Projection, American Style

It seems that some individuals and media outlets are not letting up on the idea that Russia basically won the election. Since they will not shut up about it, I’m sure many people on the Kremlin’s payroll are no doubt celebrating an early Christmas- nothing ensures your funding and career better than Western media outlets panicking and overstating the efficacy of Russian active measures.

Once again I think it’s time for a reality check. Did Russia at least attempt to interfere in the US election? Yes. Did they succeed in influencing it, to some degree, yes. Are they the reason why Trump won and Hillary lost? Absolutely not.  What happened on that November Tuesday was the sum result of processes that had been set in motion decades earlier, in the Clinton administration at the latest. Now, the truly disturbing thing is that it really seems the Democratic party is cultivating the “Russia did it” thesis in order to rationalize its apparent unwillingness to change its politics. This is a very dangerous thing.

Usually when I write about projection here, it’s about the projection of the Putin regime. They claim to be a defender of Western civilization, or at times a unique, superior civilization, but when you actually examine Russia and come up with all kinds of inconvenient facts that cast doubt on their pretensions, the regime supporters insist that this is all the West’s fault. The West forces sexual immorality, drug use, and rampant consumerism on Russia, so examples of these things don’t count. In reality, of course, Russia is what Russia does. If, say, pornography and prostitution were so antithetical to inherent Russian values, these things wouldn’t be so prevalent in Russia and you wouldn’t need an internet watchdog to censor sites like PornHub. In other words, if Russia was so inherently opposed to such things, then the West wouldn’t even be able to import them.

Well since we’re all fair and balanced here, guess what- the same thing applies to the West, and especially America. For most of my life I’ve listened to or scene what today we might call “fake news,” and very little was done to oppose it. Even so-called “liberal” news outlets usually submitted to the frame that conservatives had built. For example, the liberal case for welfare was basically, “Yeah, there’s a big problem with welfare, but you can’t let poor people starve.” Nobody seemed to really challenge the conservative argument and aggressively attack the misnomer of “welfare queens,” nor did they point to studies showing that states with cash payouts had fewer people on welfare for less time. For liberals, it seemed to be a question of whether you had a heart or not, as if there wasn’t a rational, economic argument for welfare. No surprise, the system ended up being gutted by Democrat Bill Clinton in collusion with a Republican congress.

The “fake news” reached fever pitch after 9/11, and led directly to the Iraq War, yet even there, the supposed other side put up little fight. Not only did they contribute to the mass terrorism hysteria that broke down Americans’ critical thinking in the run-up to the invasion of Iraq, but they also failed to seriously challenge the administration on its WMD claims. Nowadays it’s apparent that the media would like most of America to just move on, but the problem is that the relatives killed in that war are still dead, and the lives ruined by the economic hardships surrounding it haven’t been rebuilt for the most part. Some media outlets have issued apologies and introduced more diversity of opinion since then, but that’s little comfort to those who lost people to the war or who just fervently believed in something they found to be a lie.

After 9/11 there also seemed to be a certain mainstreaming of conspiracy theories, both those related to 9/11 and later with the Tea Party. The calm, rational, level-headed Democrats treated this as a source of amusement. These folks were really crazy! Isn’t it funny how crazy they all are? Filming a Tea Party supporter rattling off his theories about Obama being a secret Muslim Communist Manchurian candidate was a source of entertainment; it was never taken seriously as the threat that it was.

I could go on and on about all the issues that went unaddressed or poorly addressed in the past 20 or so years, but what matters is that none of this is Russia’s fault, and for most of that time Russia had virtually zero ability to influence American opinions. And when Russia got this ability, they did so almost exclusively by vacuuming up conspiracy theories and certain ideological currents from the West and then repackaging them. It’s very fitting that RT only really came on the radar as a result of Occupy Wall Street. Ignoring all the problems of that train wreck for a second, who is truly foolish enough to claim that this was a Russian active measures operation? OWS was a reaction to policies and trends in America, period.

