SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Strategies & Market Trends : 2026 TeoTwawKi ... 2032 Darkest Interregnum -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: carranza2 who wrote (186493)4/17/2022 7:17:02 AM
From: Haim R. Branisteanu  Respond to of 217656
 
carranza2 - the Russian leadership may be unbalanced and indifferent to people loss of life - nothing new there. Stalin ruled in a very similar way as was Ivan the Terrible and thereafter. Heritage changes very slowly.

But at least most of them are not suicidal - the resolve will come when they will face reality and all the world countries will be united. The world is not there we still are in "Chamberlain" days.

When reality will filter in the higher echelons a major change will happen it will be bloody in Russian style but the world prosperity will rise substantially due to the riches that will be unlocked in Russia,

Hopefully the mistakes made when Yeltsin came to power will not be repeated and an orderly transition under law and order will commence.

The major drag will be the reconstruction of Ukraine

So may be the prophecy of Isaiah will finally come to being



To: carranza2 who wrote (186493)4/17/2022 7:58:45 AM
From: Pogeu Mahone  Respond to of 217656
 
Durham says CIA found data alleging Trump-Russia plot was ‘user created’

By
Brooke Singman, Fox News

April 16, 2022 10:41pm
Updated

Special Counsel John Durham claims the FBI were knew Michael Sussmann's evidence about Donald Trump and Russia was "user created."AP Photo/Bob Child, File

ORIGINALLY PUBLISHED BY:


Migrant aboard fourth bus to DC says poverty in Venezuela drove him to cross southern border Former stripper running for Congress says 'climate emergency' partially prompted decision to get an abortion Biden administration rolls out ‘equity actions plans’ across gov’t agencies

Special Counsel John Durham asserted in a court filing Friday that the CIA concluded data from Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann alleging coordination between Donald Trump and Russia was “not technically plausible” and was “user created.”

In the filing, Durham responded to objections from Sussmann’s defense regarding what evidence could be admissible at Sussmann’s trial, which is scheduled to begin next month. Sussmann is accused of lying to the FBI by saying he was not attending a meeting on behalf of a particular client when he was actually presenting the information on behalf of the Hillary Clinton campaign and a technology executive with whom he worked.

Durham in February first revealed that the government would establish during trial that among the data “exploited” was domain name system (DNS) internet traffic pertaining to “a particular healthcare provider, Trump Tower, Donald Trump’s Central Park West apartment building, and the Executive Office of the President of the United States (EOP).”

In February, Durham said data was exploited “by mining the EOP’s DNS traffic and other data for the purpose of gathering derogatory information about Donald Trump,” adding the data was used to establish “an inference” and “narrative” tying Trump to Russia.

But Sussmann is moving to preclude evidence concerning the “gathering” of that “DNS data” by “Tech Executive 1,” who has been identified as Rodney Joffe, and his associates.

In Friday’s filing, Durham argued that the gathering of the data is a “necessary factual backdrop to the charged conduct.”

Special counsel John Durham releases evidence against Clinton lawyer

Play Video

Durham’s original indictment alleges Sussmann told then-FBI General Counsel James Baker in September 2016 — less than two months before the 2016 presidential election — he was not doing work “for any client” when he requested and held a meeting where he presented “purported data and ‘white papers’ that allegedly demonstrated a covert communications channel” between the Trump Organization and Alfa Bank, which has ties to the Kremlin.

The indictment alleges that Sussmann lied in the meeting, “falsely stating to the general counsel that he was not providing the allegations to the FBI on behalf of any client.”

Sussmann has pleaded not guilty and has sought to dismiss the case. The federal judge presiding over the case denied that request this week.

Special Counsel John Durham insists any allegations between former President Donald Trump and Russian firm Alfa Bank are false.APDurham also alleges that Sussmann in February 2017 provided an “updated set of allegations,” including the Alfa Bank claims, and additional allegations related to Trump to a second U.S. government agency, which Fox News has confirmed was the CIA.

In his filing Friday, Durham says the government expects to “adduce evidence at trial” that will reflect that the FBI and the CIA “concluded that the Russian Bank 1 allegations were untrue and unsupported.

