The 9-11 unasked question

When I learned about the September 11 terrorist attack I was having breakfast in Vail, Colorado, following my morning run. In hearing what was happening in New York City, the first thought that came to my mind was “Years of humiliation and punishment brought against the Palestinian population is the root cause of these attacks”.

By and large America didn’t perceive that angle of the devastating attack. Fueled by its righteousness and its ingrained sense of exceptionalism, it became self-indignant saying “How can someone attack us in this manner, this is totally unfair, we absolutely didn’t deserve that kind of treatment.” Nowhere, have I heard “Why did someone inflict that horrible punishment to us?” 

True, asking WHY would have made sense, but remained conspicuously absent from our national response. At least that’s how I understood it. Absolutely no comprehensive post-mortem, but instead a “well-deserved”, twenty year war of vengeance against Afghanistan first, and almost simultaneously another one, almost as costly in lives and resources, against Iraq. 

A tragedy for all that is also a powerful reminder, that in order to learn from a catastrophe we should always get to the root cause of the situation by asking a simple “Why?”

Theocracy and nuclear weapons (Part Three)

Just as I see religion, I personally see theocracy as highly irrational and it makes me nervous when such a government is armed with nuclear weapons. Since a theocracy is based on "irrational" beliefs, it becomes the subject of intense philosophical and political debate. 

Now there are people who view religious faith as a valid form of knowledge. Based on analysis from political philosophy and historical examples, theocracy is generally considered to be built on metaphysical, rather than empirical or rational, foundation. 

Mystical belief is considered by some not irrational, but rather "non-rational" or "arational"(like intuitive) because it operates outside the scope of empirical logic and scientific verification, often deemed an experiential, internal, or subjective reality rather than a direct contradiction to objective reality. Talk about semantics and the dog biting its tail! 

Arational sounds irrational or flimsy enough to me! It is argued to be an "arational" experience, something that cannot be validated or refuted with logical evidence. I simply don’t buy that either and I’m not the only one, as many critics argue that organized religion uses mystical beliefs to establish social control, maintain hierarchy, and enforce conformity. 

Religious doctrines are designed to maintain social solidarity or support the power of elites, rather than to reflect objective truth. Further, religious beliefs are instilled at a young age, before critical thinking skills are fully developed, creating a "blind spot" in a person's thinking process. 

There’s also another “glue” called fear (of hell, in particular) and the comfort it provides rather than evidence, making it a "hoax" that keeps people on a "straight and narrow" path. Finally religion is often used to fill knowledge gaps with "God" whenever science does not have a ready answer, an illogical approach to understanding reality. 

While critics cite Israel's non-signatory status to the NPT, possession of nuclear weapons, and demands on Iran as hypocritical, defenders argue that Israel’s security is under threat by a nation that has called for its destruction, making it a matter of survival and not just legal hypocrisy. Yet, Israel’s terrible reputation has been “earned” in almost 8 decades of maltreatment of the Palestinian people. 

I’ll conclude by saying that seeing folks like Bibi and the Ayatollah armed with nukes does not give me any peace of mind. I also know it’s not much better than the two Godless, Trump and Putin!

Theocracy and nuclear weapons (Part Two)

The question of whether a theocracy or a pseudo-theocracy should have access to nuclear weapons is a subject of intense debate among international security experts, theologians, and political scientists. 

The consensus from most international bodies and democratic states is that nuclear proliferation in any non-democratic or highly ideological regime poses significant risks, though some argue that the specific nature of a theocracy introduces unique challenges. 

Israel's policy of "nuclear opacity" (Amimut) is generally tolerated due to its strategic alliance with the West, its lack of membership in the Non Proliferation Treaty (NPT), and perception as a responsible, non-aggressive actor, with of course the exception of its out-of-control current leader Bibi Netanyahu.

Conversely, Iran faces denial of nuclear weapon access because it’s a NPT signatory accused of violating commitments, thus triggering international constraints and fears of regional arms proliferation. 

