Itemoids

Ukraine

What Russia’s Whirlwind Crisis Could Mean for Putin

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › newsletters › archive › 2023 › 06 › russia-putin-prigozhin-power › 674537

This is an edition of The Atlantic Daily, a newsletter that guides you through the biggest stories of the day, helps you discover new ideas, and recommends the best in culture. Sign up for it here.

“A short recap of the past 24 hours in Russia reads like the backstory for a fanciful episode of Madam Secretary or The West Wing,” my colleague Tom Nichols wrote yesterday. Today’s newsletter will walk you through our writers’ most urgent and clarifying analysis on the whirlwind events of the past weekend.

First, here are three new stories from The Atlantic:

The first MAGA Democrat Dear Therapist: I’ve been dumped by my friends. The battle for I-95

A Permanent Scar

This past Saturday morning, Yevgeny Prigozhin, a convicted criminal who leads the Wagner mercenary group, declared war on the Russian Ministry of Defense. After advancing hundreds of miles toward the capital, Prigozhin announced that a deal had been struck and that his forces were turning back around.

As Atlantic writers reminded us throughout the weekend, Prigozhin’s brief coup was and remains a fast-moving story, and following it requires disentangling complex webs of disinformation. Below is some of our writers’ most useful analysis to help you put Russia’s crisis in context.

The coup is over, but Putin is in trouble.

“We can at this point only speculate about why Prigozhin undertook this putsch, and why it all failed so quickly,” Tom wrote on Saturday, but “this bizarre episode is not a win for Putin.” Tom explains:

The Russian dictator has been visibly wounded, and he will now bear the permanent scar of political vulnerability. Instead of looking like a decisive autocrat (or even just a mob boss in command of his crew), Putin left Moscow after issuing a short video in which he was visibly angry and off his usual self-assured game.

As for Prigozhin, the Wagner Group leader “drew blood and then walked away from a man who never, ever lets such a personal offense go unavenged. But Putin may have had no choice, which is yet another sign of his precarious situation,” Tom writes.

The Russian president is caught in his own trap.

Our staff writer Anne Applebaum suggests paying attention to the reactions of the Russian people. When the Wagner Group mercenaries arrived in the city of Rostov-on-Don on Saturday morning and declared themselves the new rulers, “they met no resistance,” Anne reported. “One photograph, published by The New York Times, shows them walking at a leisurely pace across a street, one of their tanks in the background, holding yellow coffee cups.” She goes on:

This was the most remarkable aspect of the whole day: Nobody seemed to mind, particularly, that a brutal new warlord had arrived to replace the existing regime—not the security services, not the army, and not the general public. On the contrary, many seemed sorry to see him go.

To understand this response, Anne explains, observers must reckon with the power of apathy. “A certain kind of autocrat, of whom Putin is the outstanding example, seeks to convince people of the opposite: not to participate, not to care, and not to follow politics at all.” Through a constant barrage of propaganda, Putin convinces Russian citizens that there is no truth to be found. And if nothing is true, then why protest or engage in politics?

But apathy works both ways: “If no one cares about anything, that means they don’t care about their supreme leader, his ideology, or his war,” Anne explains. “Russians haven’t flocked to sign up to fight in Ukraine. They haven’t rallied around the troops in Ukraine or held emotive ceremonies marking either their successes or their deaths. Of course they haven’t organized to oppose the war, but they haven’t organized to support it either.”

Why did Prigozhin’s coup fail?

Brian Klaas, who has studied coups around the world, offered some lessons from the history of such uprisings. The most successful coups are those run by a unified military, Klaas writes. “In Thailand, for example, coups are usually executed by the military brass, who announce that they are toppling civilian politicians. With nobody with guns to oppose them, Thai coups almost always succeed … After all, what’s the president or prime minister going to do—shoot back at the army?”

In Russia, however, the coup was carried out by a faction connected to the country’s military sector. In those cases, “the plot will likely succeed less on strength than on perception. The plotters are playing a PR game, in which they’re trying to create the impression that their coup is destined to triumph.”

I recommend reading Klaas’s explainer in full. But if you’re wondering what to look for as you follow this news story, I’ll leave you with his advice:

If you’re watching events and trying to understand the strategic logic of coups and how Putin’s regime might end, look out for whether the loyalists stay loyal or start to peel off toward those challenging him. If important figures begin to abandon the regime en masse, Putin is toast.

What do the weekend’s events mean for Ukraine?

Prigozhin’s loss is Ukraine’s gain, the Atlantic contributing writer Elliot Ackerman argued today. “Although Prigozhin was able to negotiate a safe exit from Russia (at least for now), an early casualty of this coup seems to be the Wagner Group itself; Vladimir Putin is unlikely to keep it intact,” Ackerman explains—which means that “over the course of a single weekend, Prigozhin and Putin have jointly done what the Ukrainian military and its NATO allies have failed to achieve in 18 months of war: They’ve removed Russia’s single most effective fighting force from the battlefield.”

“The question we should all be asking now is how to capitalize on Prigozhin’s success,” Ackerman writes.

Related:

The coup is over, but Putin is in trouble. Putin is caught in his own trap.

