image

What did we learn from the Tucker Carlson interview of Putin?

What did we learn from the Tucker Carlson interview of Putin?

Carlson’s interview with Putin has been roundly condemned by various Western commentators and officials for having taken place, for Carlson not asking tougher questions, and for Putin’s answers which were sometimes a distortion of the facts. But most of the condemnation has missed the point that the interview added two pieces of evidence that Russia is not going to be pushed out of Ukraine.

Firstly, I wrote about Putin’s obsession with certain types of history in 2011. Several years later I was told that by someone who had worked closely with Putin that my article had been widely disseminated among various liberal leaning government power players who even then were concerned by this.

The article is here: https://www.jeffschubert.com/putins-dangerous-reading/

What Carlson’s interview did was to demonstrate the extent of Putin’s reading and commitment to his views. This is not a good omen for the war ending any time soon.

Secondly, the ability and behavior of Putin in the interview allowed us to more clearly see a man with more knowledge than many have assumed – for example, his answers to the question on AI – and his ability to interact with other people when he needs or wants to with intelligence and some humor. This should not be underrated.

In my book, “Dictatorial CEOs and their Lieutenants: Inside the Executive Suites of Mao, Napoleon, Hitler, Mussolini, Stalin and Ataturk”, I wrote extensively on “Why Lieutenants Serve” a dictator. The reasons included: “Excitement, ambition, money, prestige, power to boss others”; ‘Love of the country, the company, or the organization”; Lieutenant is nothing without the dictatorial CEO”; Dictatorial CEO shows loyalty to lieutenant”; and Dictatorial CEO makes lieutenant feel personally needed”.

See: https://www.jeffschubert.com/

All of these factors are undoubtedly present in Putin’s team. But I want to focus here on one more factor: “Lieutenant’s respect, admiration and attribution”. Nikita Khrushchev later wrote that Stalin’s ability to “express himself clearly and concisely” was “admired” by “everyone” and “because of it we were proud to work for him”. Marshal Zhukov — who’s contribution to the defeat of Hitler’s armies led to his very prominent statue (on horseback) next to Red Square — noted Stalin’s “ability to formulate an idea concisely, a naturally analytical mind, great erudition and a rare memory”.

Whatever one might think of Putin’s views, the Carlson interview clearly demonstrated Putin’s ability to present them. This will be a factor in the thinking of the main figures about him – both in the Kremlin and other branches of the government – about sticking with Putin as long as possible.

Movie Script: Russia to Cambodia

Movie Script: Russia to Cambodia

© Jeff Schubert 2023

The story follows Tom Schneider, an Australian living in Russia, who eventually realizes that he must solve the mystery of a black man living in a mansion guarded by armed men with dogs in the most expensive part of Moscow, if he is to find his daughter whom he lost 10 years previously.

………

Michael Patton is a black man living in a very expensive mansion in an exclusive area of Moscow in 2010. He presents himself as an American with large amounts of money in a New York bank and doing “Christian” work helping poor Russians.  His new business partner is Victoria Derbina.

At the same time, Avigail (formerly known as Elena) Litvina is a Russian immigrant living in an expensive house in an exclusive part of London. She presents herself as Jewish and the devoted wife of a British based international lawyer, Neville Stern, and the loving mother of fourteen year old Jessica. While a very successful corporate lawyer, Stern is very weak when dealing with Avigail and she has come to despise him for this.

While Michael’s personality projects calmness, Avigail’s is explosive and she is continuing to leave a trail of physical violence in three countries. She almost daily beats Jessica while also trying to manipulate the child’s thinking.

There seems to be no possible connection in their worlds in 2010 except that Tom Schneider, a white Australian atheist trying to find his daughter in Russia, knows both and understands that both Michael and Avigail are liars and extremely manipulative people.

Michael is beaten after Tom sees him sitting alone in a Moscow park with no money. Tom is beaten unconscious outside his Moscow apartment, but at the time there is nothing to suggest a connection between these two events.

Only five years later, in 2015, when Tom meets Olga Bondareva – a young lying and manipulative women living in Irkutsk in the middle of Siberia – does Tom discover with the help of a Russian police detective that in 2010 Victoria Derbina also knew Avigail who was previously a fellow student in her law class at the Far Eastern University in Vladivostok. Avigail was then known to Victoria as Elena. 

Tom is told by the detective that official police records suggest that in 2010 Michael Patton was involved in high-end smuggling of people – often with criminal records — from Africa via Russia into Europe. The house that Michael had been in was owned by Victoria Derbina who was then fighting to keep it after her husband had been murdered by his own business partners.

In 2010 Victoria admitted to have conspired with Avigail to get Michael’s money from a New York bank, and it appears that that they had arranged Tom’s own beating in order to stop him getting the money first at the request of Michael.

Armed with the knowledge, five years later in 2015, that Avigail is married to Neville Stern, Tom contacts him and asks for contact details of Jessica – the daughter of himself and Avigail (then known as Elena) from their marriage in Australia – who he lost contact with in 2005 when she was eight years old. However, Stern refuses to give this information. 

Tom decides that his best chance of getting information from Stern is to get information tying him into the illegal smuggling of African criminals into the UK, and then blackmail him.

Tom has been an enthusiastic collector of LinkedIn contacts and now – in 2015 – posts a request for any information about Michael Patton. There is no response via the LinkedIn site, but he does receive an email which simply says: “Re: Michael Patton. Try Skyline in Phnom Penh.” Tom eventually tracks down Michael living a quite life in an expensive house in generally poor rural Cambodia.

Michael is ill and not expecting to live long. He tells Tom that there was never money in New York. He had only wanted to impress Victoria because he was in-love with her.

Tom uses some of Michael’s documents to blackmail Neville Stern to tell him where Jessica is. She is living in Israel.

Tom goes to Israel but finds that his daughter is suffering from complex PTSD caused by Avigail’s treatment of her over many years. Jessica lives with an understanding Jewish businessman in an apartment in Tel Aviv. Jessica has fond memories of her early childhood in Australia with Tom and is well aware that her mother has treated her vey badly, and tells Tom many details about this.

Neville Stern and Avigail have been regular visitors to Israel where Neville often has work to do, and when in Israel Abigail makes a point of trying to intrude in and dominate Jessica’s life. Jessica wants this to stop but there seems to be some sort of trauma bond and she finds it almost impossible to say “no” to her mother.

Moreover, Avigail and Neville now have there own daughter who is ten years old and Jessica does not want to lose contact with this child partly because of her fondness for this “sibling” and partly because she fears that her mother will eventually treat her in a similar way to her own treatment.

Tom reads extensively about child abuse and PTSD and thinks lack of contact between Avigail and Jessica is necessary. Tom  must now work hard and show uncharacteristic patience to build a good father-daughter relationship with Jessica and break this contact between her and Avigail.

…………………………..

Characters

Tom Schneider was born in 1965, so was 45 years old in 2010 and 50 in 2015. He is of medium height and athletic build. Looks very fit and has a charming smile.

Michael Patton was born around 1965 (about the same age as Tom) so was in his mid-40s in 2010 and around 50 in 2015. He is of medium height and slim build with signs of greying hair in 2010 and increased signs in 2015.

Avigail (formerly elena) Litvina was born in 1975, so she is 35 years old in 2010 and 40 years old in 2015. She is very attractive, tallish and with slim build. A former champion athlete (sprinter) in Russia. Formerly married to Tom Schneider when her name was Elena.

Neville Stern was born around 1960, so he is about 50 years old in 2010 and mid-50s in 2015. Of medium height and build. Presently married to Avigail (the former Elena).

Kostya Osin was born around 1980, so he was around 30 years old in 2010 and mid-30s in 2015. He is an occasional conversational and drinking companion of Tom. Highly intelligent but slightly overweight as he prefers to “live by hits wits” than engage in serious day-to-day work of physical activity.

Victoria Derbina is attractive, and of medium height and slim build aged in her mid-30s in 2010.

Dmitry Timofeev is Tom’s superior in Irkutsk. An academic. He is a few years younger than Tom but, like Kostya, is on very friendly terms with Tom. 

Veronica Bondareva is 22 in 2015. She is very attractive.

Jessica Stern was born in 1996, so she was 14 in 2010 and 19 in 2015.

Ivan Bulavin is a Russian police detective in Irkutsk, aged in his early 30s.

Noah is Jessica’s boyfriend who she lives with in Tel Aviv

ACT ONE:    (“Where the script writer introduces us to their world and characters.” “An inciting incident that takes place will set the main characters on their journey while building internal and external conflicting factors.”)

Scene 1:

Scene is inside a café situated in park in Moscow. It is quite pleasantly but simply furnished with about fifteen tables arranged in three rows. Some of the tables cater for two people and some for four. A tallish woman (Woman 1) is swinging a chair to hit a man as he puts up his arm to try to defend himself. A waiter runs over to assist the man but is attacked by a second woman (Woman 2). A security guard (wearing a business suit) intervenes and with the help of the man who was originally attacked the two women are pushed toward the door of the café. A crying boy (about 10 years old) follows them.

Tom walks into the café and sees some of the action, but was not earlier enough to see what led up to it.

Scene 2:

Tom is now outside of the café with the two women and the boy. It is dark and raining very heavily.

Tom: “What happened?”

The two women ignore him and walk towards a road where they hail a taxi. Tom follows and climbs into the taxi with them and gets out with them in front of an apartment building. All have extremely wet clothes.

Tom: “So, what happened?”

Woman 2: “I will tell you later. Let’s get dry first.”

Scene 3:

All are next seen inside the main entrance room of a typical Russian apartment. There is a couch, a sideboard and a couple of soft chairs. The women and the boy go to another room while Tom takes off his very wet jacket and puts his wet passport and wallet on the sideboard. The boy suddenly comes out of the other room and grabs the passport, and when Tom tries to stop him the boy starts screaming loudly. Woman 1 rushes into the room and attacks Tom while trying to scratch his face with her very long fingernails. Woman 2 then comes into the room, and several times over says to Tom as she appears to be uncertain what to do: “I’m sorry! I’m sorry!”

Tom grabs his wallet but cannot find his passport while at the same time trying to protect himself from Woman 1 who seems to be trying to scratch his eyes. Tom runs out of the apartment into the corridor followed by Woman 1.

Scene 4:

Woman 2 continues to attack Tom in the corridor. Tom turns and punches her in the face and she retreats. Tom then bangs of the steel door of a neighbouring apartment and calls out “I need police” (in Russian).

Scene: 5

Tom is next seen in a Russian police station sitting in front of a computer. There are scratch marks on both sides of Tom’s face, although more severe on the left-hand side. A cut about his left eye has clearly been bleeding but has now stopped. Nevertheless, Tom dabs it with a handkerchief a couple of times. A policeman is sitting next to him.

Tom: “This is the dating site. This is her. See the long fingernails. She tried to scratch my eyes out!”

Some loud banging is then heard, apparently coming from a room on the next floor as both Tom and the policeman look toward the ceiling.

Tom turns to the policeman and asks: “Is that her?”

The policeman nods.

Another policeman comes into the room and says to Tom: “She says she does not have your passport.”

The scene fades.

Scene 6:

It is dark and Tom steps out of a white Humvee into a flood-light lit yard and almost comes face-to-face with an armed guard with a German-Shepard on a lease. Both walk away as Tom looks around him. Behind the Humvee is a large solid wall with a gate-house which the Humvee has just been waved through. In from of Tom is a very large house with steps leading up to a door. Tom walks up the steps and presses the door-bell. As Tom stands under the light above the door, the cut above Tom’s left eye is clearly visible. The door opens to reveal a slim black man of medium height (who we soon find out is named Michael).

Michael: “Hello. Come in.”

Scene 7:

Tom follows Michael through a large hallway which has no furniture and the then through a door into a room setup as a study. There is a crowded desk at the far end with an open laptop. There are several very large paintings of Jesus Christ and his disciples on the walls. The paintings are not of high quality and seem out of place is such an expensive house.