So when you compare Iran to Israel, the former mistakenly signed the NPT, while Israel hypocritically refused to, amassed an arsenal of nukes and still looks clean before the Judaeo-Christian community that ignores its nuclear status. 

Something is clearly askew with that picture! Tomorrow will dig deeper into the religious excuse and its wild interpretation when circumstances make it necessary…

Theocracy and nuclear weapons (Part One)

The war started by the US and Israel against Iran, begs the question as to whether a theocracy should have access to nuclear weapons? Not a good idea, in my view. This, of course, is a subject of intense debate among international security experts, theologians, and political scientists. But before even debating this, aren’t both Israel and Iran bona fide “theocracies”? 

Since Iran is a Muslim country being judged by Judaeo-Christian cultures, everyone in the West seems to agree that it’s a theocracy. Since the 1979 Revolution, it has operated as an "Islamic Republic" governed by a doctrine known as Vilayat-e faqih (Guardianship of the Jurist), which places ultimate political and legal authority in the hands of a senior Shia cleric known as the Supreme Leader.

On the other end, Western civilization looks the other way when it only sees Israel as a democratic parliamentary republic and not a theocracy. While it defines itself as a "Jewish and Democratic State" and incorporates religious law (Halakha) into personal status matters like marriage and divorce, it lacks a supreme religious ruler and has a democratically elected Knesset. 

 However, it is a subject of debate regarding the influence of the Orthodox Rabbinate on law. So, let’s admit that it’s a little bit theocratic. 

Now, here comes the sticky point. Israel is widely estimated to possess around 100 nuclear warheads, although the estimates range from 80 to over 300. Israel maintains a policy of nuclear ambiguity, neither confirming nor denying its nuclear capabilities. It’s believed to have produced enough plutonium for 100–200 weapons, which can be delivered by aircraft, missiles, and submarines. 

With this in mind, Israel maintains a policy of "nuclear opacity" (neither confirming nor denying its nuclear arsenal) primarily to achieve strategic deterrence without triggering a regional arms race, inviting international sanctions, or violating US non-proliferation laws. This "open secret" allows Israel to deter adversaries while avoiding the political obligations of being an acknowledged nuclear state. 

A really sneaky, dishonest way to handle things in my view. Tomorrow, we’ll continue by taking a special look at Iran, at religion’s relation with weapons of mass destruction and whether both countries should be prevented from having such weapons or not, so please stay tuned...

Our new, American Pope

After Pope Francis ignored the perk during his pontificate, Pope Leo XIV is at Castel Gandolfo for a break to restore his “body and spirit” as he recently said. It’s a return to a centuries-old tradition that brings the new pope to that summer residence perched at 425 meters, above Lake Albano, offering cooler air and calmer atmosphere than Rome’s summer heat.

Aside from this cool news, the new Pope has been vocal and consistent in addressing the conflicts in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran since the start of his papacy in May 2025. On the War in Ukraine he condemned the war as “senseless”. He also expressed solidarity with Ukrainian Greek Catholics during a Jubilee pilgrimage, acknowledging their suffering and urging faith amid adversity. In his very first Sunday address as pope, Leo called for a ceasefire in Gaza, the release of hostages, and unrestricted humanitarian aid. 

Following US airstrikes on Iranian nuclear sites in June, Pope Leo issued a plea for peace, warning that war only “amplifies problems” and causes “deep wounds”. He’s also condemned the logic of “bullying and revenge”, urging all parties—including Israel, Iran, and the US—to pursue dialogue and diplomacy. Not much of the Papal interventions have been reported through a media that’s been largely obsessed with Trump. 

Besides these stances, Pope Leo XIV could drastically deepen his impact by leaning into the Vatican’s unique role as a neutral body and spiritual authority. He could for instance convene an Interfaith Peace Summit by bringing together senior leaders from Christianity, Islam, and Judaism—especially those with influence in the Middle East and Eastern Europe, and use it to condemn violence and call for ceasefires, humanitarian corridors, and negotiations. 