Former Clinton campaign lawyer Michael Sussmann allegedly lied to the FBI about his meeting with a man called “Tech Executive 1.”Perkins Coie
“For example, while the FBI did not reach an ultimate conclusion regarding the data’s accuracy or whether it might have been in whole or in part genuine, spoofed, altered, or fabricated, Agency 2 concluded in early 2017 that the Russian Bank 1 data and Russian Phone Provider 1 data was not ‘technically plausible,’ did not ‘withstand technical scrutiny,’ ‘contained gaps,’ ‘conflicted with [itself],’ and was ‘user created and not machine/tool generated,” Durham wrote.

However, Durham states that “the Special Counsel’s Office has not reached a definitive conclusion in this regard.”

But Durham argued that “separate and apart from whether the data was actually unreliable or provided a motive” for Sussmann to lie, evidence concerning the steps the FBI and CIA took to “investigate these matters is critical to establishing materiality.”

Durham said that information will “enable the jury to evaluate those steps, which, in turn, will inform their conclusions about whether the defendant’s alleged false statement was material and could tend to influence or impair government functions.”

Meanwhile, Durham outlines the connection between Sussmann and the now-infamous and discredited anti-Trump dossier, which contained allegations of purported coordination between Trump and the Russian government.

The unverified dossier was authored by ex-British Intelligence agent Christopher Steele and commissioned by opposition research firm Fusion GPS. The law firm Perkins Coie is the firm that the Democratic National Committee and the Clinton campaign funded the anti-Trump dossier through.

Former President Donald Trump has long accused Hillary Clinton of spying on his presidential campaign in 2016.AP Photo/David Goldman, FileIn Durham’s filing Friday, he revealed that Sussmann met in the summer of 2016 with Steele at the Perkins Coie offices, where he told Steele about the Alfa Bank allegations.

Durham states that after their meeting, personnel from the “U.S. Investigative Firm,” which Fox News previously reported is Fusion GPS, tasked Steele to “research and produce intelligence reports” about Alfa Bank, “which he did.”

Durham, in his filing, states that Sussmann “represented and worked for the Clinton campaign in connection with its broader opposition research efforts” and “took steps to integrate” the Alfa Bank allegations “into those opposition research efforts.”

Then presidential candidate Hillary Clinton published a tweet accusing Donald Trump of having a “secret line of communication to Russia” on Oct. 31, 2016.TwitterDurham argued that the evidence is “highly probative” because it establishes that Sussmann “represented and worked for the Clinton campaign with its broader opposition research efforts.”

Durham also states the evidence establishes that Sussmann “carried out his September 19, 2016, meeting with the FBI in order to, among other things, further the interests of the Clinton campaign with assistance from” Fusion GPS.

In the filing, Durham also points to notes from a former FBI assistant director that state, among other things, that “the dossier’s author was hired” by Fusion GPS to “dig up dirt on Trump for an unnamed U.S. client.”

Former British Intelligence agent Christopher Steele was allegedly tasked with writing reports about Russian firm Alfa Bank.Tolga Akmen/AFP/Getty Images
“The fact that FBI headquarters received on the same date both sets of information involving the same political campaign (Clinton campaign), the same law firm [Perkins Coie] and the same investigative firm [Fusion GPS] makes Steele’s involvement in these matters relevant,” Durham wrote.

Meanwhile, Sussmann’s defense has made a motion to give immunity to Tech Executive 1, Rodney Joffe, who has not been charged with a crime.

In Durham’s filing, however, he reveals that Joffe is “a subject” of the investigation and has been since prior to Sussmann’s indictment in 2021. Durham says this has been communicated with Joffe’s counsel, and that he still remains a subject, even one month short of trial.

Durham said that the decision not to grant Joffe immunity was “entirely reasonable and consistent with the Department of Justice’s practices,” given that he “played a critical leadership role in assembling and submitting the allegations at issue, and therefore would likely carry greater criminal exposure and potential culpability in the event the government’s investigation were to reveal or confirm the commission of crimes other than the offense currently charged.”

Durham, though, revealed that the only witness for Sussmann’s trial “immunized by the government” was “Researcher 2,” whose identity is unknown. That individual’s immunity began in July 2021, over a month before Sussmann’s indictment.

Durham said the government immunized “Researcher 2” because “at least five other witnesses who conducted work relating to the Russian Bank 1 allegations invoked their right against self-incrimination.”