Michael walks behind the desk and sits down. (Note that at no stage has Michael introduced himself.) Tom sits on one of the two chairs in the room which are situated nearly two meters from the desk with his back toward the door that he has just come through. In addition to the door which is behind Tom’s back there is another door on the right-hand side of Michael at his desk.

Michael (who speaks in a calm very matter of fact and rather charming way): “As I said on the phone, I need you to help me with some banking issues. I want to start a bank here and want you to train the Russian staff.”

Tom: “It sounds interesting. I could do this.”

Michael: “Geraschenko has been here.”

Tom face shows that the name is known to him and Tom is somewhat impressed.

Michael: “I want to do it in partnership with Raiffeisen.”

Tom: “But Raiffeisen already operates here, so why do ….”

Michael answers the question before Tom can finish asking it.

Michael: “I need my own bank.”

Tom: “Oh! There are many banks in Moscow. Where do you put your money now?”

Michael: “In houses.”

Tom: “So you are mainly an investor in real estate?”

Michael: “I have some buildings in the Moscow city center, but houses in this area are safer for keeping money. It is easier to guard.”

Tom: “I saw the guard-dog.”

The camera closes in on Tom’s face as he suddenly seems to understand something.

Tom: “Are you saying you keep cash in this house and so it needs to be guarded?”

Michael: “More than one house. In the cellars!”

Tom has a surprised look on his face, and after a pause asks: “What do you do in Moscow?”

Michael: “I help poor Russians get better and cheaper prefabricated houses. It is the Christian thing to do.”

On hearing this Tom turns his head to have a closer look at the paintings on the walls.

Meanwhile, Michael has turned his attention to look at something on his computer screen.

Michael: “I trade financial markets twenty-four seven.”

Tom, with a note of scepticism in his voice: “What did you do before you came to Russia?’

The door behind Tom suddenly opens and a white women aged in her mid-30s walks in, but retreats when she sees Tom. Tom only gets a fleeting look at her, but his face suggests some puzzlement. Michael keeps talking as if nothing has happened.

Michael: “I was in the US army. A communications specialist. I then came to here to sell cement. But I still have a big corporation in the US.”

The door to the right of Michael’s desk now opens and a black middle-aged women brings in with a tray with some biscuits and puts it on part of Michael’s rather crowded desk.

Michael: “They are always trying to fatten me.”

Michael is now trying to move the tray on the desk and picks up a closed laptop and repositions it away from the open laptop, saying: “I’ve got a new computer and don’t know what to do with this old one”.

Tom, appreciating Michael’s laid-back casualness: “Me too! I have the same problem.”

Michael then stands up and says: “I will get the driver to take you back to your apartment.”

Michael hands Tom a business card and walks toward the door to the right of his desk. Tom follows.

Scene 8:

The door connects directly with large room with a table and several black-skinned adult females are sitting around it. There is a full glass wall and on the other side of the wall a number of young black-skinned children are frolicking in a large indoor swimming pool. Michael leads Tom through this room into the large hallway and to the front door.

Michael: “I will contact you later.”

They shake hands and Tom goes down the steps and gets into the white Humvee which heads toward the gate.

Scene 9:

The scene is the large kitchen of a very expensive house in London. Avigail, dressed in an expensive and modern looking business outfit, is standing in front of her daughter Jessica who is wearing a school uniform. Elena is a few centimetres taller than 14 year old Jessica.

Avigail forcefully takes a mobile phone from the hand of Jessica, and looks at messages on it. She finds a message that she clearly does not like.

Avigail, her voice becoming increasingly angry: “I told you not to talk to Muslims. They are scum. You are Jewish! Jewish!”

Jessica looks down to the floor and then raises her head as if to say something. At that moment Avigail punches Jessica hard in the face and she falls to the floor crying.

Avigail is now screaming and kicking Jessica on the floor: “You will now not have a phone!”

Hearing the noise Neville (Avigail’s husband and Jessica’s step-father) quickly enters the kitchen and says: “Fucking shut-up. The neighbours will hear.”

Avigail turns toward Neville, who now backs-off and even seems intimidated. Neville clearly wants to say something but thinks better of it.

Avigail to Neville: “I’ve told you many times. She is my daughter, not yours!”

A mobile phone rings and Neville goes to a kitchen bench to pick-it up. He nervously passes it to Avigail saying: “Its yours!”

The crying Jessica gets up and leaves the kitchen.

Avigail puts the phone to her ear and listens for a moment before saying: “There is no problem here. Nothing! What is happening there?”

Avigail listens for a while before saying in a firm voice: “Victoria! Don’t let Michael talk to him or anyone else about this. Tell him we will definitely get the money from the New York. Use your charms. Fuck him again!”

A somewhat downcast Neville leaves the room through the same door that he came in.

Avigail listens for a moment, and then says in a lowered voice while turning away from that door: “Neville doesn’t know anything. He is so pathetic. When I get Michael’s money I won’t need him anymore.”

Scene 10:

Tom and his friend Kostya are drinking beer in a bar in Moscow. The bar is modern and there are no unusual features.

Tom: “I went back to the café the next day and a waitress told me what happened. After I went to the toilet a man at one of the tables grabbed the kid’s arm, and told him to stop grabbing things off people’s tables. He started screaming, and Woman 1 got up and swung at him with her chair. And, Woman 2 joined in.”

Kostya: “So before that it was ok?”

Tom: “Yeah! Woman 1 and I meet at the park as agreed. She said that Woman 2 was with her because she was also going to meet her boyfriend there. We walked for over an hour. The boy was hyper-active, almost running around in circles! I actually liked Woman 2 more than Woman 1, and probably spend more time trying to chat her up because her boyfriend never appeared.”

Kostya: “This fingernail woman must be mad. What is the dating site? I will try to find out more about her. She will probably now try to get money from you. Maybe accuse you of taking your clothes off so you could molest her son.”

Tom’s phone lights up and Tom looks at it. He shows the phone to Kostya, saying: “Fuck! It’s her!”

Kostya reading the message aloud: “You are a sexual deviant. After little boys. I want $1000 in compensation or my friends will come after you. We know where you live.”

Kostya, handing back the phone to Tom: “How would she know where you live? Did you tell her?

Tom: “No. But, I have been back to the police twice to ask them about getting my passport. But no luck! They know my address, but I don’t think they would tell her.”

Kostya smiles before saying: “Maybe! Money does lots of things. You need to stop chasing younger women on dating sites.”

Tom: “Funny! You can talk. I only went back to the apartment because I wanted to fuck Woman 2”.

Kostya: “Yeh, but I get to fuck them without getting attacked.”

Tom ruefully says: “I sure know how to pick them! Jessica’s mother Elena also turned out to be violent. Hit me a few times and even kicked me in the groin once.”

Kostya: “At least she was not hitting your daughter.”

Tom: “Thankfully.”

Tom and Kostya both take a sip of the beers.

Tom: “Just as weird is the meeting with this Michael. Have you been able to find out anything about him?”

Kostya: “No. You don’t remember more about the address.”

Tom: “It was dark and I was sitting in the back seat, but I tried to keep track of where we were going. I think it was in some compound on Lower Usovo Road in Rublyovka.”

Tom pauses and pulls out a card from his wallet and gives it to Kostya.

Tom: “Here is the business card I told you about.”

Kostya takes the card and reads aloud:

“Michael Patton, Group Executive Director, Sovereign Group, Sovereign (AGES) Bancorporation, American Modular HITEC, US Global Projects Ltd, American Billex Credits Ltd, 140 Blundell Road, Luton, Beds, LU3 1 SP, UK. Tel: +7499 347 7695, +7926 515 7865

Email: sovereigngroup@live.com and. sovereignagesbancorporation@live.com

Tom: “He rang me a total of three times and the numbers were not those on the card!”

Kostya: “Have you tried sending an email?”

Tom: “Yes. And he did reply but only to say ‘OK’.”

Kostya hands the business card back to Tom and asks: “What about these company names?”

Tom: “Google only show these companies registered at that UK address. Its little more than a post-box. There is nothing about a big US corporation. And Sovereign (AGES) Bancorporation had only been incorporated in the UK on 5 March — only a few weeks ago!”

Tom pauses talking while he takes a piece of paper from his pocket.

Tom: “And, get this!”

Tom reads from the paper: “The directors of AGES are listed as Michristly Gmichael-McPatton, an American born on 1964, and Victoria Derbina, a Russian national born in June 1979.”

Kostya: “Michristly? What is that?”

Tom hands the piece of paper to Kostya, saying: “Spell it out. Mi. Christly. Maybe it means that Me is a Christian? And G for godly?”

Tom throughs up his hands in a gesture showing he does not know.

Kostya: “Fits in with the paintings on the wall in the study!”

Tom nods, and then says: “I am sure that this Victoria Derbina must be the women who came into the study and turned around when she saw me. I am sure that I have met her before, but I just can’t figure when or where. Even the name is familiar!”

Kostya shakes his head: “Another beer?”

Scene 11:

Tom is again getting out of the white Humvee in front of the house where Michael lives. As before there are flood-lights and guards with dogs.

Michael answers the door: “Come in.”

Michael leads Tom to his study which looks unchanged from the previous meeting. Tom sits on the same chair.

Michael: “I need you to fly to New York and withdrawer a heavy amount of money from a bank, buy a large house – just like the one we are in now – and live there.”

Tom is clearly surprised, but after a pause asks: “When?”

Michael: “Tomorrow or the next day.”

Tom: “I am an Australian. I will need to get a visa, and this takes more than a few days. Maybe even weeks. I don’t know!”

Michael, speaking in his normal calm emotionless voice: “I forgot about that.”

There is an awkward silence, before Tom begins to speak: “I have been doing some searching on the internet and …”

Michael cuts him off and standing up says: “I’ll get the driver to take you back your apartment.”

Tom follows Michael out of the study.

ACT TWO:    (“Usually the longest part, taking up approximately 60 pages of the core of the script; this is where stakes are raised as characters face many confrontations.”)

Scene 12:

Scene is an office with a desk with a large computer screen and piles of papers and folders. There is a large table in front of the desk. Tom is sitting on one side with Dmitry Timofeev, his superior at the Higher School of Economics, sitting on the other side. They are both relaxed and appear to be on very friendly terms.

Tom: “I’ve been asked if I am interested in going to China to work at Shanghai University of Finance and Economics. They are looking for a foreigner to head up a research program with the aim of developing Shanghai as an international financial center.”

Dmitry: “Will you go?”

Tom: “I’ve been in Russia for four years now trying to find my daughter. I have been to almost every significant city in Russia and nothing. She will be fourteen now. She may not even be in Russia. Israel is a possibility, but I have not been able to get any possible leads on that.”

Dmitry: “Israel? Why Israel?’

Tom: “When I met Elena in Vladivostok on my first business trip to Russia in 1994 she was not at all religious. She was a champion athlete – a sprinter – and law school; sport and men were her life! When we got married in Sydney my best man was Jewish and she started to get interested in Judaism. Just before she took Jessica to see her ill grandfather who had moved to St. Petersburg, there were several mentions of wanting to be Jewish. She liked the Jewish name Avigail. I thought nothing of it at the time and just ignored it. I have sometimes wondered if she was serious.”

Dmitry, shaking his head: “And she never contacted you in Australia even once?”

Tom: “No.”

Dmitry: “I don’t want to lose you. You are a very good professor.”

Tom: “Three years as an international investment fund manager in Russia and a year teaching banking here is great experience if I was from Europe or the UK, but I am an Australian. China is much more important for Australia than Russia will ever be. If I want to get back working in the Australian financial sector China is the experience to have.”

There is a pause in the conversation as both think for a moment.

Dmitry: “Anything new with Michael the black man?”