When you look at the myriad of problems in Russia, you can see that projection is largely one of the reasons why they are not rectified. If it’s all just a Western plot, what can you do? Just because the US is far more powerful than Russia and still maintains some semblance of democracy doesn’t mean that the exact same mode of thinking won’t have a seriously negative impact on American society. At the very least, you can rest assured that such thinking doesn’t do anything to oppose the conspiratorial thinking that is associated with this so-called “post-fact, post-truth” society. In fact it’s quite the opposite.

I’ve been saying this for a long time now- If Western liberals are losing to Putin, it is their own fault for refusing to correct their own policies and reestablish trust among their constituencies. The practice of idolizing the “free market” and slavishly catering to if not worshiping the super-rich has not only compromised the West’s immune system, but it actually created and nourished Putin’s corrupt regime. The political class can either collectively wake up and start implementing the changes to reverse this process, or they can wallow in conspiracy theories and blame everybody but themselves. What choice will they make?

Oh. This. Great.


42 thoughts on “Projection, American Style

  1. Samurai Sam

    “Once again I think it’s time for a reality check. Did Russia at least attempt to interfere in the US election? Yes. Did they succeed in influencing it, to some degree, yes. Are they the reason why Trump won and Hillary lost? Absolutely not.”

    Multiple paragraphs of bla bla bla? check. Any quantitative analysis to back up this claim given the razor thin margins? NONE.

    Given the razor this margins that tipped this elections, If you’re going to make a claim of “absolutely not,” then it is obvious that simply pointing out missed opportunities and bonehead moves by the clinton campaign are patently insufficient to prove your claim. You need to show that Russian actions were not of sufficient effect to sway a deciding number of votes. Now, I’m not making a claim on that one way or another – I at least have the humility to appreciate that I simply don’t have the quantitative evidence to have an informed view one way or another – while you’re so out of it it’s not clear to me that you’re even aware of the need for quantitative evidence.

    please stick to writing on actual russia where you actually know something. everything else here is a trainwreck.

    1. Jim Kovpak Post author

      “You need to show that Russian actions were not of sufficient effect to sway a deciding number of votes.”

      I’m sorry but this is a positive claim (that Russia swung the election). That means it needs to be backed up with proof. The standard up to now is that Russia hasn’t managed to significantly influence any US election, so this can reasonably be called an extraordinary claim.

      Also following Occam’s Razor, we can look at some very concrete failures of the Clinton campaign (the lack of campaigning in the Midwest was even mentioned by Obama), and reasonably suggest that these mistakes and errors are far more likely to have been the cause of the defeat than Russian meddling.

      Keep in mind that so far the CIA and everyone else has only confirmed that Russia has interfered with, or attempted to interfere with the US election.

      So until someone comes forward with more quantitative evidence that Russia actually turned the election in favor of Trump, the default answer is no.

      1. Samurai Sam

        “Did Russia at least attempt to interfere in the US election? Yes. Did they succeed in influencing it, to some degree, yes. Are they the reason why Trump won and Hillary lost? Absolutely not.”

        And you are complaining about “positive claims?”

        Three positive claims BY you in the above. The first two are protected by weasel words (the nature of the term “attempt” and “to some degree”). The last one, however, is where your hypocrisy (and usual Dunning Kruger syndrome) is on full display. And I’m not going to spell it out for you further, since every reader with a pair of eyes and a functioning brain can see why.

      2. Jim Kovpak Post author

        The first two claims (which are not mine) have been backed up with evidence (yes, I’ve been checking), the last one, which is a negative, has not been. Ergo the default position is “no,” until some evidence surfaces to show otherwise.

        Please realize that you can’t just use Dunning-Kruger as some kind of general insult here.

        The burden of proof is not a difficult concept. Some people are trying to claim that Putin and Russia made Trump win. The evidence for this simply isn’t there yet.

