Daily Punditry for 6/5/2025

Doom? How about some doom, eh?

Egg Prices Have Dropped 61% Since Trump Took Office

Egg prices have steadily dropped in price since President Donald Trump took office in January by a whopping 61%.

According to Fox Business, data from the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) shows the price of large white eggs are currently around $2.52 per dozen nationally. This is in stark contrast to January, where a dozen eggs would set a shopper back about $6.49 for a dozen. In March, eggs were over $8 per dozen.

The highest I saw them get around here was a hair over $25 for the five dozen pack at Krogers. Of course, I’m in the agricultural heartland, with chicken farms galore. Strangely, the price of actual chicken never budged, though. I’m still trying to figure that one out.

Anyway, the doomer aspect of this squawk is its effect on the lefties who were gleefully predicting that Trump would be impeached by a horde of chicken pluckers enraged at paying thirty bucks a dozen for cackleberries.

Ukraine 'Burns Bridge' of Peace Talks With New Round of Provocations

To whom is the pretense that there are going to be peace talks about Ukraine aimed? In the real world, Putin invaded Ukraine for very clear reasons - to protect the people of the Donbass, whom the Ukrainian Nazis had been slaughtering, and to prevent Ukraine from becoming a member of NATO. Subsidiary aims were to end the west’s push, led by US and Euro Neocons, to advance to Russia’s borders are, eventually, destroy the Putin regime, break up Russia, and loot its vast natural resources.

None of this has changed. If anything, Putin has grown more adamant as Russia has grown more powerful. Zelensky has no incentive whatsoever to make peace. Actual peace would likely result in his abrupt demise. There’s no lack of candidates to wield the knife, from the Russians themselves to various Ukrainian factions, to Euro and US Deep States that are, and have been, wallowing ass-deep in the vast corruption that has characterized the Ukrainian state since the fall of the USSR.

Even Trump has, I believe, finally begun to understand that he is the one who holds no cards. Sanctions are a hollow threat, and initiating kinetic warfare in Ukraine against Russia would not only result in a humiliating American defeat, but would also destroy every other MAGA goal on which Trump campaigned. It would be his second failed presidency. I expect him to walk away from Zelensky and leave him to Putin’s tender mercies, while doing deals with Putin on his own in terms of divvying up the shattered carcass of whatever is left of Ukraine that has any value. Probably resources of some kind.

Trump says Putin 'very strongly' told him Russia will respond to stunning drone attack from Ukraine

As noted, nobody should be surprised at this. Russia has not wavered a single inch from its initial requirements to end the SMO (Special Military Operation), except to expand them somewhat.

What do you think the US would do if another country destroyed a significant part of its nuclear triad - say, half a dozen B-2 nuclear capable bombers? Smile politely and say, “Oh, well…?”

Putin is facing his own domestic pressures to increase the power and effects of his kinetic/military responses to attacks on the Russian homeland by Ukraine. And anybody who thinks that Russia hasn’t done so to date because it can’t wield such power needs to leave this conversation immediately, and seek mental help elsewhere. Except for the exceptionally stupid, because stupidity is one mental defect that cannot be cured. So far, at least.

Grok offers an analysis:

Vladimir Putin faces mounting domestic pressures due to escalating Ukrainian attacks on Russian territory, particularly following high-profile drone and missile strikes in 2025. These pressures stem from public perception, elite dynamics, and military vulnerabilities, pushing him toward a more aggressive kinetic response. Below is an analysis of these pressures, grounded in available evidence and sentiment from recent sources.

1. Public Perception and Propaganda Challenges

• Erosion of Invulnerability Narrative: The Kremlin has maintained a narrative of a controlled "special military operation" in Ukraine, shielding the Russian public from the war’s full impact. However, Ukrainian long-range drone and missile attacks on strategic targets like airbases, oil refineries, and nuclear-capable bomber fleets (e.g., the June 1, 2025, attack damaging 41 aircraft) have exposed vulnerabilities in Russia’s air defenses. Social media footage of burning infrastructure undermines the Kremlin’s claim of invincibility, fostering public unease.

• Growing Public Frustration: Posts on X indicate rising domestic sentiment that Putin’s responses to Ukrainian attacks are inadequate. Some Russian hardliners and pro-war bloggers label him as "soft," arguing that his failure to decisively retaliate invites further aggression. For example, a post claimed, "The Russian public is becoming bloodthirsty and are increasingly seeing Putin as soft," suggesting that public demand for a stronger response is intensifying.