Tom: “No. I am convinced that he is a conman. The idea of going to New York to take cash from a bank and buy a house like his was madness. And if he was American, why couldn’t he do it? But, and this is a big but, how do I explain in the house where he lives, the guards with dogs etc.”

Dmitry: “I’ve asked a few people who actually work in banking in this city and no-one has ever heard of him.”

Tom, shaking head: “It is totally weird! Why would an international bank like Raiffeisen want to work with him. And the bit about Victor Geraschenko being there!”

Dmitry: “Geraschenko has not been a Central Bank official for years. I didn’t know that he is still alive.”

Tom: “If it all were real it would be great.”

Dmitry: “Of course.”

Tom: “So, Shanghai is probably the best option. I need to think about it some more.”

Scene 13:

Tom next hears from Michael at the end of May – again from a different telephone number — and Michael wants to meet him near his apartment. Tom waits near the Kuklachyov’s Cat Theatre on Kutuzovski Avenue. Michael arrives in a tan Mercedes station wagon that was probably around ten years old.

Michael, as the car drives off: “This is my personal car. I don’t like to draw attention to myself with something like I sent to get you.”

In his typical low-key way Michael request that he and Jeff not stand on the sidewalk of busy Kutuzovsky Avenue.

Michael: “I don’t want to stand in a public place like this. Can we go behind that building?”

They walk to a lane behind the building.

As they walk Tom asks: “What is happening?”

Michael: “I have some temporary financial problems. Do you know any banks that can lend me some money?”

Tom: “Michael. No-one is going to lend you money. I don’t know what you are doing in that house with all guards and dogs, but I can find nothing on the internet about your big US corporation.”

Michael: “You think that I am not trustworthy?”

Tom is now clearly exasperated: “Michael! I also tried to find out more about those companies shown on your business card. They are new and seem to be registered at some place that is little more than a post-box in the UK.  And who is Victoria Derbina? She is listed as a director of your main company in the UK. Is she the women who came into your study the time we first met?”

Michael: “Yes.”

Just then a mobile phone in Michael’s bag rings.

Michael: “Hello.”

After listening for a while, Michael half-turns to Tom and says: “I need to go.”

Michael then walks away leaving Tom standing alone in apparent amazement.

Scene 14:

Tom is again in the same bar with Kostya.

Kostya: “Hiding behind a building on Kutuzovsky Avenue! Maybe Michael thought he was going to get shot from a passing car? Easy to do!”

Tom’s facial expression indicates agreement: “Well, it would not be the first time such a thing happened. But in this case, would it be because he actually has money or because he’s just a con-man? I wish I could find out what he is doing in that house.”

They both sip beer.

Kostya: “Any more calls from the finger-nail woman?”

Tom: “Yeah! There were a few, but I now just ignore them.”

Tom takes another sip and then says after a pause: “I’ve received a university job offer in Shanghai. I think I will take it.”

Kostya: “What about your daughter?”

Tom: “I don’t know. I think I will never find her. I can only hope that she is happy.”

Kostya: “When do you go?”

Tom: “It only starts in September. So, I will finish this teaching year at the Higher School of Economics in June. Then have a couple months off.”

Kostya: “Its enough time for another beer!”

Kostya wanders off to get beer.

Scene 15:

The narrative now fast forwards a couple of months to July. In those days McDonalds fast-food chain had a very large store situated across a narrow street from a pleasant Novopushkiinsky Park, which itself is separated from Pushkin Square by the very busy Tverskaya Street.

The weather is warmer and Tom is not wearing a jacket as he walks through the park. Tom sees Michael sitting alone on a park bench with a half open leather bag next to him.

Tom goes up to him and says: “Michael! What are you doing here?”

Michael is obviously surprised: “Can you lend me some rubles?”

Tom attitude to Michael is friendly, but there is now a hint of sarcasm in his voice: “What about all that money in your houses?”

Michael: “Victoria! I hired her to do some interior decorating, but she then became my business partner. She betrayed me. She now has taken my house and money with the help of some Russians. There are now new guards!”

Tom, after a pause reflecting on this: “The money in New York bank? The money that you wanted me to get?”

Michael: “Ah! That money. Its gone!”

Tom, with obvious scepticism in his voice: “How? What happened to it?”

Michael said nothing for a while: “They got an international law firm to take it.”

Tom: “The money in New York?”

Michael: “Yes.”

Tom’s voice is still sceptical: “What is the name of this law firm?”

Michael: “Stream Cave or something.”

Tom reaches into his pocket and gives Michael some money.

Tom: “Ok. This is all very strange! I am going to get a hamburger.”

Tom walks away (and the camera follows him) when a women’s scream is heard. Tom turns and runs back to the area where Michael was sitting and sees Michael lying on the pavement. He is not moving. His leather bag is next to him with several mobile phones scattered around him. Two policemen come running up, and one pushes a growing crowd back while the other speaks on his mobile phone. As Tom watches the sound of an ambulance is soon heard. After Michael is put in the ambulance Tom, with a worried look on his face, walks away.

Scene 16:

Scene is the courtyard of a non-descript apartment block in Moscow. There is some equipment for children to play on and some trees.

Tom walks out the door and a man steps in front of him blocking his progress.

Man: “Are you Tom Schneider?”

Tom: “Yes.”

Another man hits Tom on the head with a rod and Tom collapses on the ground. One of them kicks him in the face.”

The men run away and a women and child come running to look at Tom lying motionless on the ground.

Scene 17:

Tom in again in the same bar telling Kostya about recent events. Tom’s face has some fresh bruises and cuts which have been stitched up.

Tom: “I was lucky. The woman who found me was actually a doctor in a private clinic not far from my apartment. She called an ambulance and got me there quickly.”

Kostya: “Michael gets beaten and maybe killed, and then you get beaten. Is there a connection?”

Tom: “I don’t know why there should be. I had only met Michael three times before he was in the park.”

Kostya: “Then that leaves the fingernails! It is not the first time she has attacked people. Its incredible, but she and some partners run a summer camp for children not far from Moscow. Her photos are on the internet site – with fingernails! I found out that last year she attacked a father of a girl who complained about something she was doing. She attacked him and then claimed he had tried to fuck her son.”

Tom: “Wow! What happened?”

Kostya: “She is obsessive. She went to court to get compensation but got nowhere.”

Tom: “Of course, you are still fucking that woman police inspector in her office?”

Kostya: “She bends over with her head and arms on her desk!”

Tom laughs: “Disgusting. Although I have done it a couple of times with women much younger than this one. How old is she again? Sixty?”

Kostya grimaces: “No. Forty three. But her husband must be that old. That’s why she wants me!”

Tom: “I guess if it works for you, then keep doing it.”

Kostya: “After she is fucked all she wants is a couple of Jack Daniel’s. I get freedom on her computer for two hours lat time.”

Tom: “Don’t you sometimes worry that you will get caught? I don’t mean fucking her. I mean getting stuff from a police computer to blackmail people.”

Kostya: “I only go after real criminals with money.”

Tom: “Like fingernails?”

Kostya: “I am stopping her get money from you!”

Tom and Kostya sip some more beer, while looking at two young attractive women enter the bar and sit down.

Kostya: “You want to talk to them?’

Tom: “No. I am not in the mood.”

Scene 18:

Fast forward five years. Tom has returned to Russia from China and taken a job as a professor of international business in Irkutsk where Dmitry Timofeev has moved to become head of a new School of BRICS. Dmitry stands up to greet Tom in his office and they shake hands.

Dmitry: “Welcome to Irkursk! Five years in China! You don’t look any older. Are you happy to be back in Russia?”

Tom: “I’m surprised to be in the middle of Siberia!”

Dmitry: “You will like it – mostly! Winters are very cold but summers are great.”

Tom: “I like China, but Mandarin is an impossible language for me. I put a lot of time into it but I can read very little of what I see around me on the street. At least I can read Russian even if I am very bad with grammar. So, I’m glad to be back.”

Dimitry: “Still no luck in trying to find your daughter?”

Tom sighs: “No, I have heard nothing for over 10 years.”

Dmitry: “How old is she now?”

Tom: “She would be 19.”

Dmitry: “How did you find the women in Shanghai?”

Tom: “Good. I like Chinese women. But I suppose I will now go to back to a Russian dating site”.

Dmitry laughs.

Scene 19:

Tom walks into a cafe in Irkutsk, takes off his thick coat and hangs it on a coat stand next to a table. Soon a young woman who appears to be in her early-20s walks in. She is not wearing a coat. Tom waves to her and she goes to sit at his table. 

Tom: “Veronica. Nice to meet you.”

Veronica turns out to be rather quite, but speaks reasonable English. A waiter comes and they order coffee.

Tom: “Its cold outside. You don’t have a coat?”

Veronica: “No. I need to buy a new one, but I have no money.”

Tom: “Do you have a job?”

Veronica: “Yes. In a café like this one. I do not get much money and I need to look after my mother.”

Tom: “You live with her?”

Veronica: “Yes, and my father. But they are always drunk. He sometimes hits her a lot.”

The camera moves back and the scene shows them talking for a while before Tom summons the waitress to bring the bill.

Tom is clearly interested in Veronica, and says: “No coat? Let me buy you one. I have little cash right now and there is no ATM nearby. Give me your Sberbank account number and I will send you some money.”

Tom opens a banking app on his one phone and does the transaction.

Tom: “There, its done. I hope we can meet again and you will have a new coat.”

Veronica leans forward to Tom and kisses him on the cheek before they leave the café together,

Scene 20:

Tom is in his apartment in Irkutsk. It is spacious but rather simply furnished with a table in a room that is separate from the kitchen. He is reading something on his laptop while drinking a glass of wine. His telephone rings.

Tom answers the phone: “Veronica!”

Voice is heard at other end.

Tom: “Well, if you can’t meet me because of them, then bring them to my apartment.”

Voice is heard at the other end.

About an hour later Veronica arrives with two other women. Neither is as attractive as Veronica. Tom has a glass of wine in his hand when they arrive and when the three of them sit down also offers them wine which they accept. However, Tom very noticeably switches to a bottle of bear and never leaves it on the table.

Tom: “So you are Veronica’s cousins from Novosibirsk? How long will you stay in Irkutsk?”

Tom decides to make a video when they reply using his phone and proceeds to do so. He then notices that because he has already drunk wine and now has poured wine for his three guests, the bottle is empty. Tom  puts his phone on the table.

Tom: “I will get another bottle.”

Veronica: “Thankyou.”

Tom goes out of the room to the kitchen. Veronica and one of her “cousins” pick up Tom’s phone and go to the bathroom together. When Tom returns he notices that his phone is not on the table and he goes to the bathroom door, but it is locked. The two women come out of the bathroom and Tom grabs his phone from one of them. The three women flee the apartment. Tom checks things on the phone, then runs to the neighbouring apartment and asks them to call the police.

It is not long before two uniformed police arrive, one carrying a Kalashnikov.

Tom is clearly agitated: “They took my unlocked phone to the bathroom and transferred money … from my Sberbank account to Veronica’s.”

One of the policemen talks on the phone while the other takes Tom aside to talk to him.

Soon two plain clothes policemen arrive. Tom is clearly pleased that something is happening and is becoming calmer. Tom again explains what has happened to one of the policemen while the second policeman sits at Tom’s desk and starts looking at things on his Tom’s computer. Tom notices this but does not say anything. Soon two more police, one a woman, arrive and take photos of Tom’s passport and finger and hand prints from him. They also take photos of the financial transactions made on Tom’s phone.

When the police depart, one of them says to Tom: “We will come and get you in the in the morning.”

Tom nods, and says: “Thanks.”

Scene 21:

Scene is Tom sitting a room in a police station. It is furnished with rather old and shabby furniture in the form of a couple of desks, a number of chairs and a couch. On each of the desks is a modern looking computer screen and a keyboard. Once again there are questions from a number of police who come and go from the room, particularly from a detective aged who appears to be aged in his early thirties.