He could also launch a Global “Peace Pilgrimage” Campaign with interfaith partners to host synchronized events—prayers, fasts, and public forums—focused on peace in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran. Then there’s always a more active, direct engagement with political leaders challenging arms buildup and the erosion of international law. From a religious standpoint, he could also support bishops, imams, and rabbis in conflict zones with resources and platforms to counter hate speech, promote reconciliation, and protect civilians. 

Likewise, encourage interreligious councils in Ukraine, Gaza, and Iran to issue joint statements and mediate local tensions. With strengths in moral clarity and global reach, it’s my belief that Pope Leo holds the power to translate his words into coordinated action, especially with other faith leaders and be instrumental in shifting the narrative from retaliation to reconciliation. 

As Pope Leo gets ready to intervene more forcefully for peace, I wish him a rejuvenating sojourn at Castel Gandolfo!

The recent Iran, Israel and USA war

“Taco” Trump, the man without a plan, wanted to show his military might and yielded once more to Netanyahu in testing the US penetrating bombs hoping to “obliterate” Iran’s nuclear program once and for all. The jury’s still out as to whether that operation succeeded, but what we know pretty much for sure is the cost to us, US taxpayers. 

Yep, it seems that “Operation Midnight Hammer” involving B-2 stealth bombers and bunker-buster bombs, will cost us approximately $68.84 billion, covering aircraft, weapons, material, personnel, fuel, and maintenance. Let’s hope it broke a few things and killed a few weasels instead of just drilling some big holes. 

What it did for sure, was unite some 92 million angry Iranians under their crazy religious leaders with a strong desire for revenge, in spite of a Trump-engineered cease-fire that doesn’t seem to stick too well. 

I bet that the angry Iranians will be getting even more friendly with Russia and uncle Putin will see how he can help them kick the West and the US in the rear end, perhaps with tactical or dirty nukes allegedly Iran-made, but supplied by the Kremlin. 

Hopefully, the warrior Trump who operates so well by the seat of his pants will learn something useful at the end of the day. 

I suggest he bills Bibi Netanyahu $80 billion for the holes he’s drilled to defray his taxpayers, and keeps 10 in his own pocket, but as always, I’m getting ahead of myself...

Iran, Israel and Nukes

In the current war started by Israel to eliminate Iran’s perceived nuclear threat, one question that should precede any discussion on the subject is “Why in the world, is Israel so secretive about its nuclear program and, according to the Federation of American Scientists, its estimated 90 nuclear warhead arsenal?” 

Right, why is Israel hypocritically objecting to Iran getting nuclear weapons too, while that country as never acknowledged that it has nuclear weapons? My sense is that Netanyahu needs to always be fighting a war in order to stay in power and evade prosecution, and this at US taxpayers’ expense. Just like a biker needs to keep on pedaling to stand on their bicycle. 

Some say that Israel’s implied nuclear capability acts as a last-resort deterrent against existential threats from hostile neighbors. By neither confirming nor denying its arsenal, Israel hopes to avoid escalating regional arms races while signaling it could retaliate catastrophically if attacked. Openly declaring nukes might incentivize its adversaries to strike first or justify their own programs. 

Ambiguity keeps enemies guessing. Of course, Israel never signed the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT), avoiding inspections or obligations to disarm. This lets it maintain capability without legal scrutiny. Then, there is a host of hypocrisy, beginning with the US that tolerates Israel’s ambiguity (despite non-proliferation norms) because it aligns with shared interests in Middle East stability. 

Acknowledgment would force Washington to legally sanction Israel under the Symington Amendment (banning aid to nuclear proliferators). It’s clear that without complicity from other US allies that pretend not to know that Israel has a significant nuclear arsenal deliverable via missiles, subs, or aircraft this charade is seen as a means to avoid diplomatic crises. 