Today’s News

Fox News announced that Jesse Watters will fill Tucker Carlson’s former prime-time slot, which has been vacant since Carlson’s show was canceled in April. The Supreme Court restored a federal ruling on racial gerrymandering, which stated that Louisiana’s congressional lines likely diluted the power of Black voters. President Joe Biden announced more than $42 billion in federal funding to expand high-speed internet access across the country.

Evening Read

Venice Gordon for The Atlantic

The Monk Who Thinks the World Is Ending

By Annie Lowrey

The monk paces the Zendo, forecasting the end of the world.

Soryu Forall, ordained in the Zen Buddhist tradition, is speaking to the two dozen residents of the monastery he founded a decade ago in Vermont’s far north. Bald, slight, and incandescent with intensity, he provides a sweep of human history. Seventy thousand years ago, a cognitive revolution allowed Homo sapiens to communicate in story—to construct narratives, to make art, to conceive of god. Twenty-five hundred years ago, the Buddha lived, and some humans began to touch enlightenment, he says—to move beyond narrative, to break free from ignorance. Three hundred years ago, the scientific and industrial revolutions ushered in the beginning of the “utter decimation of life on this planet.”

Humanity has “exponentially destroyed life on the same curve as we have exponentially increased intelligence,” he tells his congregants. Now the “crazy suicide wizards” of Silicon Valley have ushered in another revolution. They have created artificial intelligence.

Read the full article.

More From The Atlantic

The cancer-drug shortage is different. “I shouldn’t have to accept being in deepfake porn.” There will never be another Second Life.

Culture Break

Disney

Listen. American narratives about “freedom” can make us miss out on the joys of coming together. The newest episode of How to Talk to People teaches us how to not go it alone.

Watch. It’s hard to be mad at Indiana Jones. The action franchise’s fifth installment, in theaters this Friday, doesn’t break new ground, but it does give viewers what they want.

Play. Try out Caleb’s Inferno, our new print-edition puzzle. It starts easy but gets devilishly hard as you descend into its depths.

Or play our daily crossword.

Katherine Hu contributed to this newsletter.

What Is Putin Worth to China?

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › international › archive › 2023 › 06 › -china-xi-foreign-policy-russia-partnership › 674532

This weekend’s tumultuous events showed just how big a gamble the Chinese leader Xi Jinping took by partnering with Moscow.

Russian President Vladimir Putin survived the rebellion that Yevgeny Prigozhin and his private army unleashed on Saturday. Perhaps Putin’s hold on power was never in great peril. Yet whether the incident is perceived as a mark of Putin’s weakness or of his resilience, it painted a picture of a Russia in deep decline, where a warlord can march on Moscow practically unchallenged, and where political fortunes can be unpredictable and even volatile.

Such is the country on which Xi has pinned many of his foreign-policy ambitions. Xi seems to have embraced Putin as an invaluable partner in his quest to push back American global power and reshape the world order in Beijing’s favor. That choice was always a risky one. By sticking with Putin when he invaded Ukraine last year, Xi was effectively trading ties to Europe for a closer bond to Russia, as his stance galvanized the allied democracies against him. Xi made his decision in the service of grander plans: The two dictators would make history. “Change is coming that hasn’t happened in 100 years. And we’re driving this change together,” Xi told Putin during their summit in Moscow in March.

Watching the rebellion unfold in Russia, one might imagine that Xi now feels that he bet on the wrong guy. Putin looks like a leader with a fair share of problems at home that will limit his ability to project significant influence abroad, and the drawn-out conflict in Ukraine has exposed the weaknesses of the Russian military.

[Read: How China is using Vladimir Putin]

But Xi has remained unmoved. The war, the reaction of the West—nothing so far has dissuaded him from tightening his ties to Putin. And though it is not easy to know the true thinking in China’s opaque halls of power, the rebellion doesn’t appear likely to change his mind either. If anything, it may further convince Xi of Putin’s importance as a bulwark against a destabilized Russia on his northern border. In a statement, China’s Foreign Ministry noted that “as Russia’s friendly neighbor and comprehensive strategic partner of coordination for the new era, China supports Russia in maintaining national stability.” A headline in the Global Times, a news outlet run by the Chinese Communist Party, called the notion that Putin has been weakened “‘wishful thinking’ of the West.”

At the same time, if in fact Putin has been weakened, Xi could stand to gain. Certainly, Xi has benefited already from the leverage Putin’s isolation affords China over Russia: Having torched his ties to the West, Putin has little choice but to deepen Russia’s reliance on China’s diplomatic support and trade—even its currency. That arrangement suits Xi just fine. And if the Wagner coup has weakened Putin still further, Xi can exert yet more influence over Russia’s economy and policy. Xi could use this authority to secure sources of energy and other raw materials from American interference and press Moscow to align its policies with Chinese interests.

Xi’s next moves regarding Russia will say a lot about the trajectory of China’s foreign policy. Continuing to stand by Putin will signal that Xi’s desire to undermine the power of the West remains paramount in his approach to the world and overrides even some pressing concerns at home. With China’s economy staggering and in need of Western investment and technology, Beijing has theoretically been seeking to repair its relations with Europe. But doing so will not be possible unless Xi ditches or at least greatly alters his relationship with Putin. Last week, Chinese Premier Li Qiang toured Europe, talking up the importance of continued engagement, but the European Commission, rather than embracing this outreach, released an economic-security strategy that aims to protect Europe’s interests against threats posed by China. In throwing his weight behind Putin, Xi will continue to damage relations with countries that have the wealth and influence to bolster China’s economic development and global stature in favor of advancing a partnership with a man and a nation that may no longer possess the power to help Xi achieve his goals.  