Tom: “I still can’t believe that I was so careless. My wine was once drugged when I lived in Moscow, so I was very careful this time to only drink beer from a bottle and I never left it on the table.”

Detective: “At least you got a photo of her passport. How did you do that?”

Tom: “After our first meeting I suggested to her that we might go on a holiday together and asked her to send me a photo of her passport. I was lying, but I thought that I would have more chance of fucking her if I said that.”

The detective smiles as he remains focussed on his computer screen. After a period of silence he says: “Veronica has been arrested in Moscow. They left Irkutsk on an Aeroflot flight early this morning.”

Tom standing-up: “Incredible!”

Tom and the detective, who said his name was Ivan, were chatting when Tom’s phone rings. He look at it and then turns to Ivan: “Its Veronica.”

Ivan: “Answer it!”

Tom listens for a while, before saying: “No. I want all my money back! Bye!”

The phone rings again several times but Tom does not answer.

Tom then asks Ivan: “What will happen now?’

Ivan: “They will bring her back to Irkutsk, and then we will prosecute her in court.”

Scene 22:

Small Russian court room in Irkutsk. Veronica is standing behind a lectern-type stand before a female judge who is about three metres away. The judge is aged about 50 and wearing a black gown. Veronica is crying and Tom is sitting with several other people in a pew-type setting behind Veronica. A plain clothes prosecutor with a large file in front of him is standing and is presenting the evidence. Ivan is sitting next to the prosecutor. There is also a female court-room attendant, but not in uniform. Veronica is not being questioned because she has admitted to the crime and there is also no need for Tom to give evidence.

Prosecutor: “The defendant admits to stealing the money from Mr. Schneider as described in the court documents.”

Judge to Veronica: “You have admitted your guilt, which is to your credit. You have also promised to repay the money you stole to Mr. Schneider starting on … to the amount of ….. per month. If you do not repay the money Mr. Schneider can apply to the court for enforcement and you could be jailed.”

Veronica’s crying subsides and she is led from the court room by the attendant.

Tom has a pleased look on his face and gets up and leaves with Ivan as the court room empties.

Scene 23:

Several days later Tom is in the same café as with Veronica, but this time with police detective Ivan Bulavin.

Ivan: “Veronica was lucky to avoid jail, but she will do it again and then we will put her away.”

Tom: “Great!”

Ivan: “This Michael the black man story is very interesting. I have been doing some digging. Moscow police initially knew nothing about Michel Patton. He did not have a passport with him and so it was impossible to identify him.”

Tom: “So, you don’t know if he was an American like he claimed or from some place like Nigeria?”

Ivan: “Wait! It gets even stranger! He was involved in smuggling Africans into Russia and then providing them with Russian documents so that they could travel to Europe.”

Tom: “Wow! All those black people I saw in Michael’s house!”

Ivan: “The Africans paid a huge amount of money; most of it probably stolen in their country. They got a fake degree certificate from the People’s Friendship University in Moscow, real Russian passports for them and their families, real bank accounts, and a fake registered business or job in Russia. This all costs a lot of money.”

Tom: “How did the police find out about this?”

Ivan: “Victoria Derbina! She came to the park looking for Michael, but only arrived after he was taken away in an ambulance.”

Tom, thinking for a moment: “So, she must have arrived just after I left?”

Ivan: “Yes.”

Tom: “What happened then?”

Ivan: “She was very upset. Apparently, she was in-love with Michael. She wanted him beaten, but not too severely!”

Tom: “Fuck! Why?”

Ivan reached into the left side of his jacket and pulled out a sheet of paper and handed it to Tom.

Tom tried to read it but handed it back, saying: “I can’t read your writing.”

Ivan: “Victoria’s husband was shot while coming out of a restaurant in Moscow. Apparently she needed to find money fast and pay off debts and keep the house. Michael and his scheme probably just came along at the right time. Victoria had Michael’s passport. It was for the US passport – but there was no stamp or any record in Immigration of him entering Russia.”

Tom: “A fake passport? 

Ivan: “Its not so easy now. After Crimea there has been a crack down on that sort of thing.”

Tom: “You said debts! To whom? You said he was rich; or at least had a very expensive house.”

Ivan shrugged his shoulders: “Not known. There was some connection to Vladivostok. Crime capital of Russia!”

Ivan: “Yes, I know. I visited it a few times. Elena, my former wife studied law at the Far Eastern University in Vladivostok.

Ivan: “Really? What year? What is her name?”

Tom: “Elena Stern. The years would be….”

Ivan: “No. This one was called Avigail.”

Tom is surprised: “What do you mean? This one?”

Ivan: “Victoria’s friend Avigail now lives in London and married to some international lawyer. Victoria confessed that they tried to get Michael’s money from New York bank – but it turned out that there was none. Victoria was very angry and wanted Michael punished for tricking her. A sort of lovers quarrel!”

Tom: “Do you know more? What is the name of the international lawyer?”

Ivan looked down at the sheet of paper: “Stern. Neville Stern of Stern Cave.”

Tom is now clearly eager to leave and motions to the waiter that he wants to pay the bill.

Tom: “Any more on Michael?”

Ivan: “He was badly hurt and taken to a hospital. After that, I don’t know. For some reason he did not end up in jail. He probably just died later.”

The waiter hands Tom the bill and he looks at it and hands over some money.”

Tom: “And Victoria?”

Ivan: “Prison. But not for long. She claimed that this Avigail is very violent and organized the beating.”

Tom: “Ivan. I think this Avigail is my ex-wife! She was Elena, but once told me that she wished her name was Avigail.”

Ivan is surprised: “Really? You think so?”

Tom: “That’s why I recognized Victoria! Elena introduced her to me in Vladivostok. Do you know anything else?”

Ivan: “Only that Avigail hated her husband and wanted Michael’s money in New York so she could get a divorce.”

Scene 24:

Tom in office with Dmitry Timofeev, his superior at the Higher School of Economics.

Tom: “Neville Stern was not hard to find on Google. Quite famous. His law firm site even has his mobile phone number.”

Dmitry: “Did you call him?”

Tom: “Yes, but he hung-up on me when I explained who I was and what I wanted. I then sent several emails but got no response.”

Dimitry: “What will you do now?”

Tom: “Well, something strange has happened. I was once an enthusiastic collector of so-called contacts on LinkedIn and actually got over one thousand in Russia. A week ago I send a message to them all asking if anyone knew anything about Michael Patton. Got no response, except that yesterday I got a message on my private email suggesting that Michael Patton is in Cambodia. I sent a reply, but have got nothing back.”

Dmitry is surprised: “Cambodia? Why would he be there?”

Tom: “No idea!”

Dmitry: “I have been to Ankgor Wat temple in Siem Reip and also Phnom Penh. Interesting place. Lots of corruption. Probably even more than Russia. Did this email give any details?”

Tom: “It only mentioned some building called Skyline. I found such a building on Google.”

Dmitry: “I think that I saw that building. It very tall. It has a gigantic red sign on it. Not far from the hotel I stayed at.”

Tom: “It just might be someone trying to be smart with me. Just having some fun. Even if Michael was there, could he tell me anything that can help me convince this Neville Stern to tell me about Jessica? That is, if he actually knows anything!”

Dmitry shrugs his shoulders and throws up his open hands, indicating that he has no idea what to think.

Tom: “I think that I now just need to wait a while. In a week or so I will have another shot at Neville Stern. And, you never know, the emailer might send me more information – if it is true!”

Dmitry says nothing, while Tom appears to be thinking.

Tom: “Otherwise I might go to Cambodia in July. I’ve got nothing else to do.”

Scene fades.

ACT THREE:    (“where the story finally resolves either with the character accomplishing their goal or failing”)

Scene 25:

We see a large 30-35 story building with “The Skyline” vertically written on it in large red letters. Scene then shows Tom entering an office pulling a small piece of wheeled hand luggage.

Tom to girl at office desk: “Hi. I am Tom Schneider. I am booked into here for a week.”

Girl: “Passport please. You will pay with credit card?”

Tom hands over both while saying: “Yes.”

After the girl hands back both and a digital room key, Tom says: “I am looking for Michael Patton. He is a black man, either American or Nigerian. Does he live here?”

The girl sighs and slightly shrugs her shoulders: “We have over 200 apartments in this building.”

Tom hands the girl a piece of paper: “Can you please look up on your computer and see if his name is there? This is how it is spelt.”

The girl takes the paper and reluctantly begins typing on the computer keyboard.

Girl: “Sorry! This name is not here.”

Tom: “What about in the past? Has he ever been her?”

Girl: “Sorry! There is nothing here on the computer.”

Tom: “Thanks.”

Tom leaves with a disappointed look on his face.  

Scene 26:

Tom is sitting at an outdoor café near the river in Phnom Penh drinking a beer. A man is sitting at the next table drinking a beer. Tom eventually turns to him.

Tom: “Hi. Have you have been in Phnom Penh for a long time?”

The man seems pleased at the opportunity for conversation.

Man: “Yes. Three years. Just like most these other retired old guys around here. The place is cheap and many young women. You want to retire here?”

The camera the focuses on two elderly men walking past hand-in-hand with young Cambodian women.

Tom: “Not yet! I am trying to find a friend of mine. He is a black man. Name is Michael Patton. He is about sixty. Will have greying hair.”

Man: “You don’t get many black men here. Nearly all are white. The best thing is go and ask around in bars.”

Tom: “There are so many of them!”

Man: “But a black man will probably be remembered.”

Scene 27:

Scene of Tom walking down street at night with lit-up bars and women calling out “hello” to him. Tom goes up to a girl who insists that he buy her a drink – and Tom agrees.

Tom: “I am looking for a man. A black man. His name is Michael Patton.”

The bar-girl obviously does not know English, and calls over an older women who speaks English, and Tom repeats his question. The woman shakes her head.

Woman: “You don’t want one of my girls?”

Tom: “Not tonight! Are you the manager?”

Woman: “Yes.”

Tom wanders off and the camera focuses on him entering another bar, talking and leaving, and the another etc.

Suddenly Tom hears a male sounding voice behind him and turns around. To his surprise, the voice belongs to a tall person in a short skirt, with large semi-exposed breast and make-up. Tom recognizes this person as a “lady-boy” but does not comment on this. He has other priorities.

Lady-boy: “You are looking for Michael?”

Tom: “Yes! You know him? Do you know where he lives?”

Tall woman: “I think my friend knows him.”

Tom: “Where is she? He?”

Lady-boy: “Follow me!”

Tom follows the lady-boy, who eventually points to a bar: “Ask for Nari.”

Tom thanks the lady-boy and goes to talk to a young girl sitting with several others near the entrance.

Tom: “I am looking for Nari.”

A girl goes inside and a woman come out: “I am Nari.”

Tom: “I am looking for a friend of mine. A black man named Michael Patton.”

Nari: “Why do you want him?”

Tom: “I am a friend from Russia.”

Nari is suddenly very wary: “You are Russian?”

Tom: “No. I am from Australia, but we were friends in Russia.”

Nari: “Maybe I can help? What is your name?”

Tom, as he hands Nari a card: “Yes. This is my name and number for both WhatsApp and Telegram. I leave Phnom Penh in three days, and I really need to see Michael.”

Nari: “I will let you know!”

Tom walks off down the street with many girls calling out to him.

Scene 28:

A four wheel drive vehicle pulls up on an unpaved road in front of a two story modern looking building in rural Cambodia. It is situated among several small typical Cambodian wooden buildings and homes. Tom and Nari get out of the car while the driver remains inside. They walk up a small track to the door of the house and enter without knocking.

Scene 29:

Michael dressed in casual clothes is sitting on a comfortable lounge chair, and does not rise to stand when Tom and Nari enter. Standing next to Michael is a middle-aged Cambodian women wearing normal western style casual clothes.