All of this confirms Israel’s hypocrisy, as it condemns Iran’s program while ignoring its own and it makes a mockery of democracy by claiming it values transparency while militarily embracing secrecy. Israel’s nuclear secrecy isn’t just about bombs—it’s a high-stakes game of psychological and geopolitical chess. 

The policy endures because it works (so far) to deter threats without triggering all-out arms races. But as the Middle East changes, so might this theory.

Israli drone snipers

This week, NPR (our National Public Radio) reported that eyewitnesses in Gaza have said that Israel's military is using guns attached to drones to carry out attacks on Civilians. Quadcopters are equipped with a video camera, a long gun and their propellers are programmed to compensate for recoil when the gun gets remotely fired. 

Earlier, in April 2024, claims emerged that the Israeli Defense Forces have used armed quadcopter drones against residents of Gaza's Al Nuseirat refugee camp to shoot and kill would-be good Samaritan Palestinians. These drones were using the sounds of crying infants as bait. 

An article by journalist Spencer Ackerman argued that this despicable practice was turning Gaza into "a laboratory of wars for the future." While the IDF's use of armed drones in Gaza has been well-documented, the specific claim of using recorded noises of infants or others in distress stems from an April 16, 2024 report by Maha Hussaini in the Middle East Eye. 

Beyond the obvious human right violation it represents, this new escalation suggests this kind of development is highly concerning for our own safety in general. Think of common criminals and terrorists. What if an enemy of yours (a neighbor, your government) want you dead ? This is as close to a traceless crime there could be ? Are states even thinking of regulating the spread of that kind of device when they hit the buying public ? 

Another new danger to worry about for those who like to...

Balancing joy of skiing with horror of Ukraine and Gaza

I love to ski and while I enjoy my favorite sport, I can always be critical of a host of things that I don’t like, such as this season’s lack of snow, the lack of early preparation by the resort and the very limited terrain opened. 

Yet, at the same time, I remind myself that my first-world concerns are nothing in comparison with what goes on today in places like Ukraine and Gaza, and I found the whole premise quite challenging mentally, as it involves navigating between personal enjoyment and planetary concerns. 

I certainly try to recognize that it's okay to experience joy while being empathetic towards global issues and that practicing my favorite sport doesn't diminish my concerns for world events and my awareness of international issues. Obviously, the next question that comes to mind is “What can I do?” 

Beside supporting organizations working towards peace and humanitarian aid, I must also make pleas directed towards my political leaders of all stripes. Knowing this, we can help to affect the situation ever so slightly and alleviate a bit our feelings of helplessness. 

While staying informed is essential, excessive exposure to distressing news can be destructive and we ought to set boundaries on our media consumption to prevent it from totally depressing us. Likewise, we should try to seek the company of people who share similar concerns and values. 

We should also seek quality and objective information to better understand the reasons behind these bloody conflicts, so we’re ready to discuss them with others who understand and appreciate the need for balance and reason. 

Finally, this is our opportunity to take time each day to reflect and appreciate the positive aspects of our lives, including the activities that bring us joy. 

If you happen to have more good ideas on the subject, please, share them!

Israelis vs. Palestinians

Too many people choose to ignore or have never been taught about the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, a long-standing dispute over land and sovereignty in the Middle East, began in the late 19th century when Zionists sought to establish a homeland for the Jewish people in Ottoman-controlled Palestine. 

The Balfour Declaration of 1917, issued by the British government, endorsed the idea of a Jewish homeland in Palestine, which led to an influx of Jewish immigrants into the region without asking its inhabitants if they liked the idea or not. In 1947, the United Nations went ahead the Partition Plan, dividing Palestine into Arab and Jewish states. 

On May 14, 1948, the State of Israel was created, sparking the first Arab-Israeli War. Palestinians were forced off their lands or fled, marking the first large-scale exodus in what would become a decades-long battle over land ownership. Since then, there have been numerous conflicts between Israelis and Palestinians over issues such as borders, settlements, and security.

