Connect with us

International

Is Russia at War With Ukraine, or With the West?

Published

3 months ago

8 minute read

A guest post by

Matt Taibbi and Racket Staff

Subscribe

German Foreign Minister Annalena Baerbock this week, on entering a “new era of nefariousness”:

I say clearly and across the Atlantic, what is right and what is wrong shall never be irrelevant to us. No one wants and no one needs peace more than the Ukrainians and Ukraine. The diplomatic efforts of the U.S. are of course important here. But such a peace must be just and lasting and not just a pause until the next attack… We will never accept a perpetrator-victim reversal. A perpetrator-victim reversal would be… the end of security for the vast majority of countries. And it would be fatal for the future of the United States.

Baerbock’s declaration that a “perpetrator-victim reversal” (a Täteropferumkehr, I’m reliably informed) would be “fatal” to the U.S. was historic. It was accompanied by a promise that “as transatlantacists,” Europeans must “stand up for our own interests, our own values, and our own security.” Although new leaders are ready to take the reins in Germany, she said, there can be no waiting for the transfer of power. Immediately, “Germany must take the lead at this historic milestone.”

A few years ago Baerbock pleaded for patience with a British conservative who demanded to know why Germany wasn’t providing Leopard tanks to Ukraine.

Now, with Donald Trump cutting off weapons deliveries and shutting down access to ATACMS missiles, Baerbock’s speech is an expression of more enthusiastic European support for continued fighting.

The war in Ukraine is often called a proxy conflict between Russia and the West or Russia and the U.S., but it increasingly looks more like a fight between Baerbock’s “transatlanticists” and those who believe in “spheres of influence.” In preparing Racket’s accompanying “Timeline: The War in Ukraine,” I found both sides articulated this idea repeatedly.

In January, 2017, as he was preparing to relinquish his seat to Mike Pence, Joe Biden alluded to the recent election of Donald Trump in a speech at Davos. Describing the “dangerous willingness to revert to political small-mindedness” of “popular movements on both the left and right,” Biden explained:

We hear these voices in the West—but the greatest threats on this front spring from the distinct illiberalism of external actors who equate their success with a fracturing of the liberal international order. We see this in Asia and the Middle East… But I will not mince words. This movement is principally led by Russia.

Biden even then lumped Trump and Putin together, as enemies of the “liberal international order.” Russian counterparts like Putin and Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov, meanwhile, spoke of a “post-West world order” where diplomatic relations would be based on “sovereignty” and the “national interests of partners.” These are two fundamentally irreconcilable worldviews. Was conflict inevitable, or could peace have held if Russia didn’t strike in 2022?

There’s no question who invaded whom. Hostilities began in February, 2022 with an angry speech by Vladimir Putin and bombs that landed minutes later in Ukraine. Little discussion of the “why” of the war took place in the West, however.

Phrases like “unprovoked aggression” became almost mandatory in Western coverage. Politico interviewed a range of experts and concluded that what Putin wanted was “a revanchist imperialist remaking of the globe to take control of the entire former Soviet space.” This diagnosis of Putin’s invasion as part of a Hitlerian quest for Lebensraum and a broader return to national glory might have merit, but it was also conspicuously uncontested. A differing article by University of Chicago professor John Mearshimer declaring the crisis “the West’s fault” made him, as The New Statesman just put it, “the world’s most hated thinker.” Few went there after.

Russians and Ukrainians don’t have the typical profiles of ancient warring tribes. They have a deeply intertwined history, with citizens of both countries retaining many of the same customs, jokes, and home remedies, while living in the same crumbling Soviet buildings, with fondness for the same cabbage soup and moonshine. There are huge numbers of mixed/bilingual families and many famous cultural figures (including my hero Nikolai Gogol) are claimed by both countries. They’ve fought before, but what jumped out reviewing this “Timeline” is how much it seemed that these old Slavic neighbors mostly fall out now over attitudes toward the West.

