The Kremlin Connection: Does Trump After All Owe to Russian Backers?

Russia. Trump. What now?

Many Americans HAVE found convicted felon, adjudicated sex abuser, malignant narcissist/pathological liar, and career criminal, (twice imperfectly impeached, 30,000+ lies told to American citizens as POTUS45), Donald Trump... winning the 2024 election, BEING curious, if not, SEVERELY Bizarre.

Matt Gaetz for AG? Then he resigned Congress. Well, on that latter part, Yay!

Some very bizarre Trump nominations for his "administration". Look, you CAN put unqualified or even stupid people in charge, but that burdens all those beneath them. Our government deserves better. As do we all.

Janes: North Korea - The hardest OSINT environment? (audio 46mins)

Oh, by the way...Blast from the past...2023:

Medvedev suggests that Elon Musk launch campaign to amend US Constitution

Many of us feel there is something untoward going on, but we can't put our fingers on it. DOJ, SCOTUS and Congress have repeatedly let America down on curbing or putting away a convicted criminal, twice impeached (crippled by the MaGA GOP as it was), Donald Trump. Autocracy and autocratic methodology seems to have a maze-like path through democracy toward crumbling it from the inside, deluding those who have traditionally and historically stood against it (like the GOP, the once and no longer "Grand Old Party").

We will find out what happened years, or decades later. But we're in dire straits, NOW.

So then, what is this?

From Kefkaroth Sephka on "X" (Elon's infected Twitter)

Kefkaroth Sephka with 88 followers, is an odd account. Russian disinfo? Or sharing something we should know?

From Kefkaroth Sephka on "X"

Interesting?

From Kefkaroth Sephka on "X"

OK, so what the hell does all that mean?

Analysis of Russian presidential aide and Chairman or the Russian Maritime Collegium Nikolai Patrushev said Trump owes after winning the US elections.

Patrushev: "Trump relied on forces to which he has obligations."

Speaking with the Kommersant newspaper, Nikolai Patrushev said:

"And as a responsible person, he will be obliged to fulfill them."

Which is a compliment in rhetoric that indicates he's not critiquing or denigrating Trump, but reminding him, praising him. Thus he's talking about Russian influence, not anti-Russian American, or world power influences aligned against Russia. 

This is disturbing.

What is Kommersant? Kommersant (Коммерсантъ) is a prominent Russian newspaper known for its in-depth reporting on business, politics, and international affairs. It was founded in 1989 and is one of Russia’s oldest and most respected private publications. Kommersant is well-regarded for its coverage of the Russian government and global events and is considered to have a relatively balanced perspective, though it operates under certain constraints common to Russian media. The paper publishes a wide array of content, including investigative journalism, economic reports, political analysis, and interviews with Russian and international figures. Its tone and quality are often comparable to major Western business and political publications.

Nikolai Patrushev, Secretary of Russia's Security Council, recent statement that Donald Trump owes "obligations" to certain "forces" after his 2024 U.S. election victory are widely seen as suggesting that Trump's success was bolstered by influential groups within the U.S. to which he might feel indebted. This implication aligns with Russian critiques of American politics, particularly around the influence of elite or interest groups shaping U.S. policy.

However, Patrushev did not specify which "forces" he was referring to, leaving room for speculation and interpretation, particularly among analysts who often interpret these statements as part of Russia's broader narrative criticizing Western democracies and their leadership dynamics. Patrushev has frequently suggested that U.S. leaders, including Trump, are beholden to powerful domestic influences, which he views as detrimental to global stability.

For further context on this statement and how it fits into Russia's ongoing critique of the U.S., see sources like EADaily, The New Republic, and others reporting on recent Russian official statements.

How is this not about Russian forces helping Trump get elected?

We know Putin finds Trump as many of us do with reality in our eyes and ears as a cheap criminal who sows chaos and corrupts all he comes into contact with. But Putin loves to sow chaos in Western democracies. It aids his efforts in a force multiply dynamic.