[Read: Taiwan prepares to be invaded]

The emphasis placed on partnership with Russia indicates just how dramatically Xi has reoriented the priorities of the Chinese government. Development was the prime concern for four decades, which meant that ties to the wealthy West had to take precedence. Now Xi is fixated on security, and he apparently believes—evidence aside—that Putin can help provide that security. The choice is a fateful one, with potentially severe consequences for China. But the Chinese political system has transformed into a one-man dictatorship that will stay on the course Xi sets, come rebellions, disastrous wars, or who knows what else.  

Lessons remain for Xi to learn from Putin’s weekend travails. The rebellion reflected the strain placed on an authoritarian regime by an unpopular and protracted war. If Xi is watching closely, he might see in this episode a warning of the domestic political vulnerabilities that could arise from a military grab for Taiwan. A war for Taiwan, like Russia’s invasion of Ukraine, could fail or prove long and costly—tempting rebellion, and making it another gamble for Xi to lose.

Inside the Mind of Robert F. Kennedy Jr.

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › politics › archive › 2023 › 06 › robert-f-kennedy-jr-presidential-campaign-misinformation-maga-support › 674490

This story seems to be about:

Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s speech is warbling, crackling, scratchy—sort of like Marge Simpson’s. His voice, he told me, is “fucked up.” The official medical diagnosis is spasmodic dysphonia, a neurological disorder that causes involuntary spasms in the larynx. He didn’t always sound this way; his speaking style changed when he was in his 40s. Kennedy has said he suspects an influenza vaccine might have been the catalyst. This idea is not supported by science.

He was telling me about his life with one arm outstretched on the velvet sofa of his suite at the Bowery Hotel in Lower Manhattan. It was the end of May, and a breeze blew in through the open doors leading to a private terrace. Two of his aides sat nearby, typing and eavesdropping. A security guard stood in the hallway.

Kennedy was finishing a plate of room-service risotto, and his navy tie was carefully tucked into his white button-down shirt. He’s taller, tanner, and buffer than the average 69-year-old. He is, after all, a Kennedy. His blue eyes oscillate between piercing and adrift, depending on the topic of discussion.

He told me that he’s surrounded by “integrative medical people”—naturopaths, osteopaths, healers of all sorts. “A lot of them think that they can cure me,” he said. Last year, Kennedy traveled to Japan for surgery to try to fix his voice. “I’ve got these doctors that have given me a formula,” he said. “They’re not even doctors, actually, these guys.”

I asked him what, exactly, he was taking.

“The stuff that they gave me? I don’t know what it is. It’s supposed to reorient your electric energy.” He believes it’s working.

When he was 19, Kennedy jumped off a dock into shallow water, which he says left him nearly paralyzed. For decades, he could hardly turn his head. Seven years ago, at a convention of chiropractors, a healer performed a 30-minute “manipulation of energy”—making chanting noises while holding his hands six inches over Kennedy’s body. The next morning, his neck felt better. “I don’t know if they had anything to do with each other, but, you know, it was weird,” he said.

Though he’s been a member of the premier American political dynasty his whole life and a noted environmentalist for decades, most people are just now discovering the breadth and depth of Kennedy’s belief system. He has promoted a theory that Wi-Fi radiation causes cancer and “leaky brain,” saying it “opens your blood-brain barrier.” He has suggested that antidepressants might have contributed to the rise in mass shootings. He told me he believes that Ukraine is engaged in a “proxy” war and that Russia’s invasion, although “illegal,” would not have taken place if the United States “didn’t want it to.”

Kennedy reached a new level of notoriety in 2021, after the publication of his conspiratorial treatise The Real Anthony Fauci: Bill Gates, Big Pharma, and the Global War on Democracy and Public Health. It has sold more than 1 million copies, according to his publisher, “despite censorship, boycotts from bookstores and libraries, and hit pieces against the author.” The book cemented his status as one of America’s foremost anti-vaxxers. It also helped lay the foundation for his Democratic presidential primary campaign against Joe Biden.

[Read: The 2024 U.S. presidential race: A cheat sheet]

On the campaign trail, he paints a conspiratorial picture of collusion among state, corporate, media, and pharmaceutical powers. If elected, he has said he would gut the Food and Drug Administration and order the Justice Department to investigate medical journals for “lying to the public.” His most ominous message is also his simplest: He feels his country is being taken away from him. It’s a familiar theme, similar to former President Donald Trump’s. But whereas Trump relies heavily on white identity politics, Kennedy is spinning up a more diverse web of supporters: anti-vaxxers, anti-government individuals, Silicon Valley magnates, “freethinking” celebrities, libertarians, Trump-weary Republicans, and Democrats who believe Biden is too old and feeble for a second term.

So far, Kennedy is polling in the double digits against Biden, sometimes as high as 20 percent. What had initially been written off as a stunt has evolved into a complex threat to both Biden and the establishment wing of the Democratic Party. Put another way: Kennedy’s support is real.