It’s hard looking back not to be struck by the superior tone of bodies like the Organization for Security and Co-operation in Europe (OSCE), whose “reviews” of Ukrainian and Russian elections often read like zoological descriptions of inferior species. Same with a tsk-tsking report by a mission of visiting IMF economists in 2013, who were appalled by Ukrainian energy subsidies that were among of the few popular remnants of Soviet life.

These imperious Western assessments of childlike Slavs, and the panic and shame of some local officials before such foreign judgments, recall familiar satires in Russian literature (The Government Inspector comes to mind). Nationalists in both countries balked at this “advice,” and by the late nineties some came to the conclusion that the cost of cooperation with the West was greater than the benefit. These dynamics accelerated after the Orange Revolution in 2004 and the Maidan events of 2013-2014, which Russians still see as a West-backed coup and the beginning of the current war. Russians will say “first blood” was drawn in military operations against Donbass protesters around the same time. Those in the West will point at the 2014 annexation of Crimea as the beginning of territorial war.

The idea of Germany “taking the lead” in a war to secure the primacy of “transatlanticists” worries me more than trying to pronounce Täteropferumkehr. However, whether or not you think Baerbock is right, and a peace deal now would be a worthless “pause,” depends a lot on how you read this history. What do you think, and why?

Subscribe to Racket News. 

For the full experience, become a paying subscriber.

Share

Related Topics:

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

More from this author
International / 2 hours ago

Seattle Police Department investigating attack on journalist during Antifa protests

Banks / 4 hours ago

Top Canadian bank studies possible use of digital dollar for ‘basic’ online payments

Alberta / 13 hours ago

This is what wasting taxpayer dollars sounds like

International

Seattle Police Department investigating attack on journalist during Antifa protests

Published on June 21, 2025

By

From The Center Square

By 

“I turned around and somebody pulled him back and he kicked me in the face. I pulled out pepper spray and I nailed him in the face, and then I retreated and called 911 and then the police never showed up.” Higby said he waited for police for about 45 minutes but they never came.

Seattle Police are investigating an attack on an independent conservative journalist last weekend during anti-Trump and anti-ICE rallies in Seattle.

Cam Higby says he was assaulted by Antifa members as he attended the sometimes violent “No Kings Day” protests in Seattle at a Department of Homeland Security Building (DHS) on June 14.

Separately, independent journalist Brandi Kruse says she also was assaulted by Antifa members in Tukwila, just south of Seattle. Both attacks were captured on video posted to social media.

“It was out of nowhere, completely out of nowhere that they got violent,” said Higby, whose attack was captured on vide and posted to X. The attack left him bloodied, bruised and with a concussion that is still causing headaches, vision impairment and memory issues nearly a week later, he said.

In a Friday interview, Higby told The Center Square he had been covering the protests in Seattle all day and took a seat on the ground near the federal building by himself when the assailants came out of nowhere.

“They took over the streets, they lit fires to cars, they shot fireworks at cars. Then it’s out of nowhere where this guy yells, ‘Hey Cam, it’s time for you to leave,’ and they charged me and I knew one of them and I’d identified him earlier in the night because he threatened to kill me three weeks earlier,” Higby. told The Center Square

The attacker he was referring threatened to kill Higby in an Instagram post, he said, which was reported to police.

“They crossed the street to get to me and charged me and before I could stand up, I was pinned up against the wall,” said Higby. “They were grabbing at my gas mask and my helmet and just keeping me in place and one of them picked me up and choked me out from the rear. And then he released me, punched me twice in the head with SAP gloves which were filled with steal or lead shot. I turned around and somebody pulled him back and he kicked me in the face. I pulled out pepper spray and I nailed him in the face, and then I retreated and called 911 and then the police never showed up.”

Higby said he waited for police for about 45 minutes but they never came.

Video journalist Jonathan Cho, who was also covering protests, picked him up and took him back to his car across town, Highboy said.

Higby said he went to urgent care the next morning and then to the emergency room when his symptoms related to the concussion were getting worse.

“They said if I had a brain bleed, I’d already be dead. I think it’s very likely that if I wasn’t wearing a helmet, that I would have been either killed or critical,” Higby said.