Patrushev’s comments did not specifically state that Russian forces assisted Trump in getting elected in 2024, but rather vaguely suggested that Trump “relied on forces” and now has “obligations” to them. This phrase could be interpreted in different ways, but Patrushev's language aligns with a broader Russian critique of American political dynamics, implying that Trump, like other U.S. leaders, may owe favors to influential groups within the U.S. itself.

To be clear, Russian officials often frame U.S. politics as heavily influenced by powerful domestic interests—be it corporate elites, political lobbies, or other internal actors. By using the term “forces,” Patrushev may be pointing toward these internal influences rather than suggesting Russian intervention. This is consistent with Russia's recent narrative, which downplays its own role in U.S. elections while casting doubt on the independence of American leaders due to their reliance on domestic power groups​.

Without a direct accusation or evidence, Patrushev’s comments remain speculative. Or do they? While this could provoke interpretations about Russian interference, the statement’s ambiguity suggests it’s more a part of Russia’s rhetorical stance rather than an admission of direct involvement.

But this also sounds very much like a mafia-style, indirect threat which would also fit Russian government style.

Patrushev’s language can also and easily be interpreted as carrying an implicit, even “mafia-style” tone, something often observed in Russian diplomatic rhetoric. Russian officials sometimes use vague but pointed language, leaving their statements open to interpretation while signaling a message that may seem menacing or suggestive of influence. In this case, Patrushev’s comment that Trump “relied on forces” to whom he “has obligations” sounds intentionally ambiguous, which leaves room for multiple interpretations, including one that hints at an indirect warning.

This style aligns with broader Russian messaging that often critiques Western politics as being influenced by powerful interests, while subtly implying that Russian knowledge of such influence could affect future relations. Patrushev’s comments might be designed to foster uncertainty about who holds sway over U.S. leaders like Trump, while also subtly conveying that Russia has insight—and perhaps leverage—regarding these dynamics.

That's very Russian from a country who are experts in long-term efforts against their enemies, and in cloaking reality in obfuscation and distraction.

Russian officials have used similar language in the past to suggest that Western leaders are not fully autonomous and may owe their positions to certain interest groups, subtly casting doubt on their independence. This rhetorical style can serve multiple functions: distancing Russia from accusations of interference, casting aspersions on Western political systems, and creating a sense of strategic ambiguity that can be read as a veiled warning or signal to other nations.

In this case, it’s reasonable to view Patrushev’s statements as potentially serving these dual purposes: as part of a long-standing critique of U.S. politics and as a reminder of Russian awareness and potential influence in global affairs​.

Telling the Kommersant newspaper, Nikolai Patrushev said:

"And as a responsible person, he will be oblighed to fulfill them", which is a compliment in rhetoric that indicates he's not critiquing Trump, but praising him. Thus he's talking about Russian influence, not anti-Russian American or world power influences aligned against Russia. 

This is disturbing.

The additional context from Patrushev’s statement to Kommersant—that Trump, “as a responsible person, will be obliged to fulfill” his obligations—does indeed shift the tone. Instead of sounding critical or cautionary, this phrasing can be read as supportive, suggesting that Trump’s responsibilities are aligned with groups Patrushev views favorably. Such language could imply Russian influence or expectations of Trump, especially if Patrushev is indicating he trusts Trump to fulfill obligations that benefit Russian interests or are aligned with Russia’s geopolitical goals.

This interpretation aligns with a broader Russian diplomatic approach that often uses indirect language to signal shared interests or mutual understanding with foreign leaders. If Patrushev is indeed hinting at Trump being "obliged" to Russia or Russia-aligned groups, it would reflect a complex dynamic. 

While Russia has officially denied interference in U.S. elections, Russian officials have sometimes hinted at understanding or even approval of Trump’s policy directions that align with Russian interests, such as questioning NATO’s role or opposing certain sanctions. We know, American intelligence community has clearly stated that Russia, China, and Iran specifically have interfered in our 2024 election in various ways.

• As the U.S. election nears, Russia, Iran and China step up influence efforts
• FBI reports new hoax videos, after warnings that Russia is trying to undermine election

These statements certainly could be disturbing, as they imply a confidence that Trump, even as a U.S. president, might prioritize commitments aligned with Russian interests. Such confidence could be interpreted as Russia expecting that Trump’s actions will favor or accommodate Russia if he follows through on these so-called “obligations.” This perception can lead to concerns about foreign influence on U.S. leadership, especially given the ambiguous but suggestive rhetoric Patrushev employs​.