Special Counsel John Durham says he’s still investigating Rodney Joffe’s alleged collaboration with Michael Sussmann.Twitter
“The government therefore pursued Researcher 2’s immunity in order to uncover otherwise unavailable facts underlying the opposition research project that Tech Executive 1 and others carried out in advance of the defendant’s meeting with the FBI,” Durham states.

In the filing, though, Durham also reveals that the government “intends to seek immunity at trial for an individual who was employed at the U.S. investigative firm,” Fusion GPS.

“But unlike Tech Executive 1, that individual is considered a ‘witness’ and not a ‘subject’ of the government’s investigation based on currently known facts,” Durham states.

Meanwhile, Durham says the government, during trial, plans to offer redacted, non-privileged documents containing communications between Sussmann and Joffe and redacted billing records reflecting Sussmann’s work “on behalf of the Clinton campaign” and Joffe.

Durham says prosecutors also plan to offer communications between Sussmann, Joffe and “Campaign Lawyer 1,” who sources tell Fox News is Perkins Coie partner and Clinton lawyer Marc Elias, as well as employees of Fusion GPS.

Sussmann’s trial is scheduled to begin May 16.

Durham, since 2019, has been investigating the origins of the FBI’s original Russia probe, or Crossfire Hurricane, which began in July 2016 through the appointment of Special Counsel Robert Mueller in May 2017. That was shortly after Mueller completed his years-long investigation into whether Trump’s campaign colluded or coordinated with the Russians to influence the 2016 presidential election.

Durham releases potential crucial evidence against former Clinton lawyer

Play Video

Mueller’s investigation found no evidence of illegal or criminal coordination between Trump or the Trump campaign and Russia in 2016.

Durham has indicted three people as part of his investigation: Sussmann in September 2021, Igor Danchenko in November 2021 and Kevin Clinesmith in August 2020.

Danchenko was charged with making a false statement and is accused of lying to the FBI about the source of information he provided to Christopher Steele for the anti-Trump dossier.

Kevin Clinesmith was also charged with making a false statement. Clinesmith had been referred for potential prosecution by the Justice Department’s inspector general’s office, which conducted its own review of the Russia investigation.

Former Special Counsel Robert Mueller previously argued there were no connections between Donald Trump and Russia.AP Photo/Susan Walsh, FileSpecifically, the inspector general accused Clinesmith, though not by name, of altering an email about Trump campaign aide Carter Page to say that he was “not a source” for another government agency. Page has said he was a source for the CIA. The DOJ relied on that assertion as it submitted a third and final renewal application in 2017 to eavesdrop on Page under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA).

The Associated Press contributed to this report.

Facebook Twitter Flipboard WhatsApp Email Copy

FILED UNDER 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION CIA DONALD TRUMP FBI HILLARY CLINTON ROBERT MUELLER RUSSIA SPECIAL COUNSEL 4/16/22

READ NEXT Passenger jumps off Carnival ship, third such incident in ...



To: carranza2 who wrote (186493)4/17/2022 8:32:25 AM
From: TobagoJack2 Recommendations

Recommended By
marcher
SirWalterRalegh

  Respond to of 217656
 
Re <<let’s not forget the Chinese>>

Speaking of whom, I just got passed an interesting carbon-copy of a letter by Jack Sr way back when, generations ago.

Back on 26th January 1972 Jack Sr gave a speech at Southern Illinois University (Carbondale) and Professor Oliver J Caldwell amazon.com introduced a messenger from POTUS Nixon asking for some advice regarding Nixon’s then upcoming trip to China by arrangement of Henry Kissinger and Zhou En-lai. It was to be one of those happenings to change the world in a hurry.