Tom approaches Michael and says: “Hello Michael. Do you remember me? Tom Schneider!”

Michael: “Yes. I remember. Why are you here?”

Tom: “I need your help to find my daughter. I have not had any contact with her for ten years.”

Michael: “Daughter? I don’t think you ever told me about a daughter.”

Tom: “No. I never did.”

 Michael: “My memory is not the best. I was beaten in a park in Moscow.”

Tom: “I know. It happened just after I talked to you.”

Michael: “Did you? I have never fully recovered. I get lots of headaches.”

Tom: “How did you end up in Cambodia?”

Michael: “I helped many Christian people get passports to Europe. Some people thought Cambodia needed more Christians, so they brought me here.”

Tom wanted to ask more about this, but decided that he needed to concentrate on the reasons he was now in Cambodia and the information that he wanted.

Tom: “What happened to the money in the New York bank?”

Michael sighed: “Never was!”

Tom: “Then, why did you want me to go to New York to get it?”

Michael: “Did I?”

Tom: “In our second meeting in your big house!”

Michael: “Oh! I remember! I had to say those things. Everything was being recorded and I needed Victoria to believe that I had a heavy amount of money.”

Tom continues to stand and is clearly thinking about this for a short period, before saying: “That is why you were beaten? Victoria believed you and wanted the money?”

Michael, with a slight smile: “I suppose. It was my mistake. I was in-love with her.”

Tom takes a moment to further digest what he has heard, and his voice become quite sympathetic in tone: “Do you have any documents which can connect Victoria to your beating or the New York money idea? I remember when we spoke in the park you talked about an international law firm trying to get the money.”

Michael: “I don’t remember.”

Pointing to an old looking bag in a corner of the room, Michael says: “Over there in that leather bag you might find something.”

Tom goes to the bag and opens it. He takes out several old looking mobile telephones and a large brown envelope filled with documents”.

Tom quickly looks a every document, before pausing on one, and then on another, before putting them aside, and asking: “Michael, can I take these?”

Michael: “They are of no use to me.”

Tom moves forward to shake Michael’s hand, and says: “Thankyou. I hope you feel better soon.”

Tom and Nari go out the door and get into the waiting car.

Nari: “I think he will soon die.”

Scene 30:

Tom is waiting in the Irkutsk café and Ivan Bulavin, the young Russian detective, walks in and the two exchange greetings.

Ivan: “I’m all ears! What happened.”

Tom: “Well Michael is alive. Lives in a nice house in a rural area of Cambodia. I still don’t really understand how he got there, but it seems one of his smuggling clients took him there after his beating which clearly has affected his memory.”

Ivan: “Did you get any useful information?”

Tom: “Yes, although some is not so useful now. Remember that you told me Victoria was in-love with Michael? Well, Michael was also in-love with her!”

Ivan: “Really? He told you this?”

Tom nods: “Yes. It’s a pity. Things could have been so different.”

Ivan: “What about Jessica?”

Tom: “I got some documents of which the most useful will be an email from Neville Stern offering to “assist on the issue of funds in New York”.

Tom hands it to Ivan who begins reading it.

Tom: “It’s dated a week before Michael was beaten. I don’t know why it was sent, and it does not on the face of it seem to suggest anything illegal.”

Ivan: “So, its not really useful?”

Tom: “Well, Neville Stern is a really high profile lawyer and he will greatly value his reputation. He won’t want it splashed about that he – and his wife – had some involvement in smuggling rich criminals Africans into Europe, and particularly Britain!”

Ivan: “But he was not actually doing it!”

Tom: “That’s not how I will spin it. Actually, I was going to ask if you could make the contact. Sent an email from Russian police, and threatening to expose him and Avigail. He will not want to be associated with Russian criminal activity.”

Ivan: “No. I can’t do that. If someone in my office finds out they will think that I know how to get some of this money – and they will also want some even if it does not exist! This is Russia!”

Tom: “OK. Can you at least print out the official information that you previously found on Michael, give it to me, and I will figure out a way to convince them to tell me where Jessica is now.”

Ivan: “OK. Let’s meet here tomorrow.”

Scene 31:

Tom with Dmitry Timofeev in his office.

Dmitry: “So, it worked?”

Tom: “Yes. Jessica is in Israel and I have spoken to her via with video. I will go there after the exam period is finished.”

Dmirty: “What will you tell her? Everything?”

Tom: “Yes. She should know who I am and what her mother is!”

Scene 32:

Tom is in an apartment in Tel Aviv with his daughter Jessica and her boyfriend Noah. It is clean, simply furnished with a large book case and some children’s drawing pasted to a wall. 

Jessica is quietly explaining what has happened in her life since she last saw Tom ten years ago. Noah is listens intently.

Jessica: “I wanted to meet you at the airport but I had a sever panic attack. I just cannot leave the apartment when this happens.”

Noah: “The tracking device on your phone contributes to this.”

Tom: “Tracking?”

Jessica: “My mother gave me her old iPhone when she got a new one. She registered me as a fourteen year old and I can’t turn the tracking off.”

Tom: “Why do you keep the phone?”

Jessica says nothing.

Noah to Tom: “After I get my next salary I will buy her a new one.”

Tom, talking to Jessica: “I am so angry! I knew your mother was violent, but I would never have expected what she had done to you. Why do you still communicate with her?”

Jessica: “She is my mother. I know that she is a narcissist, but I have forgiven her. She and Neville now have Rebecca. She is only ten but I care about her a lot and do not want to lose contact with her.”

Tom: “Does she treat Rebecca in the same way that she treated you.”

Jessica: “Noah and I sometimes discuss this. I don’t think Neville would let it happen to his own daughter. But sometimes I think that if I can get better then Rebecca would be better off living with me.”

Jessica’s iPhone lights up and she answers it. When she sees who it is she becomes very nervous. She looks at Tom and puts her finger to her lips signalling him to be quite.

Avigail’s voice on phone: “Switch on your video.”

Jessica obeys, making sure that Tom cannot be seen.

Avigail: “We have just arrived in Tel Aviv. I need you to look after Rebecca tonight while Neville and I go to a function with the president.”

Jessica: “Mum. I can’t tonight.”

Avigail, raising her voice a little: “Why?  I do all these things for you. I gave you my iPhone and Mac, but when I ask for help you say no!”

Jessica: “But Mum!”

Avigail’s voice: “Rebecca. Come over here where Jessica can see you. She does not want to care for you tonight because she hates you!”

Jessica’s face now shows great distress.

Jessica: “Alright! I will do it.”

Avigail: “Come at 5 o’clock! You will need to cook dinner for her.”

The conversation stops as Avigail has hung-up. Jessica just looks at the phone for a while saying nothing.

Tom: “Does she always do this when they come to Israel?”

Jessica says nothing, but is clearly distressed. Noah has a grim look on his face but says nothing.

Tom, is uncertain what do so or say, but the decides a change of conversation is required: “Jessica! You have a Mac computer. You might not remember but I have videos of us together in Australia on my iPhone. Can I air-drop them to the computer? It will be easier to watch there.”

Jessica nods.

Tom takes his iPhone from his jacket and air-drops a video. It is then played with the three of them watching it. The computer screen is not shown but happy voices are heard. Jessica initially smiles but then some distress is evident in her face. She stands up and quickly walks out of the room.

Noah: “A panic attack! The video is too distressing for her.”

Noah: “She gets very nervous when Avigail is in Israel. She sometimes starts to continually watch the door expecting Avigail to suddenly come here!”

Tom thinking: “How did she get to Israel from London?”

Noah: “Avigail and Neville got her Israeli citizenship when they lived in Tel Aviv for a while. Neville is often here on business. He claims that he is great friends with Israel’s president. This seems to scare Jessica.”

Tom: “How did you meet her?”

Noah: “We were both on a online poetry club. Her poetry was always dark, and I wondered why. So I asked to meet her.”

Tom: “Is she seeing a psychologist or psychiatrist?”

Noah: “Sometimes. The say she should stop having contact with Avigail. But this is not easy. Avigail is always trying to run her life.”

Noah points to some child colour drawings stuck to a wall with tape.

Noah: “See those? Rebecca did them and gave them to Jessica.”

Tom nods.

Tom: “Does Jessica know how I found her. What did you tell her?”

Noah: “Only that you saw a photo of Avigail and Neville on the internet and you contacted him to get information about where she lived, and that he gave you my phone number.”

Jessica now comes back into the room, and says directly to Tom: “I will cook dinner. Cooking helps me become calm.”

Jessica leaves the room. Tom moves closer to Noah and lowers his voice.

Tom: “Should I tell her about what happened in Russia. About Michael the black man, Victoria, my beating? How I convinced Neville to give me your number?”

Noah: “Best not to now. Let her get to know you again. She really wants to have a father!”

Tom: “I can see that this is going to be a long process. I must learn patience!”

Noah nods.

Russian-Ukraine lessons on China

Russian-Ukraine lessons on China

Ukraine is now being urged to make 2024 a year of consolidation of abilities before launching a new offensive in 2025. But the reality is that Ukraine will NOT force Russia out of its territory, and its time to draw some lessons in regard to Western policies toward China.

Put simply, the West – particularly with NATO expansion – boosted Russian fears of aggressive containment at the same time as Russia had a president who harbored ideas of restoring Russian greatness. The West cannot control the thinking of Xi Jinping, but it can refrain for boosting Chinese fears of aggressive containment.

Almost 6 months ago I wrote:

“It is almost impossible to imagine Russia agreeing to return Crimea to Ukraine – irrespective of how the war proceeds and irrespective of who is in power in Moscow – because of his historical and strategic significance (particularly naval base in Sebastopol) and the wishes of the local population.  It maybe in Ukraine’s interests to let Russia keep parts of Donetsk and Luhansk in order to avoid having a hostile Russian-orientated population within its borders. Anna Aruntunyan has written that “according to a poll conducted in April 2014 by the Kiev International Institute of Sociology, over 70% of respondents in the Donetsk and Luhansk oblasts of Ukraine – where support for Russia was far less consolidated than it was in Crimea – considered the government in Kiev illegitimate.” There is little reason to believe that these numbers have since become more favorable for Ukraine. As for the other annexed regions of Zaporozhye and Kherson, they are not vital to Russia’s interests, but they may be vital determinants of whether or not Putin stays in power. If Russia can retain these, Putin will be able to spin this as a victory for the security of Russia. If these regions are returned – in whatever way – to Ukraine, Putin is unlikely remain in power because these are the only tangible things that his very costly ‘special military operation’ has achieved.”

See my on-line book about the Future of the Russian Economy: https://russianeconomicreform.ru

German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius stated on 19 January that Germany must consider that Putin may try to attack a NATO member in five to eight years, given threats from the Kremlin “almost every day.”

The reality is that Putin is not a great threat to NATO because his domestic policies are a threat to Russia. At this stage the Russian economy looks to be in a good position thanks to Western ineptness in its sanctions policies (even NATO member Turkey ignores them while American friend Saudi Arabia helps keep oil prices high to the benefit of Russian export earnings) and military spending, but looking out “five to eight years” a picture emerges of distorted economic growth caused by that military spending and productivity destroying economic nationalism in the form of “economic and technological sovereignty”, and political oppression. But, it will still have enough military power to defend the majority of its gains in Ukraine!

None of this is a satisfactory outcome for anyone and there will be many regrets, but it is a harsh reality brought about by both Western and Russian bad policy making. Stopping a war is much harder then starting one when attitudes harden on all sides.

But there is more!

I lived in Russia for many years until October 2022 (ten months after the February invasion of Ukraine) and for two years taught a Masters Degree course on Russian foreign policy in Asia at the Higher School of Economics (one of Russia’s most prestigious universities) and have spoken with numerous Russians and visiting Chinese officials. It was universally believed that US policies were pushing Russia and China closer together. There was little Russian interest in Iran and a preference to keep North Korea at arms-length, but we now see how the ideas of NATO expansion have ultimately had an unexpected cascading effect.