• Propaganda Strain: Prominent propagandists like Vladimir Solovyov have expressed frustration over air defense failures, reflecting a shift in mood even among loyalists. This public criticism, amplified on platforms like Telegram, pressures Putin to escalate to restore confidence in his leadership.

2. Elite and Hardliner Pressure

• Internal Criticism from Advisors: Advisors and military elites are reportedly urging Putin to respond forcefully to Ukrainian attacks, particularly after strikes crossing perceived "red lines" like targeting nuclear-capable assets. A former CIA Russia analyst noted that some Russian officials argue for a strong response to deter further Western-backed Ukrainian aggression, warning that inaction could portray Russia as a "paper tiger."

• Hardliner Expectations: Pro-war factions, including military bloggers, demand drastic measures, with some even suggesting nuclear retaliation. For instance, a Telegram post called the June 2025 drone attack Russia’s "Pearl Harbor," urging a response akin to the U.S. in 1941. Another post advocated for targeting Ukrainian infrastructure and command centers, criticizing Putin’s restraint.

• Political Survival: Putin’s regime relies on projecting strength. The war is tied to his political survival, and perceived weakness could embolden domestic rivals or erode support among elites who expect decisive action to maintain Russia’s global standing.

3. Military and Strategic Vulnerabilities

• Exposed Defenses: Ukraine’s ability to strike deep into Russia (e.g., a Siberian airbase 3,000 miles from Kyiv) highlights deficiencies in Russian border security and air defenses. The June 2025 attack, involving 117 drones smuggled via trucks, revealed embarrassing lapses in border control, increasing pressure on Putin to bolster defenses or retaliate to deter future strikes.

• Psychological Impact: Ukrainian attacks, including the Kursk region incursion and strikes on symbolic targets like Crimea, undermine the perception of Russian military dominance. Crimea, seen as Russia’s “holy land,” has particular resonance, and attacks there in 2022 already sparked domestic criticism. Continued strikes amplify this pressure.

• Escalation Risks: Putin’s revised nuclear doctrine (November 2024) lowers the threshold for nuclear use, framing attacks supported by nuclear powers as joint assaults on Russia. Ukrainian strikes using Western-supplied weapons (e.g., U.S. and British missiles) heighten the risk of escalation, with Putin warning of “consequences” for NATO countries. This rhetoric reflects pressure to act decisively to maintain deterrence.

4. Domestic Political Dynamics

• Historical Context: Russian history shows that protracted, unwinnable wars create domestic unrest. Ukrainian strikes bringing the war to Russian soil could erode Putin’s implicit social contract—political control in exchange for economic stability—if casualties or economic costs mount.

• Public Opinion: Pre-invasion polls by the Levada Center showed 61–71% approval for Putin, but public support is fragile under repression and economic strain. While protests have been limited (e.g., 150 demonstrations in Russia in 2022, met with arrests), growing awareness of military setbacks could fuel dissent, especially as conscript casualties rise.

• Social Media Amplification: Criticism on Telegram and other platforms, even from pro-Kremlin voices, underscores that Russian territory is not safe. This challenges Putin’s narrative and increases pressure to escalate kinetically to restore public confidence.

5. External and Diplomatic Factors Influencing Domestic Pressure

• Western Involvement: Ukrainian attacks using Western weapons (e.g., ATACMS missiles) are framed by Putin as NATO’s direct involvement, intensifying domestic calls for retaliation. His threats to strike NATO countries arming Ukraine reflect this pressure, though he’s avoided direct escalation so far.

• Peace Talk Dynamics: Putin’s insistence on territorial gains (e.g., four Ukrainian regions) and rejection of ceasefires suggest he perceives battlefield advantages. However, Ukrainian strikes challenge this narrative, pushing him to respond to maintain leverage in negotiations, especially with U.S. pressure for talks under Trump.

• Trump’s Influence: Trump’s mixed signals—calling Putin “crazy” while criticizing Zelensky—complicate Putin’s calculus. Domestic hardliners may see Trump’s reluctance to escalate sanctions as an opportunity to push for aggressive retaliation without immediate Western backlash.

Putin’s Likely Response

• Kinetic Escalation: Putin has signaled a need to respond, telling Trump he “would have to” address attacks like the June 2025 drone strike. Options include intensified drone and missile strikes on Ukrainian cities (as seen in May 2025 with 355 drones) or experimental weapons like the Oreshnik missile.

• Balancing Act: Putin must weigh escalation against risking broader conflict with NATO or alienating allies like China. A limited response could be seen as weak, fueling domestic criticism, while overreaction might trigger harsher Western sanctions or Ukrainian counterstrikes.