 The conflict has resulted in thousands of deaths and has been a major source of instability in the region and Israel’s steady actions of apartheid are what gave birth to Hamas, the Hezbollah and other bad actors. 

But when someone is forced out of his home, can they be blamed in regaining their territory by any possible means?

Estimating Putin’s destruction in Ukraine

If Putin is to be kept accountable for the huge damage he has inflicted to Ukraine since the beginning of his unjustified war of aggression, he is already behind almost $110 billion in damage to the country infrastructure according to a study from Kyiv School of Economics and 3.5 million people homeless according to the Ukraine’s defense ministry. 

The worst though, is the loss of human lives, that according to a recent Zelensky’s interview by the CBS news network for its 60 minutes magazine, amounts to 500,000 including civilians and soldiers on both sides. 

This might be overstated but it’s not too far from a Reuters article from April 12, in which the news organization claims that as many as 354,000 Russian and Ukrainian soldiers have been killed or injured in the Ukraine war at that point in time.

What that massacre tells me is that priority number one is to remove Putin, unless the world can stand to increase and perhaps double that number or even more, should he decide to nuke humanity into oblivion. 

There's John Lyly’s quote that “All is fair in love and war”, but the fairest thing to do NOW is to neutralize Putin before he lives to his nefarious potential. Humanity has no excuse for not acting.

Why are some people bent on destroying?

I hate folks who have a demolishing instinct. 

It takes so long to imagine, design and build that any act of destruction makes me cringe. It’s as wasteful as it is unnecessary. Building, for the most part, is what distinguishes us from animals, and yet, it so easy to vandalize, damage or destroy others’ work that it discourages me as it runs so contrary to any positive achievement.

Putin is the "poster boy" for this kind of individuals. I guess some of these destructive folks might respond to various forms of fear (the unknown, humiliation or powerlessness), yet sometimes, their actions seems calculated, willful and even joyful. 

This, of course, suggest many problems these destroyers have. The most obvious are mental issues, as they could be dealing with intense emotional problems, frustration, or anger that trigger destructive behavior as a way to cope with, or express their true feelings. 

There are also those who are on some kind of a mission, holding extreme ideologies or convictions, that could justify or suggest destruction to achieve extremist goals, whether political or religious. 

Others might fall victim of socioeconomic conditions, like poverty, marginalization or lack of opportunities can may also fuel frustration and resentment leading to destructive acts. 

Finally peer influence is always lurking the corners of group settings, where destructive behavior is seen acceptable or even encouraged. 

There might be others reasons involved, that’s why understanding the complexity of human behavior isn’t easy and often requires a case-by-case analysis to truly comprehend the motivations behind certain destructive actions.

Should States sub-contract war?

I never quite understood why Putin had to hire the Wagner group when it had already what the rest of the world thought, the most formidable army around. 

One’s own army seems pretty easy and direct to control as long as a State’s institutions are strong enough, but when a Head of State puts two competing groups as its defense arms, this might be asking for trouble as one will try to surpass the other, and this is not a desired kind of competition in a war situation, like the invasion of Ukraine. 

Further, the “quality of the ingredients” constituting the Wagner group wasn’t the very best, hence it was no surprise to me when Yevgeny Prigozhin began criticizing the Russian Federation for not helping him, for making very bad decisions or shooting his soldiers.

The chicken has simply come hone to roost, exposing Putin second most blatant error of judgment after invading Ukraine. 

I thought Valdimir Putin was much smarter than that, but his actions might betray just another case of the Peter Principle, this management concept, that states that people in a hierarchy tend to rise to "a level of respective incompetence" as they are promoted based on their success in previous jobs until they reach a level at which they are no longer competent, as skills in one job do not necessarily translate to another. 

In Putin’s case it shows that his KGB education might be woefully lacking in common sense and imagination...

A meaningful Holiday?

Yesterday was Memorial Day, a federal holiday in the United States, honoring and mourning the military personnel who died while serving in the United States Armed Forces. 