Kruse, host of the unDivided video podcast, told The Center Square she had only been at the Tukwila protest scene for 30 seconds when she was attacked.

“I didn’t even get a chance to cover it. Within 30 seconds of walking up, I heard a couple of people shout, ‘that’s Brandi Kruse.’ And then they started to form around me, and initially it was they were blocking my camera with their umbrellas because they don’t want you to document their criminal conduct. And then they started spraying water at me, and then they got a little more aggressive,” Kruse said. “They were dumping full bottles of water and hurling bottles of water and it hit me a couple of times from behind.”

Kruse said she tried to walk away but was followed with protesters pushing signs into her face and continuing to hurl things at her.

“But the thing is they won’t let you walk away, and they don’t want you to walk away. I’m just sort of looking over my shoulder and then I see this individual coming from behind me to the right who had something that they were starting to spray. And you know, your mind goes in a million different places, and you don’t know what it could be, but as soon as it hit my eyes and I got the smell, I knew it was some sort of bug spray because it had that distinctive smell. We found out later it was this hornet and wasp killer that can spray like up to 20 feet,” said Kruse, who posted to social media video of the attack and security escort pouring water into her eyes to flush out the spray which she shared burned painfully for days.

In the assault on Higby, police say they know who the assailant is but have yet to make an arrest. Higby said he’s “10 thousand percent sure” it’s the same person who threatened him weeks before.

Higby told The Center Square he’s been informed that despite the seriousness of the assault, prosecutors may not be inclined to pursue charges.

Seattle Police responded to an email from The Center Square on Friday requesting details on the case and received the following response: “This case is an open and active investigation assigned to SPD’s homicide & Assault Unit. SPD policy prevents me from releasing suspect details or ‘leads,’” wrote Eric Munoz, detective in SPD media and public affairs.

Seattle Police Guild President Mike Solantold The Center Square in a Friday interview that he was skeptical as to whether prosecutors would pursue charges, despite the serious nature of the attack on Higby. He also condemned the lack of coverage in the mainstream media of the assaults on journalists.

“I think the bigger conversation here is why isn’t corporate media drawing attention to this political violence as they’re watching journalists get assaulted and it doesn’t appear to be covered by corporate media at all. My question is why, and the fact that that’s not happening is a major problem with what’s unfolding in our nation,” said Solan.

Kruse said she was also disappointed that members of the mainstream media have ignored the attack.

“I was getting text messages from former colleagues in television news in Seattle asking if I was OK, saying they saw the video, but then never reporting on it. So it’s not as if they’re oblivious…..if these were the proud boys, or if these were right-wing extremists and they assaulted journalists, there’s no way that it wouldn’t be covered,” said Kruse.

Kruse said she’s been in contact with officials in the Trump administration who are paying attention to the case, but has also filed a police report with Tukwila PD.

Continue Reading

Health

Kennedy sets a higher bar for pharmaceuticals: This is What Modernization Should Look Like

Published on June 20, 2025

By

James Lyons-Weiler's avatar James Lyons-Weiler

What People, Universities, and Pharma Do Not Yet Understand About the Kennedy Regulatory Bar: It Signals the End of the Regulatory States of America.

Science must outlive the PR cycle.

Modernization, as used today by industry lobbyists and public health officials, often amounts to a euphemism for deregulation: fewer checks, less transparency, and faster product pipelines with fewer questions asked. In contrast, Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s approach to public health modernization is actual modernization—where rigorous science, true accountability, and unwavering public safety form the non-negotiable baseline.

The Kennedy Regulatory Bar isn’t a buzzword, and it’s certainly not a rhetorical device. It’s an operating philosophy grounded in scientific integrity and public duty. For those who understand regulatory policy only as an obstacle to commercial throughput, the Kennedy Bar feels like a threat. But to those who understand what science is—a falsifiable, ethical, and reproducible method of discovering truth—it represents nothing less than the restoration of sanity.