… the announcement by POTUS Nixon re the trip

Jack Sr wrote a letter per the request, and gad, just got passed the carbon copy (ala yes, carbon, as in stuff written on something called ‘typewriter’ :0)
Full OCR of the letter
Mr President, May I say how much I appreciate this opportunity of sharing my thoughts with you at a time when we are at a crucial and also, I believe auspicious turning point in relations between the U.S.A. and China.
In the past two months I have visited and spoken with faculty members and students on the campuses of America’s great universities at Stanford, Santa Cruz, Berkeley, Austin, Houston (Rice), SIU (Carbondale), Columbia, Yale, Princeton, Cornell and Harvard. Everywhere I find widespread sympathetic interest in and friendship for the Chinese people. Popular interest in and support for your forthcoming visit to China is wellnigh universal. My original contention that this could be an historic visit is strengthened.
Like the vast majority of Chinese at home and overseas I hope that this visit at the very least will result in extensive cultural and popular contacts between China and the U.S.A.
My experience in the past twenty years in China convince me that any proposal aiming at longer-term, multilateral exchanges between the U.S.A. and China will be warmly reciprocated in Peking. By multilateral I mean exchanges in the fields of agriculture, industry, technology and science, medicine and culture (sports, arts, archaeology, the dance, theatre, cinema, books, etc.), and communications (the press, TV, etc.).
My conviction is that there would be deep interest in Peking in the widest possible range of contacts even though for a start the first exchanges might be modest in scale and scope.
The full restoration of normal diplomatic relations would, of course, facilitate such exchanges, but in the temporary absence of such relations, I believe that the Chinese People’s Government, while being firm on principle, would be sympathetic to unofficial, people-to-people exchanges and be flexible in its attitude as to how such exchanges could be organised.
Following my West to East tour of U.S. universities, I have the strong conviction that academic exchange (scholars, students, studies) should not be limited to the better-known West and East coast centres such as Stanford, CalTech, or M.I.T., Harvard and Yale, but should include such mid-west centres as SIU which have their own very specific character. I found programmes here in medical services and community college development which closely parallel Chinese experiments in these fields.
I am happy to hear of your belief that this was a time for high statesmanship. That tallies exactly with sentiment in Peking as I know it. My conviction is that as a result of the cultural revolution, China’s leaders today head a consensus of opinion wider and better informed than ever before. It is not a “balance of deterrent power”, the playing off of one nation against another or “deals” that they seek but reasonable settlements of outstanding world problems on the most imaginative and extensive basis and in accordance with the Five Principles of co-existence.
This is not a matter of one power surrendering to another, but of all admitting the urgent demands of the reality of existence on one globe. Such settlements will satisfy the interests of all. If you want peace for a generation …
… so do they – and for more than one generation. This, of course, does not mean and lessening of their opposition to oppression and exploitation of man by man, to colonialism and neo-colonialism and their support for just national liberation struggles of which the American revolution was a shining example.
With sincere wishes for the success of your efforts for peace and international understanding,
I remain
respectfully yours
/ Jack Chen /

Also found an interview featuring Jack Sr by the campus publication ‘Daily Egyptian’ during that time . Thank goodness for the internet.

Goes well w/ photo that might hint that he knew what he was talking about …


Pages 6-7 of “Daily Egyptian” opensiuc.lib.siu.edu
Enlarged a bit …




To: carranza2 who wrote (186493)4/18/2022 1:19:09 AM
From: sense  Respond to of 217656
 
The only quibbles I'd have with that are these...

First, in matters of degree in error or understatement

Russia has First World nuclear weapons, which is why we need to tread very, very carefully.

Or, a reason to not tread at all...

Russia may well become more dangerous as its conventional weaponry is degraded.

No ambiguity. That is a near certainty... and rather the point, both of having them, and of wanting others you cannot trust to not have them... [Also why you don't vote for morons and sociopaths... or allow them to select themselves.]

So, the amount of pressure put on it needs to be very well calculated.

Calculations of the sort are not reliable... ever... and are not a proper basis for formulating diplomatic policy. The nature of the thinking engaged in to determine you should "calculate"... and proceed in a calculating manner... both error. The assumption made is... that you must mask your policy objective in conducting policy... and win by being sneaky... when reality is... no one (that matters) will be fooled by your gambits anyway.

Any direct American intervention not based on NATO obligations would be insane...

Either Ukraine is in NATO or its not. It if is... it fits within our concern as within NATO policy. If it is not... then the issue is not NATO, but Ukraine... its concerns... and the United States, and our concerns. We have every right to engage with them as we wish... country to country... as is true of every other country in the world. Russia doesn't get to veto who we choose as friends... nor do they get to veto Ukraine's choices. Encouraging... or tolerating others in fostering... mis-perception about that... is foolish.

