January 02, 2026
All Murders in the Kremlin
Timothy Birdnow
In my best Spencer Tracey voice "ri-ight".
I always believe anonymous national security people. I mean, they had it so right when they said Trump was a "Russian asset" or that the Hunter Biden laptop story was "Russian Deezinforrmation" or whatnot.
Of course we all know Putin would never tell a lie; the man makes George Washington look like Joseph Goebbles.
Actually there is a third possibility, one not considered by tge good folks at Conservative Treehouse; both could be telling the truth. So what does that mean?
Either WE or another third party tried to drone Vlad the Invader. That is not an impossibility. In fact, droning Putin would go a long way towards ending this conflict, no question.
I do not believe Donald Trump would authorize such a thing, because the likely successor to Putin would probably be much worse, but many in our national security apparatus wouldn't think that far ahead and would happily issues orders to assassinate the mad poisoner if they thought they could get away with it.
So, we essentially have these options: Zelensky tried to drone Putin (which also would have served him well), the U.S. or NATO tried to drone him, or the Russians did it themselves in hopes of replacing their leadership. I rather doubt that as it would be a death sentence for anyone who plotted that particular action inside of Putin's junta but it is possible. The Ukrainians are still the logical candidates, but I wouldn't put it past the CIA to pull this sort of thing.
Oh, one final option; the Russians did it themselves to give a reason for not accepting any peace deal. I dismiss this out of hand; Putin is not so foolish and he knows that won't work to garner any sympathy for his cause. Putin is a realist.
I think it was either the Ukrainians or the CIA. Not sure which but Ukraine is essentially the CIA's proxy country these days and has been since they engineered the Orange Revolution and installed a puppet government there.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at
10:13 AM
| Comments (4)
| Add Comment
Post contains 372 words, total size 3 kb.
1
Yes indeed; it's always well to believe Mr. or Mrs. Anonymous -- NOT! Even in the "old days" when we only heard from them second-hand through the news media, they couldn't be trusted. Nowadays everybody has a computer and a blog or a podcast (you wouldn't know who I'm talking about, of course) and thereby the means to "get the word out." In fact, many of those folks that we used to call the "pajamas media" or the "pajamahadeen" have a reputation for more accuracy than the "anonymous sources" quoted in the press.
Having said that, if a drone attack on Vlad has actually been made, who stands to gain by it? Again, in the old days it could have only been the military of some country that we all would be pretty much aware of. These days drones are relatively easy to obtain, and some group that we are scarcely aware of might be able to send one where it could do some surprising damage, and for reasons that we're not aware of. Not saying it was, but it could be.
Having said that, if a drone attack on Vlad has actually been made, who stands to gain by it? Again, in the old days it could have only been the military of some country that we all would be pretty much aware of. These days drones are relatively easy to obtain, and some group that we are scarcely aware of might be able to send one where it could do some surprising damage, and for reasons that we're not aware of. Not saying it was, but it could be.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at January 03, 2026 12:27 AM (fJC/c)
2
As one of the Pajamashadin myself I couldn't agree more; the truth is in blogs and podcasts, not mainstream media outlets and certainly not in reports of anonymous intelligence sources.
Dana, you are correct anybody could send such a drone. But there are always tells which tip you off, especially where state actors are concerned. As I posted just now, Putin has handed over the evidence showing this particular drone was of Ukrainian origin. That could be faked, granted, but a clever enough third party but it would take a top person with considerable resources to pull that off. Why bother? It would be easier to just get a drone on the black market and use that. Doing that kind of faking would take a lot of time and trouble.
Dana, you are correct anybody could send such a drone. But there are always tells which tip you off, especially where state actors are concerned. As I posted just now, Putin has handed over the evidence showing this particular drone was of Ukrainian origin. That could be faked, granted, but a clever enough third party but it would take a top person with considerable resources to pull that off. Why bother? It would be easier to just get a drone on the black market and use that. Doing that kind of faking would take a lot of time and trouble.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at January 03, 2026 10:50 AM (OaSl3)
3
Having just read the article upstream, it may well have been the CIA acting undercover. Or, of course, somebody in Ukraine.
Posted by: Dana Mathewson at January 03, 2026 11:23 PM (fJC/c)
4
My thoughts as well Dana.
Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at January 04, 2026 10:45 AM (OaSl3)
26kb generated in CPU 0.0391, elapsed 0.2778 seconds.
37 queries taking 0.2669 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
37 queries taking 0.2669 seconds, 187 records returned.
Powered by Minx 1.1.6c-pink.