      3. Samurai Sam

        You’re complaining that “some people” claim that russia made trump win while you are MAKE A POSITIVE CLAIM; CATEGORICALLY INSISTING THAT RUSSIA DID NOT based on INFORMATION YOU DO NOT AND CANNOT HAVE. YOU MADE THE POSITIVE CLAIM.

        To paraphrase James O’Brien from that wonderful Brexit interview: do you see what I’m holding up here? Do you not see the mirror that is being held up to you you massive hypocrite?

        Incidentally, those “some people” who happen to have made the positive claim are the CIA. Now, not having seen their evidence, I can’t say whether their claim is right or wrong. However, at least it is plausible that they have looked into actual nuts and bolts of the matter, something which you categorically have not.

        Seriously dude. I am really embarrassed for you here. In your last few articles you’ve gone from “pretty good observer of russia who is well out of his league on most other topics, though probably well intentioned” to “angry little hypocrite that might as well be posting on the daily stormer.”

        Ok, that’s a bit much, but still your hypocrisy here is on full display.

      4. Jim Kovpak Post author

        The CIA is not the only agency that has alleged Russian-backed hackers committed cyber-attacks on the DNC, which led to the leaked emails. There are government agencies and private agencies making these claims. Russia also has a history of pulling state-sponsored cyber-attacks like this in the past, in several other different countries.

        Now, bearing that in mind, what are the changes that these different private and government agencies are all lying to wrongfully accuse Russia, putting their careers and businesses at risk?

        Is it possible? Sure. Likely, no?

        So, once again, we have two claims that OTHER people have made, both of which at least have some evidence. Then we have one other claim that SOME people are making, which has zero evidence and is highly unlikely.

        This is what I pointed out. That you’d call this “hypocrisy” once again makes me doubt your English skills.

        And please drop this idiotic pretense of “you’re a good observer of Russia but…” act. It’s painfully obvious that this just means you agree with the stuff I write about Russia when it fits your worldview, and dismiss anything that challenges it.

    2. Samurai Sam

      Ah. The “english skills” claim again. How droll. I wish I could tell you who I am in real life and you’d realize HOW FUCKING STUPID that particular trope of yours is. But, since i won’t, let’s just go on to the matter at hand for the third time:

      Here are YOUR WORDS, Jim:

      “Once again I think it’s time for a reality check. Did Russia at least attempt to interfere in the US election? Yes. Did they succeed in influencing it, to some degree, yes. Are they the reason why Trump won and Hillary lost? Absolutely not.”

      And again:

      Quoth Jim the hypocrite: “Are they the reason why Trump won and Hillary lost? Absolutely not.”

      and again:

      Jim asks rhetorically: “Are they the reason why Trump won and Hillary lost? ”
      and then makes the positive claim: “Absolutely not.”

      and again:

      “Are they the reason why Trump won and Hillary lost? Absolutely not.”

      You wrote this. nobody forced your hand. YOU made the positive claim.

      So ok – keep handwaving about “some others.” As if you are distracting anybody from the fact that you’ve been caught out, pants down and on fire.

      1. Jim Kovpak Post author

        Saying that something didn’t happen is not a positive claim.

        Again, since you are very confused.

        None of these are MY claims. They have been made by other people. TWO of them have evidence in favor of them. One, the claim that Russia swayed the election in favor of Trump, has no concrete evidence to date. When there is evidence, I’ll change my position on that.

        Let’s recap that again.

        Claim 1- Has evidence in favor from multiple sources.

        Claim 2- Also has some evidence that is widely accepted. I even said “influenced the election to some degree.”

        Claim 3- that Russia successfully got Trump elected, possibly as an intentional conspiracy to do so, has no evidence in favor of it and some strong evidence against it. It constitutes an extraordinary claim and therefore requires extraordinary evidence.

        This is really basic logic here and now you’re just having a little tantrum because your passive-aggressive pedantry didn’t work out the way you planned.