So, no... not advocating anything insane... just "normal behavior"... to have "normal relations"... without tolerating others redefining "normalcy" as "intervention". In context... what American and Ukraine agree to... is not "interfering in Russia's internal affairs"... because... Ukraine is not internal to Russia ?

Russia clearly does nave legitimate security concerns... and, those need to be addressed... which should not be hard... but, they cannot be addressed by Russia insisting it's needs will be met... by violating others equally as legitimate security concerns ?

It is a big part of the problem... that the conversation that needs to be held... has been avoided...

And... the reason that has been avoided ? Is that Putin isn't the only dangerously delusional participant. There are others thinking they can "calculate" their way to a win... using the rest of the world as a chess board... or, more aptly... a game of Risk.

As far as... Russia thinking it can carve out and force others to agree to granting it "sphere's of influence" in Europe, today... as if 2022 were 1822... or as if Putin had won the Cold War and now, as Stalin at Yalta, is able to dictate terms to the losers ? You are correct, there... that Russia doesn't really have that power to force anyone to do anything they don't want to... but, they do control Russia... and seem able [thus far] to convince Russians they can... if no one else... And, they do have nukes...

As a practical matter... Russia's GDP is (or, was, in 2020) 11th in the world... They have 8 near neighbors that are larger... Ukraine is only 55th...while other neighbors, if you lump a few of them together, can match Russia... so Norway, Sweden, Finland... almost as big as Russia... throw in Denmark and they're larger. But, as Ukraine shows... it's not all the size of the dog in the fight... but the size of the fight in the dog... that matters.

So, all that as background... how does... "Any direct American intervention not based on NATO obligations would be insane"... comport with reality ? I'd say... not all that well. NATO is an American interest... an unnecessary convenience as long as Russia remains peaceful... or a necessary convenience if Russia opts to be threatening and belligerent... but, it is not "the" American interest.

How "keeping the world at war" is useful in "keeping control" ? Is far less to do about the "war" and far more about the "control" ?

Add only... that the policy you do see... if it appears insane... doesn't mean that's the only possible choice... thus forcing a binary option between "all and only NATO" or "insane" ? But, not news here... that I've been carping about the exceptionally low quality of global leadership for a while... So, what else should you expect ?

My fear is that we have a cadre of ‘experts’ in DC whose judgment cannot be trusted. They stirred the Ukrainian pot mightily after 2014. Their record for engaging in futile wars is unmatched. This time, nukes might well be in play.

Yes, it is amateur hour again, in D.C., but not just in D.C., as the policy you see isn't made in D.C. ? But, right on the rest... that "they" cannot and should not be trusted...

A cynic might even think... the WEF plan to depopulate the planet (as you have to kill the people, to save them) is being orchestrated in parallel with a plan to take down resource usage... while, not coincidentally, shifting the ownership and control of the resources ? Plan A appears to have failed... and Plan B didn't really work that well either... so, the history of prior engagement fully intent on fostering the futility purposefully (as done for profit) not withstanding... it does not require that past performance is predictive of future results... So, Plan C it is... ?

Putin is thus left stuck on stupid... and they're counting on it, have played him like a fiddle... because... given two conflicts that (he thinks) each must be won for him to succeed... he's going to opt to lose both... because ego and impatience (or, fear of mortality and the megalomaniacs driver in "legacy") demands persisting in fighting the one he can't win... which will lose him the one he can...

IMO... Putin blundered... which means team WEF is winning, for now... at Ukraine, Russia's and Putin's expense, and as escalation occurs... winning more... as they seek to end liberty and reimpose feudalism... while killing half the population along the way... not about "being green"... only about making it easier to control (ie., "sustainable") ?

Second, in the error most make in matters of war and peace... in being generally self referential.

It doesn't matter if you "tread very, very carefully"... if the other guy isn't basing his plans for action based on how you tread ?



The assumption that caution... or careful calculation... or pleading... will avoid war... is mostly delusional.



Such an obvious thing... that you can't have peace, all by yourself... by refusing to engage in war ? Because, the other guy gets a vote... on whether or not there will be war... and he really doesn't care what you think... although cowering in the face of it... isn't going to reduce the risks ?