He is tapping into something burrowed deep in the national psyche. Large numbers of Americans don’t merely scoff at experts and institutions; they loathe them. Falling down conspiratorial internet rabbit holes has become an entirely normal pastime. Study after study confirms a very real “epidemic of loneliness.” Scores of people are bored and depressed and searching for narratives to help explain their anxiety and isolation. Scroll through social media and count how many times you see the phrase Burn it down.

Even though Kennedy remains a long-shot candidate, his presence in the 2024 race cannot be ignored. “My goal is to do the right thing, and whatever God wants is going to happen,” Kennedy told me. He now earnestly believes that in 12 months, he will be the Democratic nominee for president.

“Every individual, like every nation, has a darker side and a lighter side,” Kennedy told me. “And the easiest thing for a political leader to do is to appeal to all those darker angels.”

He was talking about George Wallace, the segregationist Alabama governor and subject of Kennedy’s senior thesis at Harvard.

“Most populism begins with a core of idealism, and then it’s hijacked,” he said. “Because the easiest way to keep a populist movement together is by appealing—you employ all the alchemies of demagoguery—and appealing to our greed, our anger, our hatred, our fear, our xenophobia, tribal impulses.”

Does Kennedy consider himself a populist? “He considers himself a Democrat,” his communications director, Stefanie Spear, told me in an email. The most charitable spin on Kennedy’s candidacy is that he aims to be the iconoclastic unifier of a polarized country. He looks in the mirror and sees a man fighting for the rights of the poor and the powerless, as his father did when he ran for president more than half a century ago.

Kennedy markets himself as a maverick, someone outside the system. But he’s very much using his lineage—son of Attorney General Robert F. Kennedy, nephew of President John F. Kennedy and Senator Ted Kennedy—as part of his sales pitch. Now living in Los Angeles with his third wife, the actor Cheryl Hines, he nonetheless launched his campaign in Boston, the center of the Kennedy universe. The phrase I’M A KENNEDY DEMOCRAT is splashed across the center of his campaign website. Visitors can click through a carousel of wistful black-and-white family photos. There he is as a young boy with a gap-toothed smile, offering a salute. There he is visiting his Uncle John in the Oval Office.

[Alan Brinkley: The legacy of John F. Kennedy]

Robert F. Kennedy and his wife, Ethel, with their seven children, in February 1963. (Ethel was expecting their eighth child in June.) The boys, from left, are Robert Jr., 8; David, 7; Michael, 4; and Joe, 10. The girls, from left, are Kathleen, 11; Kerry, 3; and Mary Courtney, 6. (AP)

In reality, his relationship with his family is more complicated. Several of his siblings have criticized his anti-vaccine activism around COVID. Last year, at an anti-vaccine rally in Washington, D.C., Kennedy suggested that Jews in Nazi Germany had more freedom than Americans today. In response, his sister Kerry Kennedy tweeted, “Bobby’s lies and fear-mongering yesterday were both sickening and destructive. I strongly condemn him for his hateful rhetoric.” (He later issued an apology.) In 2019, a trio of notable Kennedys wrote an op-ed in Politico pegged to a recent measles outbreak in the United States. RFK Jr., they said, “has helped to spread dangerous misinformation over social media and is complicit in sowing distrust of the science behind vaccines.” Several Kennedys serve in the Biden administration, and others—including RFK Jr.’s younger sister Rory and his first cousin Patrick—are actively supporting Biden’s reelection effort.

Multiple eras of Kennedy’s life have been marked by violence and despair. He was just 14 years old when his father was assassinated. His second wife, Mary Richardson Kennedy, struggled with mental illness and died by suicide while the couple was estranged and in the process of divorcing. He told me he believes that “almost every American has been exposed, mostly within their own families, to mental illness, depression, drug addiction, alcoholism.” In 1983, Kennedy himself was arrested for heroin possession and entered rehab. He recently told The Washington Post that he still regularly attends 12-step meetings.

Kennedy maintains a mental list of everyone he’s known who has died. He told me that each morning he spends an hour having a quiet conversation with those people, usually while out hiking alone. He asks the deceased to help him be a good person, a good father, a good writer, a good attorney. He prays for his six children. He’s been doing this for 40 years. The list now holds more than 200 names.

I asked him if he felt that his dad or uncle had sent him any messages encouraging him to run for president.

“I don’t really have two-way conversations of that type,” he said. “And I would mistrust anything that I got from those waters, because I know there’s people throughout history who have heard voices.”

He laughed.

“It’s hard to be the arbiter of your own sanity. It’s dangerous.”

The morning before we met, I watched a recent interview Kennedy had given to ABC News in which he said, “I don’t trust authority.” In our conversation, I asked him how he planned to campaign on this message while simultaneously persuading voters to grant him the most consequential authority in the world.

“My intention is to make authority trustworthy,” he said, sounding like a shrewd politician. “People don’t trust authority, because the trusted authorities have been lying to them. The media lies to the public.”

I was recording our conversation on two separate devices. I asked him if the dual recordings, plus the fact that he could see me taking notes, was enough to convince him that whatever I wrote would be accurate.