Buckle up America. Four more years of the nightmare grifter in the White House and remember...

We did this to ourselves!

Looking for hope? Jon Stewart on The Daily Show: "This isn't forever."

Cheers! Sláinte!

Compiled with the aid of ChatGPT

Memorial Day and what's your reading level, or writing style?

Welcome to Memorial Day. I hope you are having a great extended weekend and sharing it with family and friends and there are good times all around.

A moment if you will though, to remember all those who have fallen trying to maintain our freedoms and our way of life. May we begin once again to remember that we only sacrifice for what is our basic human needs, in defense and no longer for oil. I so look forward, I so do hope to one day see us off that disease ridden fuel. As well as coal and gas. Thank you to all those who have perished in the wars of necessity (certainly WWI and WWII would fall under that), and perhaps more so, thank you to all those who gave the ultimate sacrifice for reasons of power and ill judgement.

Also, it seems to be a national paradigm going back to before this country was founded, to even the Revolutionary War, to not properly take care of our veterans. This is a small but profound and powerful, impact filled request: Can we please do that, take care of our vets? I'm a vet, I hadn't seen battle but I'm horrified at how our vets are being treated; like trash no longer needed, to be thrown away or simply, ignored. As usual in government, if they don't know what to do, they ignore it, misdirect us in order to keep their jobs, but they do nothing.

Nothing is defined here as not doing enough when vets are left in need, with treatments when they can even get them that are poor, or completely wrong, with back logs on appointments for months or years when they needed help yesterday. Part of the issue comes from our longest wars, turning out our biggest numbers of patients, something that should have been seen at the start, and does not have the numbers of needed healthcare workers, doctors and mental health specialists. Our only recourse now is to turn these patients loose in the private sector along with the rest of America, as single payer supported patients. That being said, Vets should not have to pay for this healthcare as do the rest of us with co-pays and deductibles. I do fear their getting abused in that way. Regardless of their volunteering for battle, we pushed them into it and so, we should pay their way.

Our government is famous for waging wars, on other countries, on drugs, on women's rights, on the poor, minorities and illegal aliens. Stop waging wars and focus on this. If and when we send people to fight and die for us, people who come back damaged in taking our places for us on the battlefields that we send them to, then let's take care of them afterward; let's suffer our woes privately in how much the money hurts us to do so; let's shut the hell up about it and bleed money for them, as they have bled their own blood and suffered through the same with their battlefield compatriots. We owe them at very least, that.

Okay then, that was uplifting. Moving on....

I found an interesting little web site where you can paste in some of what you have written and it will analyze it and tell you who you write like; what famous author's style you imitate. It's called, IWriteLike.com.

Since I've been working on re-editing my book Death of Heaven, I pasted \ analyzed some passages from the chapters within it. I got various author similarity ratings, kind of as I'd expected. I have always tried hard to not write my style all the time but to choose a style that fits that story, more than myself. If and when possible. This analysis would seem to support that. Not that it's perfect, but it's kind of fun.

By the way, I should finish up the re-edit on my book this weekend and will be re-releasing it soon. Keep an eye out for it. Hell of a book, if I do say so myself. I'm working on finding other author blurbs on it. Yes I'm shooting for the sky in Clive Barker. We shall see.

Anyway, here's what I got off that author style web site.

• First from the short opening chapter, The Steppes, I got James Fenimore Cooper. 
• From, The Conqueror Worm chapter I got Stephen King. Not surprising perhaps.
• Rosebud came up with both S. King and David Foster Wallace.
• From, Harbinger and Going Home, Dan Brown. Bummer. Well, his books are enjoyable enough pulp and I would love to have his income (or even his tax return).
• Still, another part of Harbinger gave me James Joyce. Well, I'm in good company anyway.  
• A Thirst Divine gave up Bram Stoker (awesome) but another section of that chapter reverted back to King.
• Marking Time gave me Stephen King again. Hmmm... seeing a pattern here.
• From later in the book and the book's longest section, Vaughan's Theorum, I got Harry Harrison. 
• The Mea Culpa Document of London (which actually refers to a document not included in the book, but is available in another book of mine, Anthology of Evil), a short section, came up with... Dan Brown again. I did three paragraphs and all were Danny boy. Which I suppose isn't surprising considering his genre and style as this section is supposed to be a professionally written, academic document about an antique document, much like Dan writes about much of the time. 