Immediacy might solve the problem in logic, for some... "sit down with your mugger and work it out, together coming to an peaceful agreement about not mugging you" ? Or, "reduce crime by de-funding the police"... showing how far gone into the delusional some are ? But, those are the kinds of lessons you shouldn't have to learn by experience... because.... no one empowered in making decisions should be that stupid ?



But, of course... if you want a war on society... want to tear civilization down... then it makes sense...



Same errors in logic often seen in debates re "policy"... assuming that passing a law solves the problem ?

And, when it doesn't... pass another one... saying the same thing... ad infinitum... ?


The war we see... was invited by Biden, in that way... But, "he" knew what he was doing... only wanted the war, without it being "him" being blamed for wanting it ?



.






To: carranza2 who wrote (186493)4/18/2022 5:29:28 AM
From: TobagoJack  Read Replies (1) | Respond to of 217656
 
Re <<Russia may well become more dangerous as its conventional weaponry is degraded. So, the amount of pressure put on it needs to be very well calculated ... Oh, and let’s not forget the Chinese>>

Suggest concerns should include Washingtonians.

The thing is that all sides are correct in parts, that yes, true that Putin can only be stopped by Biden, and also true that Biden wants to stop Putin, and and and. Should the situation be as complicated and simple as presented, then very complicated, to the point of intractable, and global war is absolutely not out of the question and well within bounds.

War is very un-good for asset values in real terms, boiled down, but would relegate a whole lot of issues of failures and cracks to the back burner and down the road.

At what point does war become a convenience?

rt.com

Biden ally floats idea of US troops in Ukraine

US Senator Chris Coons, a politician described by media outlets as President Joe Biden’s closest Senate ally, has raised the idea of deploying American troops to fight Russians in Ukraine, saying he fears the former Soviet republic will “become the Syria of Eastern Europe.”

“The American people cannot turn away from this tragedy in Ukraine,” Coons said on Sunday in a CBS News interview. “I think the history of the 21st century turns on how fiercely we defend freedom in Ukraine and that Putin will only stop when we stop him.”

Asked by host Margaret Brennan about his recent comments calling for US leaders to discuss troop deployments to Ukraine, Coons said policy makers must consider the “level of brutality” exhibited by Russian forces. He credited Biden with pulling Western allies together to impose “crushing sanctions” on Russia, but suggested that more direct action may be needed as Russian President Vladimir Putin raises the stakes.


READ MORE: US says ‘nothing will dissuade’ it from arming Ukraine

“If Vladimir Putin, who has shown us how brutal he can be, is allowed to just continue to massacre civilians, to commit war crimes throughout Ukraine without NATO, without the West coming more forcefully to his aid, I deeply worry that what's going to happen next is that we will see Ukraine turn into Syria,” Coons said. Presumably, he meant to say that the US and NATO need to come more forcefully to Ukraine’s aid, not Putin’s.

Coons worked as an intern in Biden’s Senate office in the 1990s and was elected to fill his former Senate seat in 2010. He was described by the New York Times as “Biden’s eyes and ears in the Senate,” while Politico called him “the Biden whisperer.” Media outlets called him a “shadow secretary of state” after the White House sent him on a diplomatic mission to Ethiopia last year.

Like Biden, Coons has previously spoken out against sending American forces to Ukraine. He seldom, if ever, contradicts Biden’s views, so his change of rhetoric raised concerns over what the commander-in-chief might be considering.



The senator’s latest comments come three days after he said the Biden administration and US lawmakers need to discuss parameters for troop deployments to Ukraine. Speaking at an event at the University of Michigan, he argued that if direct military involvement is ruled out, “we are inviting another level of escalation in brutality by Putin.”




READ MORE: Russia-US 'military confrontation' possible – Moscow

Coons added that “autocrats around the world” – from North Korea to Iran to China – are closely watching the US and NATO response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict. He also called the crisis a “1939 moment,” apparently alluding to Nazi Germany’s early conquests in Europe.

“At some point, we are going to have to confront the reality that Putin may be willing to escalate beyond our willingness to take risks,” Coons said. “And if we allow Ukraine to become the Syria of Eastern Europe, I think we will have failed both the Ukrainian people and this moment in history.”