“Your quotes of mine may be accurate,” he said. “Do I think that they may be twisted? I think that’s highly likely. ”

I wondered why, if that was the case, he had agreed to talk with me at all.

“I’ll talk to anybody,” he said.

That includes some of the most prominent figures in right-wing politics. He told me that he’d met with Trump before he was inaugurated, and that he had once flown on Trump’s private plane. (Later he said he believes Trump could lead America “down the road to darkness.”) He told me how, as a young man, he had spent several weeks in a tent in Kenya with Roger Ailes—they were filming a nature documentary—and how they had remained friends even though Kennedy disapproved of Ailes’s tactics at Fox News. He also brought up Tucker Carlson. I asked if he’d spoken with the former Fox News host since his firing earlier this spring.

“I’ve texted with him,” Kennedy said.

“What’s he up to?” I asked.

“He’s—you know what he’s up to. He’s starting a Twitter … thing. Yeah, I’m going to go on it. They’ve already contacted me.”

Kennedy told me he’s heard the whispers about the nature of his campaign. Some people believe his candidacy is just a stalking-horse bid to help elect Trump, or at least siphon support away from Biden.

One week before Kennedy entered the race, the longtime Trump ally and self-proclaimed “dirty trickster” Roger Stone wrote a curious Substack post titled “What About Bobby?” in which he suggested the idea of a Trump-Kennedy unity ticket. In a text message to me, Stone said his essay was nothing but a “whimsical” piece of writing, noting that the idea had “legal and political” obstacles. A photo of the two men—plus former National Security Adviser Michael Flynn, a notable conspiracy theorist—had been circulating on the internet; Stone called it opposition research from Biden’s team. “Contrary to Twitter created mythology, I don’t know Robert Kennedy,” he texted. “I have no role in his campaign, and certainly played no role in his decision to run.”

I asked Kennedy about a recent report that had gotten some attention: Had Steve Bannon encouraged him to enter the race?

[From the July/August 2022 issue: American Rasputin]

“No,” he said. “I mean, let me put it this way: I never heard any encouragement from him. And I never spoke to him.” He then offered a clarification: He had been a guest on Bannon’s podcast during the pandemic once or twice, and the two had met a few years before that.

When I asked Bannon if he had urged Kennedy to challenge Biden, he said, “I don’t want to talk about personal conversations.” He told me he believes Kennedy could be a major political figure. “I was pleasantly surprised when he announced,” he said.

“He’s drawing from many of those Trump voters—the two-time Obama, onetime Trump—that are still disaffected, want change, and maybe haven’t found a permanent home in the Trump movement,” Bannon said. “Populist left, populist right—and where that Venn diagram overlaps—he’s talking to those people.” Bannon told me the audience for his podcast, War Room, “loves” Kennedy. “I think Tucker’s seeing it, Rogan’s seeing it, other people—the Tucker-Rogan-Elon-Bannon-combo-platter right, obviously some of us are farther right than others—I think are seeing it. It’s a new nomenclature in politics,” he said.

“And obviously the Democrats are scared to death of it, so they don’t even want to touch it. They want to pretend it doesn’t exist.”

Photograph by Chris Buck for The Atlantic

Perhaps more than anyone in politics, Kennedy is the embodiment of the crunchy-to-conspiracist pipeline—the pathway from living a life honoring the natural world to questioning, well, everything you thought you knew. For much of his life, he was a respected attorney and environmentalist. In the 1980s, Kennedy began working with the nonprofit Riverkeeper to preserve New York’s Hudson River, and he later co-founded the Waterkeeper Alliance, which is affiliated with conservation efforts around the world. Like many other environmentalists, he grew distrustful of government, convinced that regulatory agencies had fallen under the thrall of the corporations they were supposed to be supervising.

I asked Kennedy if there was a link between his earlier work and his present-day advocacy against vaccines. “The most direct and concrete nexus is mercury,” he said.

In the 2000s, Kennedy said, he read a report about the presence of mercury in fish. “It struck me then that we were living in a science-fiction nightmare where my children and the children of most Americans could now no longer engage in this seminal primal activity of American youth, which is to go fishing with their father and mother at their local fishing hole and come home and safely eat the fish,” he said.

As an environmentalist, Kennedy traveled around the country giving lectures, and about two decades ago, mercury poisoning became a focal point of these talks. He soon noticed a pattern: Mothers would approach him after his speeches, telling him about their children’s developmental issues, which they were convinced could be traced back to vaccines that contained thimerosal, a mercury-based preservative. “They all had kind of the same story,” Kennedy said. “Which was striking to me, because my inclination would be to dismiss them.”

[Read: Inside the mind of an anti-vaxxer]

He said that one of these women, a Minnesotan named Sarah Bridges, showed up on his front porch with a pile of studies 18 inches deep, telling him, “I’m not leaving here until you read those.” Kennedy read the abstracts, and his beliefs about vaccines began to shift. He went on to become the founder of Children’s Health Defense, a prominent anti-vaccine nonprofit.

When I contacted Bridges, she noted that she is a college friend of Kennedy’s sister-in-law and clarified that she had approached Kennedy while visiting his family’s compound in Hyannis Port, Massachusetts. Nevertheless, she confirmed that she gave Kennedy a stack of documents related to thimerosal, and that this likely was the beginning of his anti-vaccine journey.