While that particular Holiday is also considered the unofficial beginning of summer, to many more, the day is known for being one of the best times to score incredible deals on patio furniture, mattresses, technical devices and more…

So as we walked by the Park City cemetery, we saw a small crowd gathered at its center and heard the bugle call “Taps” also known as the National song of remembrance being played. 

We weren’t prepared to just jump in and attend a ceremony in full swing, but it made me think at some of the “just wars” the United States had fought. 

In many people’s judgment, the most “just” war of all was World War II. I absolutely agree with that view. However, some think that it might not have been totally true, because of the fire bombing of cities and the atomic bombs dropped on Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

FAQ about Putin’s nuclear threats…

During most interview or news shows about the Ukraine war, the constant question we hear is that one: “If Putin uses nuclear tactical, or even larger weapons out of desperation, what should the US response be?” 

No one seems able, imaginative or daring enough to voice a sound answer capable of addressing the danger packaged with a nuclear response or the absence of one as a tit for tat reaction. 

Without pretending to be a political expert, I think I know the best answer to Putin resorting to the use of any kind of nuclear warhead again Ukraine or its allies. The best would be to immediately “neutralize” Putin, Lavrov and Army General Gerasimov.

These three characters should be geo-localized in permanence to allow for such a swift, surgical and effective action. 

That’s right, the logical course of action would be to “neutralized” this troika for good and then, and immediate withdrawal of Russian troops from Ukraine should precede any disarmament of Russia and repair or restitution for Ukraine. 

Absent that action from Russia, strike its strategic assets. This strategy would offer a swift and definite response to Putin’s demented plans. I hope Biden does just this when and if he must address this issue.

The Ukrainian hostage taking

If there is a terrorist, it’s Putin. He’s been telling the world: “Let me do whatever I want, don’t forget that I sit on 6,000 nukes” or something to that effect. 

The net result is that the “free world” has been paralyzed by fear after hearing that threat and has let Ukraine fend for itself after the Russian terrorist decided to invade that country. What Putin bluffing then? Probably. 

What should have the West (NATO) done? Quell the invasion right away, crush the Russian forces to oblivion and teach the small man a big, memorable lesson. But since we didn’t want to upset our definition of personal comfort, we declined, and after having had a terrible time with his invasion, the Russian terrorist is backed into a corner and now, infinitely more dangerous. 

So what should the West do, beside feeding Ukraine with more military and life support? Well, to me the best solution is clear, “neutralize” Putin, get him out of the picture once and for all. Is it even feasible? 

Given the technological tools at our disposal, that should be, but what’s missing is the will to even try it and the only hope left is that it happens from the inside of Russia.

Calling a spade a spade

I still believe Biden was right when he called Putin “War Criminal”. It’s undiplomatic, but some people don’t have to be handed so delicately. 

Further, the Russian dictator also became a terrorist when he began his invasion of Ukraine by putting a nuclear gun on the world’s head.

So it was only right to hear someone who knows a thing or two about real war criminals confirms what the entire planet knew, but few politicians had the courage to call in such way. 

Today Carla Del Ponte, the former chief prosecutor of the International Criminal Court has called for an international arrest warrant to be issued for Russian President Vladimir Putin in an interview by the Swiss newspaper “Le Temps” published Saturday. 

Isn’t it time for the rest of the world to confirm that Putin indeed is both a war criminal and a terrorist that must be stopped?

Why kick Alina Kabaeva out of Switzerland?

I've been criticized for my blog on Putin’s girl friend hiding in Switzerland as being a trivial topic in the midst of a raging war, but it’s a perfect example of huge potential leverage. 

Consider this: 

Firstly, in spite of heavy personal security, this woman and her children are susceptible of kidnapping or murder by some activist that want to put pressure to bear on Putin. How would you feel if you were the mayor of say, Verbier, the posh Swiss ski resort if she were hiding there? Of course there is ski resort’s economic and prestigious benefits of hosting such a VIP, but it might costs much more than it brings to the small mountain community, because after all we’re talking about the companion and kids of a terrorist. 