        Come back here with actual concrete evidence that Russia’s interference swung the election for Trump or get ready to be banned.

      2. Samurai Sam

        “Saying that something didn’t happen is not a positive claim. ”

        WOW. Just wow. TOTAL LOGIC FAIL.

        Ok, at least where i understand where you are coming from. You’re ignorant of the basics of logic and logical terminology and you’ve never head so much as an undergraduate course in predicate logic, where these things are discussed typically in the first week.

        To anybody familiar with logic, your claim is a positive claim of the non-existence of something. This is sometimes colloquially known as a “negative claim”, but from a logical strict standpoint they are identical and carry identical burdens of proof.


        Note that you have not stated “I don’t know whether…”. you have not said “I don’t believe a sufficient case have been made that…” You made an absolute positive claim that it did NOT. And this, perhaps stemming from your lack of familiarity with basic logic, is why you, Mr. Dunning-Kruger, have totally embarrassed yourself here.

        I’m done here.

      3. Jim Kovpak Post author

        You’re throwing a tantrum and engaging in pointless semantics because you’re unable to come up with a coherent argument against anything I said.

        The burden of proof is on the claimant, and thus far anyone claiming that Russia engineered Trump’s victory has zero concrete evidence.

        The claim is unlikely, and far more salient factors explain Hillary’s loss.

        Ergo- I’m justified in denying that claim.

        The only embarrassing thing here is you throwing a little fit because you clearly want to dispute some point I made, yet are unable to bring any evidence for it.

        So welcome to ban land, my passive-aggressive non-friend!

      4. Jim Kovpak Post author

        Oh look- it’s economist Paul Krugman claiming that Trump was “installed” by Putin.

        No evidence, extraordinary claim- no credibility.

    3. sglover

      You mention it, and then do a beautiful job of dancing around the main issue:

      Given the razor this margins that tipped this elections….

      Those razor thin margins are entirely due to the Dems settling on God’s shittiest candidate, Hillary Clinton. Who in a stroke of genius which only she could pull off, managed to multiply her own lengthy set of liabilities with the most incompetent — though very well-funded! — campaign in my lifetime.

      And against whom did Clinton score these “razor thin margins”? Donald Fucking Trump. Oh yeah, the hand of Moscow is easy to see here.

      This Russia hysteria is the Dem version of the right-wingers’ Birther delusion. Outside of Hitler’s bunker, I can’t think of a situation where blame-shifting has veered into mass neurosis so quickly, and among so many.

      1. Jim Kovpak Post author

        But that’s exactly my point about this election. As one other columnist put it- this should have been one of the easiest opponents ever, and she lost.

  2. gbd_crwx

    A question concerning the Trump nominee for Secretary of State, Does he need Senate approval or could trump go ahed and hire him anyway?

  3. AndyT

    The “Russian-conspiracy” saga has been going for so long that I think Putin himself is now wondering:

    “…But do they really think our propaganda is so convincing? Have we really managed to trick the Clintons, their supporters and liberal pundits into believing this?!”

      1. Jae-hyeon

        One more video:

        The comments section is also worth a look. Some examples:

        “They just hate him cause he makes every other politician in the world look like a complete joke.”

        “Look at him, he is achieving more investigative results in 3 minutes then a western commitee will get in 1 year.”

        “He is hated because he cannot be bought off by the west and he wants Russia to follow it’s own, independent policy. Everything else is just noise and western propaganda.”