• Domestic Control: To manage internal dissent, Putin may intensify repression (e.g., arrests of protesters) or propaganda to frame escalation as necessary for national security.

Conclusion

Putin faces growing domestic pressure to increase kinetic responses due to Ukrainian attacks exposing military vulnerabilities, eroding his invulnerability narrative, and fueling criticism from hardliners and the public. Social media amplifies these concerns, with pro-war voices demanding decisive retaliation. However, escalation risks further isolating Russia or triggering NATO involvement, forcing Putin to balance domestic expectations with strategic caution. For now, he’s likely to opt for targeted strikes on Ukrainian infrastructure while reinforcing domestic control, but sustained Ukrainian attacks could push him toward riskier actions.

Putin is a very cautious man playing a long game against a potential multitude of enemies, while at the same time trying to placate and assure his friends and allies that he is not the one threatening world peace. It’s a delicate balancing act. So far, he’s managed to handle it well.

Of course, all of this becomes moot if the Russian military can collapse the Ukrainian defenses, take Keiv, and rewrite the relationship with cannons rather than treaties. The action this summer could very well determine how that works out.

A scumbag neocon fox in the woodpile:

Grok, again:

U.S. Senator Lindsey Graham, accompanied by Senator Richard Blumenthal, visited Kyiv, Ukraine, on May 30, 2025, two days before the Ukrainian drone attack on Russian strategic bombers on June 1, 2025. During this visit, their activities included:

Meeting with President Volodymyr Zelenskyy: Graham and Blumenthal held discussions with Zelenskyy to address the ongoing Russia-Ukraine conflict and U.S. support for Ukraine. The meeting focused on the urgent need for stronger measures against Russia, particularly in light of intensified Russian bombardments.

Touring Damaged Areas: The senators surveyed neighborhoods in Kyiv devastated by recent Russian attacks, described as the most intense since the war’s onset in February 2022. This firsthand exposure to the war’s impact informed their push for legislative action.

Advocating for Sanctions: At a press conference in Kyiv, Graham announced that the U.S. Senate would move forward the following week with the Sanctioning Russia Act of 2025, a bill he co-sponsored with Blumenthal. The legislation proposed “bone-breaking sanctions” on Russia, including 500% tariffs on countries purchasing Russian oil (e.g., China, India). Graham framed the sanctions as a tool to pressure Putin toward peace talks and support President Trump’s diplomatic efforts, though Trump had not yet endorsed the bill.

Warning of Russian Offensive: Graham and Blumenthal warned that Putin was preparing for a new offensive, possibly in summer or early fall 2025, based on “credible evidence” observed during their visit. They urged swift U.S. action to prevent further Russian aggression, emphasizing the sanctions bill as a critical measure to weaken Russia’s war economy.

Context and Domestic Pressure on Putin

Graham’s visit and vocal support for Ukraine coincided with heightened domestic pressure on Vladimir Putin following the June 1 Ukrainian drone strike, which damaged 41 Russian military aircraft across five bases, including strategic bombers. The timing of the visit, just before the attack and peace talks in Turkey, fueled speculation on platforms like X, where some users suggested Graham’s presence was linked to the strike, alleging U.S. involvement or coordination. These claims lack conclusive evidence, and official reports confirm the White House was not notified of the attack in advance.

Graham’s actions in Kyiv—pushing for sanctions and praising Ukraine’s resilience—likely amplified Russian perceptions of Western escalation, increasing pressure on Putin to respond kinetically to restore domestic confidence. Russian hardliners and pro-war bloggers criticized Putin’s restraint, with some calling the attack Russia’s “Pearl Harbor” and demanding retaliation. This sentiment, coupled with Graham’s high-profile visit, may have heightened Putin’s need to project strength amid domestic frustration over exposed military vulnerabilities.

Conclusion

During his May 30, 2025, visit to Kyiv, Lindsey Graham met with Zelenskyy, toured war-damaged areas, and championed a severe Russia sanctions bill while warning of a potential new Russian offensive. The subsequent Ukrainian drone attack on June 1 intensified domestic pressure on Putin to escalate kinetically, as it exposed Russian vulnerabilities and fueled hardliner demands for retaliation. While X posts speculate about Graham’s role in the attack, no evidence supports direct U.S. involvement.

I should note that there is a difference betweem “US involvement,” and Trump’s prior knowledge of the Ukrainian attack. One characteristic of the US neocon Deep Intel State is its propensity for “siloing Trump away” from knowledge of what it is doing contrary to presidential intention and policy. Trump desperately needs to find a way to bring these people under his control before they manage to bring down his entier presidency…again.