its heroine, Cio-Cio-San (pronounced, if I recall correctly, “Cho-Cho-Son”). Anyway, she is a Japanese girl who embarks on a love affair with a U.S. naval officer, Lieutenant B. F. Pinkerton. (I have no idea what his initials stand for, and I’m not going to take a stab at it.) The couple has a child together, but the B.F. Lieutenant later runs out on her to marry an American woman, and Cio-Cio-San — as I’m sure you’ve already guessed — commits suicide. Don’t know what happens to the child. * * * This one actually was the inspiration (well, partially) for a stage play titled “M. Butterfly” but which took place in China, not Japan, and involved a French diplomat and an opera singer who — undetected by the besotted and bemused diplomat — is ultimately revealed to be a man.

And if that’s not intriguing enough, the play, which won the 1988 Tony Award for Best Play, was based most directly on the real-life 20-year affair between French diplomat Bernard Boursicot and the lovely Shi Pei Pu, a “female” Chinese opera singer who did indeed turn out to be male . . . as well as a Chinese spy. If you find it hard to believe, Google it — there was a huge scandal when it came to light in the ‘80s.

So which is stranger: truth or fiction? You tell me.

*. *. *

Well, for someone who was blank and burned-out an hour ago, I seem to have found enough to say. All of this nonsense has certainly made me feel better; I hope it’s done the same for you.

‘Til tomorrow, then.

Brendochka
4/29/24