I also gave several university lectures in China (Shanghai, Beijing, Shandong) comparing Crimea to the South China Sea, which was enthusiastically welcomed by the students – although I was then officially told to do no more because the issue was sensitive!

See photo: https://www.linkedin.com/in/jeff-schubert-81977092/overlay/photo/

Western countries should not put China in a position where its fears – justified or not – lead it to actions similar to Russian in Ukraine. For example, AUKUS may be a silly impractical idea – only an Australian idiot could believe nuclear submarines will be built in Australia — that will eventually collapse all by itself, but this does not mean that it will not be perceived as one additional threat and contribute to a tough Chinese response.

Me and Colin Rubenstein – an Australian “traitor”?

Me and Colin Rubenstein – an Australian “traitor”?

I first came across Colin Rubenstein of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council (AIJAC) in March 2001 – twenty three years ago – when I was involved in a debate with him about the proposed USA National Missile Defence (NMD) system at an event organized by the Australian Institute of International Affairs (Sydney branch).

Unfortunately, the paper that I prepared is no longer on the Institute’s internet site. However, it is still on my own site: https://www.jeffschubert.com/us-missile-defence/

After the event someone – a former senior government official – remarked to me that Rubenstein was a “racist”. The remark puzzled me because although Rubenstein had made some disparaging remarks about various countries in the Middle-East I did not see how our debate would have led to that conclusion. I surmised that it must be his general reputation!

However, it seemed strange to me that Rubenstein would have such strong views on US National Missile Defence (NMD) and push them in Australian media – particularly as he clearly knew little about Russia. His 16 January 2001, article in the Australian Financial Review (AFR), “Exploding Missile Myths”  is here: https://www.afr.com/companies/manufacturing/exploding-missile-myths-20010116-k0jqz

It was clear that Israel would benefit from missile defence systems, with the ever-aggressive US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, saying that the US was prepared to assist friends and allies threatened by missile attacks to deploy such defences.

But, I argued in the debate that Australia would not benefit the NMD because of the great danger of an anti-missile arms race involving the US, Russia and eventually China

Rubenstein had tried to counter this in his AFR article writing that “Russia is reportedly prepared to co-operate with the US in developing boost-phase and tactical systems which would not directly affect Russia’s nuclear deterrent”. I first went to Russia in 1991 and by the time of our 2001 debate had spent quite a bit of time there and met many Russians in various walks of life — and I had read a few history books!

What Rubenstein was saying was wishful thinking about Russia almost on a par with those people arguing that NATO expansion could not be seen by Russians as aggressively aimed at them. Come January 2024 and we now have a situation where general Russian security fears – some might even call it paranoia — which I covered extensively in my paper for the 2001 Institute debate, have led to the invasion of Ukraine.

Overall, it seemed to me that Rubenstein was more interested in providing security benefits to Israel than Australia.

On 15 January 2024 “The Australian” newspaper reported that Rubenstein “has blasted Foreign Minister Penny Wong’s decision to not visit the southern Israeli towns where the October 7 massacres occurred as disappointing and called for her to reconsider”.

Rubenstein is clearly interested in an emotional PR stunt which could be used to Israel’s advantage as he does NOT suggest that Wong go the northern part of Gaza to see the damage done by Israeli bombing!

Rubenstein also said: “Australia’s failure so far to join many of our most important allies – including the US, UK, Canada and Germany – in publicly criticising South Africa’s nonsensical and cynical case in the International Court of Justice alleging Israel is committing genocide in its defensive war against the Hamas terrorists, despite copious evidence Israel is going to great lengths to minimise civilian casualties under very difficult circumstances.”

There are many countries in the world besides US, UK, Canada and (guilt-ridden) Germany and it is hard to see how it is in Australia’s interests to support Israel’s actions in Gaza. We should remember that it was blindly following the US and UK that got us into the disastrous invasion of Iraq which was pushed by an ignorant cabal which included Donald Rumsfeld!

In fact, in April 2003 Rubenstein said the invasion of Iraq war was “just, necessary and very much in Australia’s national interest”. What he really meant was that he thought it was in Israel’s “national interest”. And, even here Rubenstein’s desire to please the US and bolster the defence of Israel has backfired. The debacle in Iraq strengthened the hand of Iran and consequently of organizations such as Hamas and Hezbollah.

Many people around the world, particularly in the so-called Global South, see Israel’s actions in Gaza as equivalent to – or even worse than – Russia’s actions on Ukraine. Moreover, while recognizing that Hamas carried out a very brutal terrorist attach on 7 October, many Russians that I spoke to (before I finally left Russia 10 months after the February 2022 invasion) have regarded Russian speaking people in eastern Ukraine has being terrorized for years by Ukrainian nationalists and see Putin’s actions as justified.

Is it in Australia’s interests for it to be seen as hypocritical?

I still do not know if Rubenstein is a “racist” (although I have my suspicions) but I am certain that if he was given a choice between the interests of Israel and Australia — he would choose Israel in a flash!

Albrechtsen plagiarises Goebbels

Albrechtsen plagiarises Goebbels

In today’s “The Australian” (2 November 2005) Dr. Janet Albrechtsen makes comments about judges and the anti-terror laws that are very similar to those made by Dr. Josef Goebbels in a speech in 1942 as he tried to stamp-out any remaining judicial independence.

Albrechtsen writes: “It is curious that so many seem to assume that judges make better policy choices than elected representatives. That judges, lawyers and legal academics hold that view is hardly shocking news. After all, law students are trained from their first day at law school to treat judges and their decisions with reverence.”

“Unburdened by that myopic world-view, the rest of us have a sneaking suspicion that outside their narrow areas of technical expertise, judges’ egos outstrip their ability. ….judges are out of touch with what the rest of us think is the right balance between individual rights and national security.”

Goebbels, as related by H. W. Koch (“In the Name of the Volk”) put a similar view:

“Since its very beginning, he (Goebbels) said, the judiciary had been the object of public criticism. Even today, judicial decisions were criticised and dismissed as alien to the spirit of the people.”

“What was at stake here was something fundamental, that is to say the wrong attitude of some judges who were unable to liberate themselves from old patterns of thought. The blame for that, Goebbels told his audience, lay to a considerable extent in the wrong conceptual training received by German law students at German universities. It was an essentially one-sided education and later, when they were judges, they lived their enclosed professional lives without any real contact with the outside world. In short, judges possessed too little practical experience of life. However, decisions felt to be alien to the people had a particularly bad effect during wartime, so everything would have to be done to bring about a change ….”

Cardinal Pell and David McBride

Cardinal Pell and David McBride

Why was Cardinal Pell convicted of sex crimes against a minor? And will McBride be convicted by the same “corrupt” Australian legal system?

The idea that Pell was guilty was pushed by gullible and biased journalists and commentators, such as Peter FitzSimmons (See left-hand column for his views on Pell) and accepted by a jury and a host of judges who lacked the analytical ability to see that some of the allegations were almost physically impossible while others were highly unlikely.

But, the core reason that Pell was convicted was that accusations were given in secret, and away from any member of the public who might be able to say they knew something about the accuser that suggested he was a liar.

The psychology of secret courts will almost always allow injustices. See:

Psychology of Secret Courts / Military Tribunals

We are now seeing the case of David McBride accused of leaking confidential military information to the media.

The first thing to doubt is the basic intelligence of the people in the so-called “security” community making the allegations. I have met people in the security communities while living and working in Australia, Russia (including spies), and China. On the whole they rarely have highly sophisticated minds. One only has to look at the low quality of the written work of most Australian security analysts after they find new employment as journalists or in think-tanks. And, then there are Australia’s Air Chief Marshal Houston (see blogs in left-hand column) and Major-General Cantwell (also see blog in left-hand column) –both men in powerful security positions displaying foolishness. And remember the fairy-tale about weapons of mass destruction in Iraq.

The second thing to doubt is the ability of juries to grasp more than quite basic issues in life and put aside emotions. Most people are just too stupid! Anyone who doubts this has not lived!

The third thing to doubt is the quality of judges. I have already mentioned the Pell case. What about ACT Supreme Court judge David Mossop who is presiding in the McBride trial.

According to a 2 May 2013 by then ACT Attorney-General, Simon Corbell, Mossop “was a barrister in private practice for 14 years, prior to taking up appointment as an ACT Magistrate. During his career as a barrister, his areas of practice were diverse and included constitutional law, commercial law, administrative law, tenancy law, corporations law, and human right and discrimination law. In his earlier years, Mr Mossop was a solicitor at the Environmental Defender’s Office (ACT) where he provided legal advice and community legal education on environmental law, and managed a small community legal centre. Prior to that he was Associate to then High Court Justice McHugh.”

This is hardly the sort of background that that would give Mossop any sort of ability to judge the truth or sensibility of what his accusers are saying. Indeed, Mossop might have his own biases and – given the secret nature of his court – and the opportunity to be dishonest.

Just imagine Houston telling Mossip that Australia and the US were winning in Afghanistan. Mossip would have believed every word!

According to 15 November 2023 SMH article, “on Wednesday morning, Justice Mossop said he would be directing the jury, which had been expected to be empanelled on Thursday, that McBride had no duty to act in the Australian public interest in circumstances where it conflicted with orders”. “Any duty contrary to law would not be able to be discharged,” Mossop said. “[It] could not be readily described as a duty at all.” Rather, Mossop said the scope of a Defence Force member’s duties were defined by legal rules applied to soldiers.

McBride’s barrister has argued that merely obeying orders “ignores Nuremberg”. Mossop is probably now looking up Wikipedia articles to find out about Nuremeberg. I can help him in this area, having read extensively about the psychology and thinking of defendants at the Nuremberg trials, when researching my book on dictators and the people who worked with them. Many high ranking German military officers – such as Field Marshal Manstein – refused to join a conspiracy to remove Hitler because of their duty of loyalty to the army. Mossop would probably applaud Manstein for this!

See: “Dictatorial CEOs and their Lieutenants: Inside the Executive Suites of Napoleon, Stalin, Ataturk, Mussolini, Hitler and Mao – www.jeffschubert.com

I would also suggest that Mossop try to find out about living in Putin’s Russia where most prosecutors and judges would totally agree with him. I can also help him here because I lived in Russia until October last year – 10 months after the February 2022 invasion of Ukraine. The change in the willingness of all sorts of people to accept that they could do nothing to change the situation was chilling, with some proclaiming that supporting the Russian military was far more important than the truth or even the overall interests of Russia. There was a “legal duty” to NOT talk about “war” and any Russian atrocities – particularly for soldiers — but also a “duty” to only talk about a “special military operations” (SVO) and the elimination of the “Nazi regime” in Ukraine.

See: https://russianeconomicreform.ru

Jeff Schubert

 

Why I support WikiLeaks

Why I support WikiLeaks · 22 December 2010

In my book, Dictatorial CEOs & their Lieutenants: Inside the Executive Suites of Napoleon, Stalin, Ataturk, Mussolini, Hitler and Mao, I wrote about the people who serve dictators. They are the same sort of people who are part of the worst side of the present Russian Government, and who are often found in democracies—where they mainly keep their views to themselves.

On 21 December I woke up in my Moscow apartment only to read on the Lowy Institute’s Interpreter commentary (https://www.lowyinstitute.org/) site that we have a similar individual working in the Australian Government who is a senior Canberra security insider.

In my view, the commentary of senior Canberra security insider has an underlying tone that suggests that he/she would make a good lieutenant to a authoritarian or dictatorial leader.

Bob Johnston, Former Governor of the Reserve Bank of Australia, wrote in the Foreword to my book:

Subordinates rarely rate more than footnotes in historical studies of such tyrants, but here motivations and actions of the lieutenants are extensively noted and compared. Once again there are commonalities that highlight the universal nature of human beings; and how desires and fears can lead people to serve a despot.