        “Shit! I live in Russia, and I don’t care about foreign shit about Putin. And I hate Putin (or as we call him in Russia “SunFace”) just because he is a head of corruption, no one who was spotted for a real corruption with billions of dollars loss wasn’t chased at all, for example previous minister of defense. He ruined the government system, there is nothing work without his right order, in some regions like Chechnya human rights means nothing. He is rewrite the constitution (by hands of his puppet Medvedev) to be a president 12 years without changing with some other puppet for a period. The economy is ruined, in less than a month ruble felled by 2 times! There is no income except oil. Russia is a Europe’s gas station now… And Putin is a head of country 16 years… A lot of people leave the country and them are smart ones, many of them had small business here…”

        “SLAP! SLAP! SLAP! One after another.
        I think that guy is the only honest and direct politician I’ve seen in my life.
        No shit people like him… and no shit American politician don’t (since they are mostly all involved in similar corruption).”

        Is President Putin the most popular statesman in the world?

    1. Jim Kovpak Post author

      Well it starts with a flat out lie. When Putin or any other leader begins a sentence with “we never said,” it almost certainly guarantees that they have said it at least once before, if not multiple times and on camera.

      I can’t stand to watch the midget spin his yarns, but basically if you’re saying that the US’ failed Middle East policy led to the rise of ISIS, you’re right. If you say they actually created ISIS, you’d be wrong and that’s a conspiracy theory.

      Of course Putin has no right to criticize American foreign policy like Iraq because he apparently wants to engage in the exact same action.

      Also I should say that within about a week or so of this “fake news” trend, I’ve become sick of the term. For one thing, they act like it’s this new thing when it’s not. There are stories that are entirely fabricated, but that’s often rare. What’s more common is exaggeration or distortion of the facts.

      1. Jae-hyeon

        “There are stories that are entirely fabricated, but that’s often rare. What’s more common is exaggeration or distortion of the facts.”

        Good point. I think in some ways the latter is more natural than the former, in part because it’s easy to engage in it unintentionally/unconsciously.

        This article concerning Mr. Trump is worth mentioning:

        “Trump is something worse than a liar. He is a bullshit artist. In his 2005 book On Bullshit, Harry G. Frankfurt, emeritus philosophy professor at Princeton University, makes an important distinction between lying and bullshitting—one that is extremely useful for understanding the pernicious impact that Trump has on public life. Frankfurt’s key observation is that the liar, even as he or she might spread untruth, inhabits a universe where the distinction between truth and falsehood still matters. The bullshitter, by contrast, does not care what is true or not. By his or her bluffing, dissimulation, and general dishonesty, the bullshit artist works to erase the very possibility of knowing the truth. For this reason, bullshit is more dangerous than lies, since it erodes even the possibility of truth existing and being found.”

        “Also I should say that within about a week or so of this “fake news” trend, I’ve become sick of the term.”

        In that case I suggest the term “faux news.” Not much of an improvement, perhaps, but the reference to America’s most (in)famous fake news network is a point in its favor.

      2. Jae-hyeon

        I’ve read Karen Dawisha’s book PUTIN’S KLEPTOCRACY. Though I don’t disbelieve or dispute the charges of kleptocracy, I am still not fully convinced.

        What are your primary reasons for believing that the President is “comfortably in bed with the West” and is a “thieving midget” who has been robbing the Russian people all this time?

      3. Jim Kovpak Post author

        Russia is integrated into the world economy. The reason the country is as powerful as it is today is due to massive foreign investment (and oil prices), which the government encouraged and still tries to encourage (still with limited success).

        The fact that you have so many European politicians demanding the sanctions be dropped for economic reasons and the rest are too afraid to increase the sanctions shows you that this is more of a lover’s quarrel than a new Cold War.

      4. Jae-hyeon

        Fair enough.

        Your article “Where there’s smoke…” is, among your writings, the strongest and most substantive statement on the issue that I’ve come across so far. There you wrote:

        “Sure, maybe the narrative about Putin’s Russia being a kleptocracy is nothing but a Western invention, but you know, doesn’t it really kind of look like what you’d expect a corruption-ridden kleptocracy to look like?”


        “[W]hile the simple answer [to the question of Russia’s current problems] isn’t necessarily Putin, as in Putin the man, it does have everything to do with the Putinist system.”

        Do you stand by everything you wrote in that article?