Bridges’s family story is tragic: One of her children ended up in the hospital after receiving the pertussis vaccine. He now lives with a seizure disorder, developmental delays, and autism—conditions Bridges believes were ultimately caused by his reaction to the vaccine, even though studies have shown that vaccines do not cause autism. Bridges says she received compensation from the National Vaccine Injury Compensation Program, colloquially known as “vaccine court,” for her son’s brain damage.

Bridges doesn’t consider herself an anti-vaxxer. She told me that she still talks with Kennedy once in a while, but that she was surprised to learn he was running for president. She’s a lifelong Democrat, and declined to say whether she would support him in the election. She did tell me that she has received two doses of the COVID vaccine. She views the extremity of her son’s reaction as the exception, not the rule. “I think the American public is smart enough that we can have a nuanced conversation: that vaccines can both be a public good and there can be—and there, I think, is—a subset of people who don’t respond to them,” she said.

Kennedy’s campaign manager, the former Ohio congressman and two-time presidential candidate Dennis Kucinich, strongly objects to anyone labeling his candidate “anti-vaxx.” When I used the term to describe Kennedy, Kucinich told me that such a characterization was a “left-handed smear” and “a clipped assessment that has been used for political purposes by the adherents of the pharmaceutical industry who want to engage in a sort of absurd reductionism.” Kennedy, he said, stands for vaccine safety.

I asked Kucinich to specify which vaccines Kennedy supports. He seemed flummoxed.

“No!” he said. “This is … no. We’re not—look, no.”

At one point, Kennedy looked me dead in the eye and asked if I knew where the term conspiracy theory came from. I did not. He informed me that the phrase was coined by the CIA after his uncle’s assassination in 1963 as part of a larger effort to discredit anyone who claimed that the shooter, Lee Harvey Oswald, hadn’t acted alone. This origin story is not true. A recent Associated Press fact-check dates the term’s usage as far back as 1863, and notes that it also appeared in reports after the shooting of President James Garfield in 1881.

JFK’s assassination and Kennedy’s father’s, just five years apart, are two of the defining moments of modern American life. But they are difficult subjects to discuss with surviving family members without feeling exploitative. Kennedy doesn’t shy away from talking about either murder, and embraces conspiracy theories about both.

“I think the evidence that the CIA murdered my uncle is overwhelming, I would say, beyond a reasonable doubt,” he said. “As an attorney, I would be very comfortable arguing that case to a jury. I think that the evidence that the CIA murdered my father is circumstantial but very, very, very persuasive. Or very compelling. Let me put it that way—very compelling. And of course the CIA participation in the cover-up of both those murders is also beyond a reasonable doubt. It’s very well documented.” (In a written statement, a CIA spokesperson said: “The notion that CIA was involved in the deaths of either John F. Kennedy or Robert F. Kennedy is absolutely false.”)

Two years ago, hundreds of QAnon supporters gathered in Dealey Plaza, the site of JFK’s assassination. They were convinced that JFK Jr., who died in a plane crash in 1999, would dramatically reappear and that Donald Trump would be reinstated as president. I asked Kennedy what he made of all this.

“Are you equating them with people who believe that my uncle was killed by the CIA?” he asked. There was pain in his voice. It was the first time in our conversation that he appeared to get upset.

[From the June 2020 issue: The prophecies of Q]

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. as pallbearer during his father’s funeral (Photo by Fairchild Archive / Penske Media / Getty)

Unlike many conspiracists, Kennedy will actually listen to and respond to your questions. He’s personable, and does not come off as a jerk. But he gets essential facts wrong, and remains prone to statements that can leave you dumbfounded. Recently, the Fox News host Neil Cavuto had to correct him on air after he claimed that “we”—as in the United States—had “killed 350,000 Ukrainian kids.”

I brought up the QAnon adherents who’d flocked to Dallas because I wanted to know how he felt about the fact that so many disparate conspiracies in America were blending together. I asked him what he would say to Alex Jones, the conspiracist who spent years lying about the 2012 massacre at Sandy Hook Elementary School.

“There’s only so many discussions that you can have, and only so many areas where you can actually, you know, examine the evidence,” Kennedy said. “I’d say, ‘Show me the evidence of what you’re saying, and let’s look at it, and let’s look at whether it is conceivably real.’” He told me he didn’t know exactly what Jones had said about the tragedy. When I explained that Jones had claimed the whole thing was a hoax—and that he had lost a landmark defamation suit—Kennedy said he thought that was an appropriate outcome. “If somebody says something’s wrong, sue them.”

“I mean,” he said, “I know people whose children were killed at Sandy Hook.”

Who will vote for Kennedy?

He was recently endorsed by the Clueless star Alicia Silverstone. Earlier this month, Jack Dorsey, the hippie billionaire and a Twitter co-founder, shared a Fox News clip of Kennedy saying he could beat Donald Trump and Ron DeSantis in 2024. “He can and will,” Dorsey tweeted. Another tech mogul, David Sacks, recently co-hosted a fundraiser for Kennedy, as well as a Twitter Spaces event with him alongside his “PayPal mafia” ally Elon Musk. Sacks, whose Twitter header photo features a banner that reads FREE SPEECH, has an eclectic history of political donations: Mitt Romney, Hillary Clinton, and DeSantis, to name a few.

