Kraut Computer

Oh Jared, my Jared. This takes serious nerve. Your father-in-law’s Republican Party is reeling, and your family’s endless corruption scandals helped put it there. Yet here you are, already selling your next grand design. Shall we call this one the “reorganisation of Eastern Europe”? Always another peace framework to sell and another opportunity for the family business. Wasn’t the “reorganisation of the Middle East” enough? The Qatar blockade, Tillerson’s firing, the alleged quid pro quo behind the bailout of 666 Fifth Avenue? Princes, reconstruction billions and the family’s dealmakers, all gathered under the banner of peace. Textbook virtue signaling that makes even the most progressive left monsters blush. Another slush fund in sight? Princes and Thieves starts to sound less like a book title and more like the family business plan. You continue to treat the public and the United States Congress as useful idiots: repackage principles Moscow already signed, call them a new “security architecture” and sell another signature as peace. The Abraham Accords 2.0? Here’s the thing: the Helsinki Final Act (1975). The Charter of Paris (1990). The Budapest Memorandum (1994). The NATO–Russia Founding Act (1997). The Russia–Ukraine Friendship Treaty (1997). Putin’s own border treaty with Ukraine (2003). The Georgia ceasefire agreement (2008). How many more signatures do we need, Jared? The Kremlin’s problem has never been a shortage of signed commitments. It is the absence of consequences for breaking them. Meanwhile, “diplomacy” becomes your deal pipeline. After all, you know the “local rules”, don’t you? From Albania to Russia and the Middle East. Novatek’s reported funding of Polar LNG in Alaska. The proposed purchase of Lukoil’s overseas assets by investors that include your business partners. Deals requiring Washington’s blessing, wrapped in a peace process that offers convenient political cover for sanctions concessions. The Kremlin’s contempt for the rule of law runs deep. Even deeper than yours. Soviet communism subordinated the individual to the Party-state. Rights were permissions granted by power, never protections against it. Putin, Patrushev, Chemezov, Sechin, Kovalchuk, Timchenko and their circle preserved that hierarchy and turned it into organised looting on a national scale. The state serves the men who control it. The same logic governs Moscow’s dealings abroad: signatures constrain others; the Kremlin considers itself bound only for as long as it suits its interests. The fundamental divide is whether law constrains power, or power decides when law applies. The Kremlin needs consequences it cannot afford, backed by force it cannot defeat. Your next piece of paper gives it neither. Of course, you understand all that perfectly well. You are an insider. You just couldn’t care less, could you? As long as it opens the door to to acquire Lukoil’s assets on the cheap for you and your family. @ewarren @RonDeSantis @ossoff @NikkiHaleyHQ