It is a pity that senior Canberra security insider does not have the courage to identify himself/herself but such is often the case with such servants to the power of others! I would welcome the opportunity to compare senior Canberra security insider with one of the subordinates/lieutenants in my book.

Here is the text of senior Canberra security insider on the Lowy Institute’s internet site:

Rory Medcalf’s Interpreter post on the real world fallout from WikiLeaks’ so-called ‘cablegate’ is spot on. Sure, there may be some positive consequences along the way, but the broader impact will be overwhelmingly negative. It will make the job of national security harder, and more expensive. Lives will be unnecessarily put at risk. One of the greatest contemporary challenges for agencies involved in national security (the number of which is growing) has been information sharing. The events of 11 September 2001 were avoidable if the right information had reached the right people at the right time. And as if we needed a reminder, it was only last year on Christmas Day that Northwest Airlines Flight 253 avoided by only the narrowest of margins being bombed out of the sky over the US. It was another incident that could have been prevented if information had been shared adequately, and acted upon. So how do government agencies and their people now respond to a world with WikiLeaks? They have no choice. Corporately, they must move to protect their information from wholesale disclosure on the internet. They’ll expend scarce resources strengthening information security and will need to monitor employees more carefully. They’ll need to ensure other agencies (including international partners) with access to their information can protect it, and in the meantime may well restrict access. Much needed efforts to strengthen information sharing and connect information systems will be reviewed, slowed or will stall completely. Any money available for information-sharing initiatives will be sucked into protecting existing systems. Lingering inter-agency mistrust will be given renewed life. And at a personal level, individuals will think twice before committing something to writing or sharing it with a colleague. This is why I find some of the ‘it doesn’t need to be this way’ comments in response to Rory’s article so misplaced. It is quaint to talk about a new era of diplomacy conducted in public. I’m not sure how that would work in practice. There’s a suggestion that confidentiality is not itself a problem and in fact is necessary in diplomacy but that governments haven’t got the calibration right between openness and confidentiality. But let’s be clear. This is not what WikiLeaks is about. WikiLeaks is not trying to reinvent statecraft. It is not trying to recalibrate government openness. It is not a whistle-blower. It is not practicing free speech. It is not just a publisher. It is not a media outlet. WikiLeaks has a political agenda that is anti-American and anti-government. And like most ‘anti-’ movements, it is not offering practical solutions, it is just against what other people are trying to do to solve problems. Why aren’t diplomats and other officials’ names removed from the US diplomatic cables it is posting to the internet? Because in WikiLeaks’ eyes they are the enemy. Any real world personal damage to them is collateral to the WikiLeaks political objective. So why do government agencies need to act in the way I describe? Because we don’t know what’s next. Yesterday it was tactical military reports, today it is diplomatic cables. Tomorrow it could be anything that WikiLeaks sees as promoting or defending its interests. It could be information from the Tax Office, the Federal Police, the Health Department, or any other institution of state or, for that matter, private enterprise. True colours are beginning to emerge. The Australian Government has displeased WikiLeaks and is now under attack, per Julian Assange’s thinly veiled threat in the Australian on 8 December. Who’s next? Amazon? Financial institutions that have withdrawn their services from WikiLeaks? It will be interesting to see. If WikiLeaks truly believed in transparency it would reveal all about itself, its decisions and internal deliberations, and each and every source of funding such an approach would certainly be consistent with the ‘scientific’ approach to journalism that it advocates, whereby the public can reach back to the source to judge for themselves what is true, and what is not. Even if WikiLeaks disappeared tomorrow, its damage is done. There is certain to be copy cats. What remains to be seen is the cause they summon to justify their actions. And the tragic irony in all this is that many of those who currently support or sympathise with WikiLeaks will be the same ones outraged when the next preventable security incident occurs. They’ll also argue for the right to privacy when there is some massive spillage of personal data onto the internet for that’s also a certain in a WikiLeaked world.

My response to the commentary of senior Canberra security insider is this:

I think that your true colours are pretty clear. I think that you would happily work for whoever has power. If I knew more about you I might be able to compare you with one of the subordinates (lieutenants) who worked for Napoleon, Stalin, Ataturk, Mussolini, Hitler or Mao. Are you a sometime lawyer, military officer, diplomat, politician, academic or spy? Do you have the courage to identify yourself?

I am not as conspiracy minded as Assange, but there certainly are conspiracies even in democracies!

I have some personal knowledge of one that was attempted a few years ago between very senior Treasury officials and the highest level of big business in the area of taxation. These people thought that they were acting in the public interest, and to achieve their aims they planned to put out to the public information that was not true. I actually nipped it in the bud with some well placed media leaks of my own.

Howard/Blair/Bush etc probably thought that they were acting in the public interest in the invasion of Iraq. On its very eve I appeared on Australia’s SBS television station to discuss the economic consequences of the war. When discussing weapons of mass destruction, one of my fellow guests (Dr. Chris Caton from BT) said: Who knows what he (Saddam Hussein) has. In response I said that it was pretty clear by now that he has none. It was a strong statement by me, but one that was not hard to make because I had been reading generally available information. The issue with Caton was that the pressure of work (as well as his particular interests) had restricted his reading and thinking. But the ultimate effect was the same: Caton was very susceptible to the connived propaganda of Howard/Blair/Bush.

Such ignorance of much of the population has been the source of empowerment to many a potential dictator. As Benito Mussolini put it, people do not want to rule, but to be ruled and to be left in peace. This is what attracted Albert Speer to Hitler and the Nazi party in the early 1930s: My inclination to be relieved of having to think, particularly about unpleasant facts In this I did not differ from millions of others.

Thus, the real value of WikiLeaks maybe that is makes it more difficult for the masses (and if it does not directly affect them, the non-thinking masses often constitute a majority of the population in most countries, including in Australia and Russia) to avoid the sometimes very obvious stupidity and lies of their leaders (who often feel themselves to be acting or the public good). Left unchallenged, these lies and this apathy toward stupidity can result in public support or, at least, acceptance of policies which are actually against the longer-term public interest. It is one thing for parts of the mass media in democratic societies to report supposed facts, but it is another thing to see them in an official documents. The direct effect on most of the non-thinking masses may soon wear-off, but in most countries such leaks will encourage a minority of the population which is willing to put some effort into finding out the truth and thinking about it and discussing it.

Amongst the important issues (for Australia at least) that seem to have been given greater expose by WikiLeaks are:
?the reality or not of Iran making an unprovoked nuclear attack on its neighbors (Australian intelligence officials think it not likely, but you would never believe this from listening to Gillard etc);
?Afghanistan (where the Government and the military would have us think that victory is within sight, even if not close);
?China, with both Rudd and Beazley being too ready to act as cheer-leaders for force no matter what the merits of issue.

Of course, senior Canberra security insider makes some good points about information etc, but whatever the WikiLeaks agenda, it is clearly to my mind about free speech. Yes, WikiLeaks may be an’anti-’ movement and not offer practical solutions to problems, but I personally do not have a lot of faith in the ability of the other people trying to to solve problems.

Tell us, who is this brilliant senior Canberra security insider problem solver?

I will conclude with a point about Russia and Australia. There is actually a huge amount of material available in the Russian printed media about the incompetence (leaving aside the issue of corruption) of much of the government. But, it is often suggested that because much of this does not get to appear on television (which remains the main news source for most Russians) it is allowed to continue for longer than if there were more public exposure. A WikiLeaks on Russia would bring considerable public benefit.

I am often amazed how much of what I read in the Russian printed media reminds me of aspects of government in Australia. This is another reason why I support WikiLeaks.

Wendi (Wendy) Deng

On Murdoch�s Wendi (Wendy) Deng & Zhang Yufeng · 25 March 2007

Most speculation about the future of News Corp misses a crucial point just as important as what happens to News Corp after the death of Rupert Murdoch may be what happens BEFORE! Wendi (Wendy) Deng is ideally placed to become Murdoch’s Zhang Yufeng.

Neil Chenoweth, in his article, Keeping it in the Family (AFR Perspective, 24 March), writes about life after Rupert and says that this has always been the question that News Corp investors have studiously avoided. Grant Samuel, a corporate advisory group, has recently written: It appears that most investors who invest in News Corp do so because they are backing Mr. Murdoch’s management and vision for the company and seem comfortable with his level of control.

What investors seem to be ignoring is the significant possibility that Wendi (Wendy) Deng will became a powerful gate-keeper separating Murdoch from most of his senior executives, in a similar way to Zhang Yufeng who became Mao Zedong’s gate-keeper. Murdoch is now 76 years old, and the older he becomes, the greater the probability of this occurring.

Apart from being his wife, Wendi (Wendy) Deng has the great advantage over others (including over other family members) of proximity and can whisper in his ear every morning; and according to Andrew Neil, who served as a Murdoch lieutenant for over a decade, Murdoch is highly susceptible to poison being poured in his ear about someone.

Time exacts a toll which cannot be ignored. Andrew Neil wrote that by 1994 Murdoch had become increasingly unpredictable, even whimsical, moving people about for no very good reason (spinning wheels was how one executive put it), except to satisfy his latest wheeze. He was even doing it to himself. Now over sixty, with intimations of mortality but still so much to do, he had become even more of a man in a hurry. He was moving executives around like pieces on a chessboard to suit whatever purpose obsessed him at that particular moment; regardless of the disruption in their lives they were expected to fit in, even if fundamental decisions risked being reversed only weeks after they were taken.

That was 13 years ago!

Murdoch has always been a loner, a Sun King who has adopted the classical dictatorial management style of someone like Mao who eschewed conventional management structures and hated delegating power. A person should depend on himself to do his work reading and commenting on documents, said Mao. Don’t depend on secretaries. Don’t give secretaries a lot of power. Yet, toward the end of his life, Mao’s did just this.

Li Zhisui, Mao’s long-time doctor, wrote that in 1973 Mao criticised Zhou Enlai for not discussing major issues with him, reporting only minor matters instead. Zhou’s position was awkward. He was still loyal to Mao. But Zhang Yufeng had become Mao’s gatekeeper and made it difficult for the two to meet because she was nearly always with him.

And it only got worse. One day in June 1976, when Hua Guofeng had come to see Mao, Zhang Yufeng had been napping and the attendants on duty were afraid to rouse her. Two hours later, when Zhang had still not gotten up, Hua, second in command only to Mao, finally left without seeing his superior.

Life after Rupert may be less interesting and important for News Corp investors than the remainder of life WITH Rupert.

US Missile Defence

US Missile Defense · 5 March 2001

US National Missile Defense (NMD), or mini-Star Wars

Jeff Schubert’s 5 March 2001 presentation to the Australian Institute of International Affairs (Sydney Branch)

(1)……………The Proposed United States NMD

The US NMD proposal at this stage appears to be for the deployment of several hundred missiles that would be able to shoot down missiles on their way to attacking the US. Initial deployment would be around in 2006.

The NMD is essentially a ground based limited version of the Ronald Reagan era Star Wars concept which was supposed to be able to handle a deliberate Soviet first strike in which thousands of warheads were launched against the US.

The rationale for the NMD is that the US is concerned about the ability of rogue states (governments) to acquire and use nuclear and other weapons of mass destruction (WMD). The US says that the NMD system is aimed at preventing an attack from such countries as Iran, Iraq and North Korea (the latter launched a long-range rocket over Japan in 1998).

US Secretary of Defense, Donald Rumsfeld, has said that the US is prepared to assist friends and allies threatened by missile attacks to deploy such defences.

The NMD would appear to be in breach of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile (ABM) Treaty signed by Leonid Brezhnev and Richard Nixon. This allowed each side two ABM deployment areas so restricted and located that they cannot provide a national ABM or become the basis for one. Each country thus leaves unchallenged the penetration capability of the others retaliatory missile forces. One limited ABM system could protect the capital and another was to protect an Inter-Continental Ballistic Missile (ICBM) launch area at least 1,300 km away so as to prevent he creation of the beginnings of a nationwide system. No more than 100 interceptor missiles and launchers could be at each site.