Kennedy continues to win praise from right-wing activists, influencers, and media outlets. While some of this support feels earnest, like a fawning multithousand-word ode from National Review, others feel like a wink. The New York Post covered his campaign-kickoff event under the headline “‘Never Seen So Many Hot MILFs’: Inside RFK Jr’s White House Bid Launch.”

So far, Kennedy hasn’t staged many rallies. He favors long, winding media appearances. (He’s said that he believes 2024 “will be decided by podcasts.”) He recently talked COVID and 5G conspiracy theories with Joe Rogan, and his conversation with Jordan Peterson was removed from YouTube because of what the company deemed COVID misinformation. The day we met, Kennedy told me that he had just recorded a podcast with the journalist Matt Taibbi.

I asked Taibbi, who wrote for me when I was an editor at Rolling Stone and who now publishes independently on Substack, if he could see himself voting for Kennedy next year.

“Yeah, it’s possible,” Taibbi said. “I didn’t vote for anybody last time, because it was …” He trailed off, stifling laughter. “I just couldn’t bring myself to do it. So if he manages to get the nomination, I would certainly consider it.”

Years ago, in a long Rolling Stone article, Kennedy falsely asserted that the 2004 election had been stolen. The article has since been deleted from the magazine’s online archive.

“I’ve never been a fan of electoral-theft stories,” Taibbi said. “But I don’t have to agree with RFK about everything,” he added. “He’s certainly farther along on his beliefs about the vaccine than I am. But I think he is tapping into something that I definitely feel is legitimate, which is this frustration with the kind of establishment reporting, and this feeling of a lack of choice, and the frustration over issues like Ukraine—you know, that kind of stuff. I totally get his candidacy from that standpoint.”

Kennedy’s campaign operation is lean. He told Sacks and Musk that he has only about 50 people on the payroll. He’s beginning to spend more time in the early-voting state of New Hampshire. I asked Kucinich about Kennedy’s plans for summer: large-scale rallies? A visit to the Iowa State Fair? He could offer no concrete details, and told me to stay tuned.

[Read: The case for a primary challenge to Joe Biden]

Despite the buzz and early attention, Kennedy does not have a clear path to the nomination. No incumbent president in modern history has been defeated in a primary. (Kennedy’s uncle Ted came close during his primary challenge to Jimmy Carter in the 1980 election.) Following decades of precedent, the Democratic National Committee won’t hold primary debates against a sitting president.

“We’re not spending much time right now thinking about the DNC,” he said. “We’re organizing our own campaign.”

Spokespeople for the DNC, the Biden campaign, and the White House did not offer comment for this article.

“Democrats know RFK Jr. isn’t actually a Democrat,” Jim Messina, who led Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection campaign and is in close touch with the Biden 2024 team, said in a statement. “He is not a legitimate candidate in the Democratic primary and shouldn’t be treated like one. His offensive ideas align him with Trump and the other GOP candidates running for president, and are repellent to what Democrats and swing voters are looking for.”

I asked Kennedy what he thought would be more harmful to the country: four more years of Biden or another term for Trump.

“I can’t answer that,” he said.

He paused for a long beat. He shook his head, then pivoted the conversation to Russia.

“I think that either one of them is, you know, I mean, I can conceive of Biden getting us into a nuclear war right now.”

Kennedy’s 2024 campaign, like Trump’s, has an epic We are engaged in a final showdown tenor to it. But maybe this sentiment runs deeper than his current candidacy. These are the opening lines of Kennedy’s 2018 memoir, American Values:

From my youngest days I always had the feeling that we were all involved in some great crusade, that the world was a battleground for good and evil, and that our lives would be consumed in that conflict. It would be my good fortune if I could play an important or heroic role.

[Read: The martyr at CPAC]

Since meeting Kennedy, I’ve thought about what he said about populism—how it emerges, how it’s exploited and weaponized. He seems to believe that he is doing the right thing by running for president, that history has finally found him, as it found his uncle and father. That he is the man—the Kennedy—to lead America through an era of unrelenting chaos. But I don’t know how to believe his message when it’s enveloped in exaggeration, conspiracy, and falsehoods.

The United States has grown only more conspiratorial in the half century since the publication of Richard Hofstadter’s “The Paranoid Style in American Politics.” There are those who refuse to get the COVID vaccine because of the slim potential of adverse side effects, and then there are those who earnestly fear that these innoculations are a way for the federal government to implant microchips in the bodies of citizens. The line between fact and fantasy has blurred, and fewer and fewer Americans are tethered to something larger or more meaningful than themselves.

Kennedy was raised in the Catholic Church and regularly attended Mass for most of his life. These days, he told me, his belief system is drawn from a wide array of sources.

“The first line of the Tao is something to the effect that ‘If it can be said, then it’s not truth’—that the path that is prescribed to you is never the true path, that basically we all have to find our own path to God, and to enlightenment, or nirvana, or whatever you call it,” he said.

He’s now walking his family’s path, determined to prevail in the battle of good against evil. He’s said he’s running under the premise of telling people the truth.

But as with so many of the stories he tells, it’s hard to square Kennedy’s truth with reality.