Defining the Kennedy Regulatory Bar

Secretary Kennedy has made his expectations perfectly clear. In his own words:

“Journalists like yourself assume that vaccines are encountering the same kind of rigorous safety testing as other drugs, including multiyear double-blind placebo testing. But the fact is that vaccines don’t.”
— Interview, STAT News, Aug. 21, 2017

“By freeing [vaccine makers] from liability for negligence, the 1986 statute removed any incentive for these companies to make safe products. If we want safe and effective vaccines, we need to end the liability shield.”
— Press Statement in Support of HR 5816, Sept. 26, 2024

“Mr. Kennedy believes vaccination should be voluntary and based on informed consent. For consent to be truly informed, the underlying science must be unbiased and free from corporate influence.”
— Campaign FAQ – Vaccines, Kennedy24.com, Aug. 15, 2023

“My mission over the next 18 months… will be to end the corrupt merger of state and corporate power.”
— Campaign Announcement Speech, Boston, Apr. 19, 2023

These principles, articulated repeatedly by Sec. Kennedy across media interviews, press events, and official communications, form the foundation of what we now call the Kennedy Bar.

The Kennedy Regulatory Bar: Five Core Standards

Rigorous Science: Long-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials are the gold standard and must not be circumvented. This is but one example. All of biomedical science should be upgraded to highest standards.

Restored Liability: No blanket immunity for manufacturers; liability is essential to safety. This flies in the face of concerted efforts by Pharma to expand liability exemptions (e.g., PREP Act).

Transparency: All trial data must be made publicly available in machine-readable form—no redactions, no gatekeeping. Collins failed to enforce this, and the failure was noted.

Independent Oversight: Regulatory decisions must be made by individuals and boards free of industry conflicts of interest. This includes, but is not limited to, vaccines, drugs, devices, and procedures.

Informed Consent: Patients must receive full, truthful information about benefits and risks—without coercion or censorship, and their rights to free, prior, informed consent are absolute.

These are not radical ideas. They are what science used to be before it was rebranded as a partner to commerce.

Why “Banning the mRNA Vaccines” Isn’t Necessary—If the Regulatory State Is Fixed

Some critics ask: Why not just ban mRNA vaccines outright?

The question misunderstands both the Kennedy Bar and Secretary Kennedy’s governing philosophy. Banning an entire class of biomedical products by executive fiat would mirror the very authoritarianism that corrupted the regulatory state in the first place. The goal is not to replace one top-down mandate with another—it is to restore bottom-up scientific validity, where products succeed or fail based on their actual merit, risk profile, and necessity.

Under the Kennedy Bar, no product—mRNA or otherwise—can bypass the full burden of proof:

  • Did it go through long-term, double-blind, placebo-controlled trials?
  • Were all adverse events transparently reported and analyzed?
  • Was there independent oversight?
  • Can the public access the raw data?
  • Was informed consent meaningfully obtained?

If the answer is no—as it has been for many mRNA formulations—then the product simply fails to meet the regulatory standard. No ban is needed. Reality disqualifies it.

The Kennedy strategy is structural, not performative. It focuses on building a regulatory ecosystem that is incapable of licensing unsafe or ineffective products. This is a stronger safeguard than any prohibition. Rather than banning, Kennedy’s approach makes bad science impossible to pass off as medicine.

Once transparency is non-negotiable…
Once liability is restored…
Once regulatory capture is dismantled…

Then any product built on hype, shortcuts, or undisclosed risks—whether mRNA or otherwise—will collapse under the weight of real scrutiny.

That is not censorship. That is civilization defending itself by enforcing its own standards.

Integration Over Isolation

What sets Kennedy’s approach apart is not only the bar he sets for scientific integrity, but it is obvious this is how he is implementing it across government. As Secretary of Health and Human Services, he is already working to integrate the work of all HHS agencies—CDC, NIH, FDA, CMS, HRSA, and others—into a coherent, collaborative ecosystem. No longer will one hand of government ignore the consequences of the other.

Where prior administrations tolerated bureaucratic silos and jurisdictional loopholes, Kennedy insists that scientific rigor be institutionalized—not merely idealized. Under his leadership, agencies are being asked to communicate better, share safety signals earlier, co-design surveillance systems, and synchronize risk communication strategies.