      5. Jim Kovpak Post author

        Yes I’d say so. Kremlin sources always tell us how much smarter Russia is than the West, how it does nothing but good in the world yet the evil West and their puppets do nothing but slander it.

        Very well then- if this is the case, why is it so hard for Russia to make friends? Why does Russia have problems that many of those Western countries don’t have? Why is it this country has such natural wealth yet you wouldn’t know it when you travel throughout many places? Why is it there’s only one man qualified to run this nation, and the media can’t even imagine an alternative, even from supposed “opposition” candidates or Putin’s own party?

        If we look at America or Germany, we can obviously see many problems. Some seem totally hopeless at times. But on the other hand, we see some of the highest living standards in the world. We see people lined up to immigrate or at least work in those countries.

        These concrete factors tell us that they’re doing something right. This is what I’m referring to.

      6. Jae-hyeon

        If I were on Team Russia, these are the answers I might give (apologies if they are even worse than what the average Team Russia member would come up with):

        “Very well then- if this is the case, why is it so hard for Russia to make friends? Why does Russia have problems that many of those Western countries don’t have?”

        Because of the New World Order and NATO encirclement, among other things. No country on Earth is under more fierce a siege than Russia. Most of Russia’s problems come from the West. The West has a monopoly on the world’s resources, and this enables it to punish any nation that refuses to bow down and serve its agenda. (Look at North Korea.)

        “Why is it there’s only one man qualified to run this nation, and the media can’t even imagine an alternative, even from supposed “opposition” candidates or Putin’s own party?”

        This style of government is consistent with Russia’s long history of autocratic rule. Russia favors strong leaders, hence the popularity of the Tsars and Joseph Stalin. Strongmen are necessary in part because of Russia’s unique geographical features and sheer size. Only a firm hand can ward off the forces of godless decadence, which will stop at nothing to corrupt Russia, if not destroy it outright. Democracy is fundamentally alien to the Russian psyche. Autocracy is, of course, part of Emperor Nicholas I’s ideological trifecta (Orthodoxy, Autocracy, and Nationality), which is Russia’s only chance of survival. I recommend reading Konstantin Pobedonostsev.

        “If we look at America or Germany, we can obviously see many problems. Some seem totally hopeless at times. But on the other hand, we see some of the highest living standards in the world. We see people lined up to immigrate or at least work in those countries.”

        Again, it’s because they have a monopoly on the world’s resources, which they obtained by exploiting other countries. They may have better living standards, but that’s about it. Russia holds the moral and spiritual high ground, and that’s what really counts. Russia will never sell its soul, no matter what the cost.

        In your article “Here we go again,” where you criticize William Browder, you wrote:

        “My illusions were shattered by looking at the conditions people lived in and being outraged to see that many cultural and moral ills of the Yeltsin era were still quite alive and well. I saw with my own eyes the contrast between immeasurable opulence and oppressive poverty and urban decay.”

        Sounds like it was a profound experience. Have you given a more detailed account of it elsewhere?

      7. Jim Kovpak Post author

        I realize this is just a thought experiment, but I’ll bite.

        The first claim is nonsense. It might fly for early Soviet apologetics, but it simply doesn’t fly in modern times. The West turned a blind eye to Yeltsin as he constructed the authoritarian regime that he would hand over to Putin. Putin worked with the West on numerous issues.The first time Putin faced any kind of reprimand it was the toothless sanctions after Crimea. The slightly tougher sanctions were the result of Putin’s forces accidentally shooting an airliner out of the air. In fact, if the plane were full of Russians and Ukrainians I doubt those sanctions would have been levied.

        The West dumped billions of dollars into Russia, made deals with Russia’s top companies, and looked the other way as dirty money stolen in Russia flowed into their banks and real estate markets.

        As for claims that Russians need a strong leader, they are twofold.