Secondly, if the Swiss government was to tell Putin, “Look, we’re concerned about Ms. Kabaeva’s security, can you please remove her from our country?” It would strike a chord and make Putin think twice about the personal consequences of what he’s doing to Ukraine. 

As combats are reaching a stalemate, it’s important to bring pressure to bear on the Russian dictator and if he doesn’t care about the thousands Russian soldiers dead or wounded, having to worry more about his family might take part of his deadly attention off from Ukraine. 

In a terrorist situation like this one, there is no detail unimportant, and if it can make Putin bend, it should be used or at the very least tried. Again, this is called leverage.

Losing patience with Alina Kabaeva

In my blog from March 12, I had brought up the case of Alina Kabaeva, Putin’s lover, hiding in Switzerland with four of the dictator’s kids whom he has never officially recognized. 

Now, there is some action afoot to get her out of her luxurious Swiss Chalet and back to Russia. A petition to kick her out of the country has already collected over 70,000 signatures. Specifically the petition is demanding she be expelled from Switzerland and deported to Russia. 

This petition was launched by citizens in Russia, Belarus and Ukraine two weeks ago, calling for Swiss authorities to kick Kabaeva out of Switzerland and deport her back to Russia. “It's time you reunite Eva Braun with her Führer,”the strongly-worded petition said. 

The petition continues: “Given the volume of sanctions placed on Russia', Swiss authorities continue to host her and her family at a time when Putin 'is destroying the lives of millions. For the first time in modern history, your country has violated its neutrality, which it did not even do against Nazi Germany. And now you are allowing his favorite mistress and her children to hide within the borders of your state.” 

If Switzerland ignore that complain, it will obviously continues to host an accomplice of Putin's regime. Many fear that Putin’s carefully hidden assets may mean Kabaeva and her family have been able to escape the sanctions announced by the Swiss Federal Council in February. 

Along the same lines, it should also be noted that the West has so far not sanctioned Alina Kabaeva, who makes $10 million a year as the chairman of the board of directors at National Media Group, a major TV and newspaper conglomerate that’s also a Kremlin’s mouthpiece. The petition, was posted in in German, French and English. 

I too think that it’s time for her to return to Russia! 

Russia's nuclear targets in America

Putin, like other dictators or would-be dictators (like Trump), is a bully and doesn’t hesitate to blackmail other nations. 

That’s exactly what he did when he proclaimed he was putting his nuclear force on alert after the West reacted vehemently to his murderous invasion of Ukraine. 

As Dr. Fiona Hill, a senior fellow at Brookings Institution who was maligned by Trump when she was was her advisor on Russia, said, “This is not that dissimilar from what Kim Jong-un is doing in North Korea, as he tries to demonstrate that he has the ability to engage in nuclear blackmail.” 

Putin’s blackmail is working extremely well by freezing his western opponent in place. 

Intuitively, should Putin decide to send some nukes over to us, one would think he’d target first our Capital City, New York or Los Angeles, but this is not necessarily the aim of a first strike by the Russians. 

Instead, nuclear weapon silos buried in northern Colorado, Wyoming, Nebraska, Montana and North Dakota that were thought to be the first targets during the Cold War could be again, the first in line, not a perspective Mountain States people look forward to. 

These states are much more than empty land waiting for doomsday. They’re hubs of transit, energy, and agriculture. They’re home to over 9 million people, millions of acres of tribal lands, endangered species, and some of the US’ most recognizable landmarks. 

This region is nicknamed the “nuclear sponge” is shorthand for these five states where US Intercontinental Ballistic Missiles (ICBMs) are based in underground silos. 

In the event of a massive nuclear attack from Russia, these states would, just like a sponge, mop-up many of Russia’s missiles that would be hurried to take out the US land-based missile force before they could be launched.