So what about all this? I don't know what I'd have had to do to come up with Clive Barker. Maybe they didn't include him in the analysis? Well, I don't know, why are you asking me? Still, it was kind of fun. It reminds me of a time before college when my friends complained that they didn't understand what the hell I was writing about half the time, in my stories with no endings (see, I was terrified to attempt endings back then). Especially one story they challenged me to write, "In Memory, Yet Crystal Clear". I promised them I'd write that at my most comfortable and then write stories that were easier to read.

Years later I ran that story through one of those grade analyzers which tells you want grade level a piece is written at and it came up grade seventeen; so the first year of Grad. Yeah, I don't know either. After that I tried hard to write at a more general audience level like newspapers and magazines do, at around 9th through 12th grades. I like to believe that today's reading levels have gone up. Average reading level in 1935 was grade 7.8. So yeah, I think it's gone up a bit.

I just read on a web site that said "The average newspaper is written at the 11th-grade level, the tolerable limit for a 9th-grade reader" and that people generally like to read about two grade levels below their ability to read. It also said that, "experts recommend writing documents intended for the general public at the 9th-grade level, health and safety information at the 5th-grade level." Okay then....

Through most of my life I have preferred to read mostly above my grade level, with a peppering of slightly lesser works for pure guilty pleasure. My grandmother used to tell me that every other book we read should be uncomfortably above our skill level. So I always did that (literally; I didn't try to do that, I followed it like gospel) while growing up and yes, I spent a lot of time not understanding, at first and wondering why I was doing it. But over time it paid off, and much of that I was later able to remember and eventually understood.

Reading levels are something to consider, both for the reader and for writers.

As writers we need to know our audience and write for them, always trying to elevate though not talk down to them. As readers it is our responsibility as it is in all communication, to understand more than we need to. In interpersonal communication some people think that it is the job of the communicator to communicate. Which is somewhat of a fallacy.

Indeed it is the job of the communicator, he or she who is speaking, not only to convey their meaning, but also to see to it that the one being communicated to, understands. That, is always not the case. There is nothing more annoying than someone who speaks over your head and then after the interaction, you are clueless as to what they just said. It's a waste of time to both the individual listening, but mostly and more likely, simply an ego trip for one of those involved; most probably, not the more ignorant one involved in the intercourse.

As for the one being communicated to, it is our job in listening, to, well... listen. But also to understand. To, THINK. Reference what is being said, store some information, remember some key words for later, in case you need to look something up; rethink it, in order to better comprehend it. A word or sentence spoken, is something that should last beyond the words spoken. Otherwise, it's just common speech which should be used for commanding and acknowledging in merely getting through the day. Other than that, speech should convey and instruct, and educate.

We've mostly lost that common way of speaking now a days. Our leisure speaking tends to be fluff mostly, about sports, or celebrities, TV shows or films. When we should be talking about science, politics, philosophy, family dynamics, life. Things that enhance our lives and culture. No doubt we all need down time and fluff has it's place. But in a world where we are supposed to "seek our bliss", to "pursue happiness", we've kind of gone off the deep end. A little ice cream is good, but a fifty gallon barrel is too much. The trouble is, our stomachs physically let us know when we've overdone it (not that you could tell from the average weight of an American, but still....). Our minds however will allow us to "eat" all the crap we could ever want, with no real warning (like weight gain or diabetes) and all we get out of it is an addiction for more and a bloated and ignorant mind (supported by the internet where there are plenty more of the same).

So look, have fun, don't get me wrong. Do have fun, just don't kill yourself, or your mind, or the rest of us, over it.