        First, if it is “tradition” that is nonsense. Human sacrifice, slavery, and women as property were also tradition, even in some Western countries. Germany had one of the most horrible dictatorships still in living memory for many people. Is that a tradition for them?

        The claim that Russians require a strong leader due to geography or specific historical conditions is nonsense and anti-Russian. In fact, I’d even call it Russophobic, especially since the same argument has often been used by Russia’s enemies in the past. This is Orientalism plain and simple.

        While the US is much smaller than Russia, it was able to have a fair election in the middle of a civil war, in spite of the massive diversity it already had, plus an influx of immigrants.

        And as for savagery- I’ll take any town in Russia over 19th century New York in a heartbeat. The corruption that used to exist in the US back then would make Russia today look like a model of good governance.

        Lastly, on the reason for German and US power. Yes, imperialism certainly played a role, but Germany was also totally destroyed in 1945. Ditto Japan.

        As for Russia not selling its soul, that’s simply laughable. One can learn that in the center of Moscow, or better yet- Rublevka. The whole reason Russia is why it is today is because a gang of thieves exploits their fellow citizens so they can take their ill-gotten gains and live in Western luxury, sometimes in the West itself.

        How is it not selling one’s soul to submit to this hypocritical system run by outright criminals? It is a daily insult to all the peoples of Russia, and it is doubly pathetic that I am angrier about this than Russians.

        As for your last question, I don’t remember if I wrote it out in detail here. I think you’ll find it in bits and pieces. I’ll write about it in more detail in my book.

  4. sglover

    Off topic, but I see you’ve posted a tweet that bashes Gorbachev. I’m curious, what’s your take on Gorbachev? I always thought he was a convinced socialist, more or less honestly trying to reform the Soviet system within the limits it afforded. You disagree? I realize that he’s widely loathed by Russians, but I assumed that was a consequence of the Yeltsin disaster more than perestroika per se. Anyway I’d like to hear other assessments.

  5. Mr. Hack

    Book? What book? I hope i appears sooner than Karlin’s promised ‘Dark Lord of the Kremln’ (his lord, no doubt) that he’s been threatening to write for several years now….

    1. Jim Kovpak Post author

      I’ve heard he already wrote a book about how great IQ is or something. I hope nobody ever tells him that IQ was never intended to be a measure of inherent intelligence (because it isn’t).

      1. Mr. Hack

        Yeah, I’m sure that as an amateur anthropologist, karlin’s analysis was based on skull sizes etc;
        It’s too bad that he doesn’t come around to your blog to often, for I consider him to be one of the more gifted Kremlin Stooges out there. I’m sure he feels more comfortable hanging around venues that are more open to his sort of propaganda…

        So tell me some more about your proposed book?….:

      2. Jim Kovpak Post author

        He’s really too smart to be supporting them. He’s at least more than intelligent enough to realize that his choice of living in California rather than good old conservative Russia pretty much tells everyone what he really chooses.

        But as for my book, I’m thinking of a large collection of vignettes based on experiences that have happened over the past decade or so.

        Just a little teaser, some key phrases that will definitely be in the book are:

        -My neighbor’s exploding car
        -The Waffen SS man on a bicycle
        -The chainsaw peddlers of Moscow
        -Double Olga weekend
        -Local customs for vomiting

      3. Jae-hyeon

        I’m hoping to see something about your encounters with the “right-wing thugs and militia types” you mentioned last month. 😉

  6. Mr. Hack

    All of your proposed vignettes look quite entertaining to read. I can imagine that the last one that you’ve mentioned may have had something to do with a late night out where besides the obligatory 15-20 ‘buchat’ shots was accompanied by that queer dish held in such high regard by many Russians and Ukrainians: Shuba*

    * a strange food concoction where the main players are sweet and slightly crunchy beets and
    oily & salty pickled herring. Other additions to this menagerie of culinary misanthropy usually includes potoes, peas and even sauerkraut??? Oy yo yoy!…


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s