Prigozhin’s Loss Is Ukraine’s Gain

The Atlantic

www.theatlantic.com › ideas › archive › 2023 › 06 › prigozhins-loss-is-ukraines-gain › 674525

When Wagner Group paramilitaries marched into Rostov-on-Don on Saturday, many residents responded by offering food and water. In one video, a young woman offers a soldier masked in a balaclava and wielding an assault rifle a packet of crackers. When asked why, she answers, “It’s a humane thing. They look tired.”

Those soldiers must be tired, and now their future is even more uncertain. The ones who participated in Yevgeny Prigozhin’s failed coup will escape prosecution because of their “heroic deeds on the front,” according to the Kremlin, while those Wagner paramilitaries who didn’t participate will be offered Russian Defence Ministry contracts. Although Prigozhin was able to negotiate a safe exit from Russia (at least for now), an early casualty of this coup seems to be the Wagner Group itself; Vladimir Putin is unlikely to keep it intact.

Over the course of a single weekend, Prigozhin and Putin have jointly done what the Ukrainian military and its NATO allies have failed to achieve in 18 months of war: They’ve removed Russia’s single most effective fighting force from the battlefield. Wagner Group fighters have, since 2014, combatted a long line of adversaries including the Ukrainian armed forces, the Free Syrian Army, the Libyan army, and even elements of the U.S. armed forces. Although many of those Wagner Group fighters may now be folded into the regular Russian military, their power will be forever diluted.

Wagner’s potency was derived both from its experience as a fighting organization and from its status as a private entity, one that has operated apart from the state. The grief of a mother mourning the death of her mercenary son doesn’t resonate politically the same as the grief of a mother mourning the death of her conscripted son. One is an employee in a private enterprise; the other is the responsibility of the nation. Outsourcing dirty wars to mercenaries is a practice as old as war itself. If it checks political costs at home in the short term, it increases long-term political risk. When loyalty to a commander eclipses loyalty to the side for which the soldiers are fighting, the result is a mercenary army that marches on its capital—as Putin has just seen.

Up to this point, Putin’s pathway to victory in Ukraine has relied on a strategy of attrition, both of Ukrainian soldiers on the battlefield and of the political will of Ukraine’s allies. The most effective tool Putin had for the former has now ceased to exist. When it comes to the latter, before this weekend, Putin seemed to have a chance at sustaining his war in Ukraine longer than the West could sustain its interest; this was a strategy he pursued effectively in Syria. But the loss of the Wagner Group necessitates that Putin rely wholly on the Russian military. This reduces his ability to insulate the Russian population from the costs of war, diminishing the political space for such an approach.

Authoritarians aren’t the only heads of state fixated on the costs of war. We’ve all heard the term boots on the ground. It’s a fixation among American leaders in times of war. The Pentagon even bestowed an acronym on this concept, BOG, pronounced “bog,” as if it correlates with getting “bogged down” in a war. American presidents have long relied on special-operations forces, CIA paramilitary forces, and mercenary forces like Blackwater to reduce the U.S. military’s footprint in countries where we’ve been at war. But the stakes are different for democratically elected leaders. Unlike in authoritarian nations, the cost of a lost war for a president is likely a lost election, not the loss of his life.

We live in an age of rising authoritarianism. Those authoritarians have little respect for international order, and wish to redraw maps. This has made Ukraine a global, not a regional, concern. The greatest current authoritarian regime is China, and the ease or difficulty that Russia faces in Ukraine today informs the decisions that President Xi Jinping might make tomorrow in Taiwan. The biggest threat to any authoritarian is one from within. An autocrat considers his decision to wage war alongside his appreciation for whether that war will consolidate or weaken his power. Putin’s troubles in Ukraine are already a cautionary tale for autocrats the world over. This latest chapter highlights the existential threat from within that hired armies pose. Strategists in Beijing, Tehran, and elsewhere will likely be redrafting aspects of their war plans.

But there’s still an actual war going on in Ukraine, and it isn’t over because Putin is facing a political crisis. Ukraine is in the middle of a summer offensive. It’s still early, but gains in that offensive have thus far proved underwhelming. Even if Ukraine hasn’t yet retaken meaningful swaths of territory, it’s taken back something every bit as important: the strategic initiative. The strain Ukrainians placed on Prigozhin’s forces in Bakhmut, Kherson, and a host of other places contributed to this rebellion, and this rebellion is again placing the Ukrainians in the driver’s seat of the war.

Prigozhin ostensibly turned against Putin and marched on Moscow because of the insufficient support of the Russian military. In the opening hours of the coup, he said, “Those who destroyed our lads, who destroyed the lives of many tens of thousands of Russian soldiers, will be punished.” The coup attempt we’ve just witnessed was a profound punishment for Putin and Russia. In this regard, Prigozhin was successful. The question we should all be asking now is how to capitalize on Prigozhin’s success.

The Wagner Group pays fighters twice as much as the Russian military

Quartz

qz.com › wagner-group-pay-russian-military-yevgeny-prigozhin-1850575697

Russian private military contractor Wagner Group has been in business with the Kremlin for almost a decade now. As the mercenary unit became more prominent on the battleground in Ukraine, so did its chief Yevgeny Prigozhin’s criticism of Russia’s military leadership.

Read more...