This is not just about stopping regulatory failure. It’s about building functional synergy between the very institutions tasked with protecting public health.

The Academy’s Crisis of Conscience

Many universities have not yet recognized that the Kennedy Bar creates a mirror they cannot easily turn away from. For decades, medical schools and public health departments have received lavish funding from pharmaceutical companies and government agencies with revolving doors. This arrangement has subtly—sometimes overtly—coerced researchers to conform to sponsor expectations, burying negative results and rewarding compliance with publication and promotion.

Secretary Kennedy has quietly changed the rules of engagement. Prestige will no longer in the place of principles. A new standard is emerging, and it doesn’t care what editorial board endorsed your work—it asks what you measured, how long you observed it, and who paid you to interpret it.

I recently gave a speech “How to Speak MAHA” to a collection of research administrators at midwestern state Universities. They did not grasp the reality that those Universities who are cheerleading their researchers to submit more, not fewer, grant proposals in response to calls for proposals to transform medicine will be scheduled for prestige and more funding. Good actors will be rewarded. Those obsessed with their bottom lines will have to find funding elsewhere. Those publishing in sketchy journals against the recommendations of HHS might suffer a ding in their grant scores.

The message from this administration is simple, and our universities now face a choice: modernize into true scientific integrity, or double down on performative consensus. The Kennedy Bar forces the question: Is your institution educating scientists—or training enablers? No grant is worth the erosion of public trust. No journal impact factor outweighs the duty to truth. The age of science as branding is over. The age of science as science—open, accountable, and rigorous—has returned.

The Industry’s Real Dilemma

Pharma does not fear Kennedy because he’s against innovation. They fear him because he demands real innovation—scientific advancements that can survive public scrutiny, not just regulatory maneuvering.

For decades, the vaccine industry has relied on two tricks: (1) measuring success through surrogate endpoints like antibody titers rather than clinical outcomes, and (2) conducting studies in silos—never long enough, never with full data access, and almost never with independent safety boards. This system has produced a torrent of marginally tested products with maximum immunity from liability and minimal transparency.

Under the Kennedy Bar, the era of “emergency forever” is over. The industry must either meet real scientific thresholds or lose the public’s trust—entirely. This is not punishment. It’s evolution. It’s the grown-up phase of medicine. A moment of maturation for a sector that has long preferred speed over scrutiny, revenue over rigor.

And it comes with a choice: evolve or… be revealed.

Outflanking the “Modernization” Rhetoric

The PR pivot has already begun. Corporate spokespeople and foundation-backed academics are working overtime to redefine “modernization” as “streamlining,” “accelerating,” or “expanding access.” But these are euphemisms for lowering standards, usually without public debate.

Kennedy’s modernization is not deregulation. It is re-regulation—the restoration of the scientific method, the demand for data, and the end of special pleading. His is not a revolution in tone, but in epistemology. He is not rebranding trust—he is rebuilding it.

Science Must Outlive the PR Cycle

Regulatory systems that abandon the scientific method for public relations will inevitably collapse. The people know. They have lived the adverse events. They have watched silence fall where transparency was promised. They’ve seen academic journals censor, media outlets spin, and regulators hedge their language to protect careers rather than lives.

The Kennedy Bar is not a barricade—it is a foundation stone. It does not prevent innovation. It ensures that innovation is real.

So to the regulators: Your authority does not come from secrecy—it comes from public trust.
To the industry: Your survival depends on the integrity of your products, not the slickness of your press kits and forward-looking statements.
And to the universities: Your legacy will not be measured in grants received, but in truths defended.

Those who come up to the bar will see not only translational success, but will also transformational success.

And they will sleep better at night.

Share

Popular Rationalism is a reader-supported publication.

To receive new posts and support my work, consider becoming a free or paid subscriber.

Subscribe to Popular Rationalism.

And check out our awesome, in-depth, live full semester courses at IPAK-EDU. Hope to see you in class!
Continue Reading

Trending

X