In 1974, Brezhnev and Nixon signed a protocol limiting each side to one ABM site only, with the USSR choosing Moscow and the US choosing North Dakota. The North Dakota site is no longer in use, although the Moscow site is claimed by the US to still be operational.

Donald Rumsfeld has called the ABM Treaty ancient history and the US is now trying to persuade Russia to accept a modification of the Treaty to allow its larger scale NMD system to be deployed. The US can withdraw from the Treaty with six months notice.

The US is telling the Russians that the NMD system will never be extensive enough to prevent a nuclear attack by Russia because of the sheer number of missiles possessed by Russia.

At this stage the Russians are saying nyet, and have sought to divide the US from its European allies with a stick and carrot approach. The Russians have threatened to withdraw from other treaties (such as START I and START II) which still allow thousands of warheads. The Russians have also suggested an alternative European-Russian anti-missile defence system, which would also include the US. This alternative seems to involve mobile defensive missiles that would shoot down offensive missiles soon after take-off. The Russians say that their proposal would not breach the ABM Treaty.

The Russians may yet say da to the NMD as part of a complex trade-off involving negotiations on the number of attack missiles under the START treaties. Basically, the Russians want to reduce the number of their attack missiles to save money. They might thus be persuaded to do a deal in which they accept an NMD if it is accompanied by a massive reduction in US offensive weapons which in turn allows Russia to reduce expenditure on its own offensive weapons.

Some commentators have suggested that there is a Russian dilemna in that its nuclear arsenal is presently so dilapidated that after a first strike by the US its remaining lunched ICBM’s could be mopped up by a fairly limited US NMD system.

I know that the response to this by many commentators is that the US would never launch a first strike, but this may not be how the Russians see it and I want to come back to the issue of seeing things from the other side a little later.

(2)……………The Case For

The case for the NMD, or the case against the case against, seems to consist largely of four arguments:

(a) The first for is that any fears that the NMD might lead to an arms race is Cold War logic.

(b) The second for argument is the “missile defense has the potential to transform the logic of international security, and genuinely allow States to rely on defensive measures for their essential security needs”. This argument includes the idea that advanced technologies can be relied upon to secure the defense needs of the US (and its allies).

(c) The third for argument has been put to me by an economist in the following terms: The potential for NMD to trigger an arms race is actually one of the strongest arguments in its favor. Communism in the USSR broke down largely as a result of the expense of an arms race with the US. If China tries to up the ante on NMD it risks the same fate.

(d) The forth argument, which is an argument against the argument against, seems to
be along the lines of So what if Russia objects, it is so weak it will be able to do nothing.

(3)…………..The Case Against

In presenting the case against the NMD, I want to first address these four for arguments before moving on to other matters.

(a) Fear of an Arms Race is Cold War logic

In my view, the essential problem with the proposed NMD system is that it threatens to lead to another international arms race which will eventually move further into space. This will work to heighten the eventual nuclear threat to Australia.

While this arms race will essentially be about nuclear missiles, it will encompass all types of weapons of mass destruction (WMD).

Colin Rubenstein, Executive Director of the Australia/Israel & Jewish Affairs Council, has written that much of the opposition, including some adverse comment in Australia, seems to be trapped in the Cold War logic of the 1972 Anti-Ballistic Missile Treaty. At that time it was argued not unreasonably that missile defense systems might encourage leaders in Moscow or Washington to miscalculate that a nuclear war with the other superpower was winnable or panic out of fear that the other side could launch a successful first strike.

US Defense Secretary Rumsfeld likewise dismisses fears of an arms race as Cold War thinking.

My counter to this argument is that arms races are not only Cold war logic. It is a universal logic based on historical experience. History shows that arms races can lead to fatalism that conflict is inevitable and so help bring it about.

World War 1 was essentially caused by mutual fear, which both caused and was nourished by an arms race. The assassination of Archduke Ferdinand at Sarajevo in June, 1914, was only a spark an excuse for those who wanted to fight what they saw as the inevitable war.

In pre-WWI Europe, Germany regarded war with an increasingly powerful Russia as inevitable. This was probably the driving factor in the actual implementation of the Schlieffen Plan in August 1914—which saw Germany march through Belgium to defeat France before taking on Russia. The reason for fighting France was that Germany feared any war with Russia would inevitably lead France to seek revenge for Bismark’s victory in 1871 so, if Germany had to fight Russia, it also had to fight France.

Britain could have stayed out of WW1, but chose to fight because it feared both German domination of Europe and growing German naval power. Not surprisingly, this German naval build up had helped drive Britain closer to France and Russia and this in turn intensified German fears of a war on two fronts with Britain backing France.

The German naval build-up from 1900 had, in turn, been partly driven by Britain’s own naval dominance. In 1889 Britain had formally announced that it was keeping its navy at a scale that should at least be equal to the naval strength of any two other countries. While Britain thought this policy was justified by its small homeland army and the need to protect its colonies and trade routes, many in Germany saw it as aimed at containing Germany.

Ironically, but not surprisingly, British policy during the drawing up and enforcement of the Treaty of Versailles was to be concerned to not weaken Germany too much lest France come to dominate Europe.

The pre-WW1 arms race was not the first in history, but does nicely illustrate the point that countries have interests, and that big countries have big interests and that they will ultimately act to defend them. Moreover, it is not only government officials who think in these terms. Large parts of public opinion often do as well.

Thus, it is important when considering the possible impact of the NMD that we do not only look at it from the US perspective, but also from the perspective of others. Russia, China, India and others will feel that they also have great power interests. It does not matter whether policy makers in the US (or Australia) disagree with these views—the fact is that they will be there.

Unfortunately, the interests mean that the NMD proposals will indirectly lead to an acceleration in missile building in China, India and Pakistan.

China is particularly opposed to the NMD system because, unlike Russia (in the absence of a US first strike), it does not necessarily have sufficient numbers of attack missiles to overwhelm a US NMD. For China, this may be particularly relevant if the US ties to push them around (from their point of view) on the issue of Taiwan. To maintain its own credible nuclear deterrent the Chinese will increase their attack missile force.

India, which has sometimes had a tense and violent relationship with China, may respond by increasing its own nuclear forces. In response to this, Pakistan would surely do the same.

In his January AFR article, Colin Rubenstein accepts that the acquisition of nuclear weapons and / or long range missiles by India, Pakistan, North Korea, Iran and Iraq will mean that other states will react by seeking their own weapons of mass destruction. He writes the criticism that missile defense systems could spark arms races is an argument for good institutional arrangements for the deployment and use of this technology, not an argument for attempting to suppress it.

But why, I ask, should it be easier to control NMD’s than offensive weapons?

Colin Rubenstein also wrote about Russia’s possible cooperation in developing such systems. My view is that if Russia does cooperate it will be only because of the poor state of its finances. Once these recover sufficiently, Russia will be full on building its own extensive NMD and new offensive weapons to overcome the US NMD. China will be doing the same, as will a number of other countries as time goes by.

In contrast to the Russian ABM system deployed around Moscow, the proposed US NMD does not use nuclear weapons to destroy incoming missiles. Rather, it just hits them like you would by throwing a stone. However, other countries lacking US technology will certainly decide that their NMD’s will be nuclear. In turn, this may eventually force the US to do the same just in case the stone type does not work.

If they cannot match the US NMD with a least a nuclear version of their own, other countries may use so-called asymmetric responses. These may include arming existing missiles with multiple war heads, development of other (more basic) weapons delivery systems, assistance for friendly rogue states to develop missiles that can be used to tie down the defensive capacity of the US NMD, etc.

(b) Technology Will Solve Defense Problems

The US seems to believe that technology will solve its defense problems. President Bush has said, The best way to keep the peace is to redefine war on our own terms.

Indeed, arms races are often about getting the technological upper hand.

But as French President Jacques Chirac has said: If you look at world history, ever since men began waging war, you will see that there’s a permanent race between sword and shield. The sword always wins. The more improvements that are made in the shield, the more improvements are made in the sword. We think that these systems are just going to spur sword-makers to intensify their efforts.

That the shield never wins is what has led to the development of ever better modern weapons to overcome better shields, just as the defensive power of the machine gun lead to the attacking tank in WW1.

The sword-shield problem is now compounded greatly because we are now talking about weapons that can obliterate whole cites not just parts of battlefields.

Once again, history has some lessons for us. While the Royal Navy appears to have had a tradition of not pushing innovation which devalued existing ships, things changed after the Battle of Tsushima in 1905 between Japan and Russian naval forces. Long-range fire power derived from big guns gave the Japanese victory and led Britain to design and build the Dreadnought battleship.

The Germans responded with their own Dreadnought type ships, and went from having the worlds fifth most powerful navy in 1906 to the second most powerful by 1914. Instead of allowing Britain to redefine war on its own terms, the Dreadnought caused existing fleets to be obsolete and everyone now started from scratch.

While the US may think that its technology will always win, diffusion of that technology inevitably occurs and may eventually benefit the other side. We just don’t know how another arms race will play out—- except that it would make conflict more likely.

(c) Destroying Communism

As noted above, the third for argument seems to be that an arms race is attractive because Communism in the USSR broke down largely as a result of the expense of an arms race with the US. If China tries to up the ante on NMD it risks the same fate.

Having spent quite a bit of time examining the Russia economy, industries, and individual privatised companies between 1991 and 1996, I believe that the arms race argument concerning the collapse of the USSR is too simplistic While the demand of Russians for goods and services was far from satiated, it was more than just the diversion of resources to bomb and missile building that brought down the USSR economy.

In my view, the industrially centrally managed economy was struggling to cope with the move toward advanced electronics, services (and information) activities. The gigantic factory approach of Russian central planners, workable for an earlier simpler age, was incapable of taking the Russian economy further.

But even if the arms race killed the USSR argument is largely true, I have to ask whether we want the large densely packed Chinese population to suffer the same fate as the population of the USSR. What would be the consequences for the people of China and China’s neighbors and eventually for Australia.

(d) Russia is so weak it can do nothing to respond to the NMD

This argument for (or perhaps case against the case against) is that it does not matter if Russia is opposed to the NMD because it is now so weak, or is falling apart in a way similar to the USSR, that its opposition is irrelevant.

Firstly, in my view, Russia is not falling apart. Geographically, Russia now is the same as it was when it was part of the USSR. Chechnya aside, there have been no serious attempt or movements to break from Russia. After the chaos of Yeltsin, President Putin is moving to reestablish considerable central control.

Secondly the country is rich in resources and talent and I think that it will post some surprisingly strong GDP growth rates over the next decade. For those who would simply extrapolate present conditions into the future, I suggest reflection on the 1980’s story that based on then current trends the Japanese economy was on the way to becoming bigger than that of the US. Or reflect on the differing pre and post WW1 British attitudes to the relative power of Germany and France in Europe.

Russia will eventually have an enhanced economic capacity to respond in similar kind to the NMD. It might take a decade or more, but it will do it. In the meantime, look out for the so-called asymmetric response.

(e) Seeing the issue from the point of view of the other side.

I want to come back to dwell for a moment on the point I made earlier about seeing things from the point of view of the other side.

Condoleeza Rice, the US National Security Adviser, says American values are universal. Their triumph is most assuredly easier when the international balance of power favors those who believe in them.

The other side to this is that Russia’s 145 million people generally have values that although similar to America have their own features. Russians are generally nationalist and can be somewhat xenophobic.

A legacy of its history is that Russia takes defense issues very seriously, and it will not feel comfortable when the international balance of power favors others.

Many Russians see NATO expansion as aimed at Russia (the Poles and Baltic countries certainly see it this way) despite NATO denials. I marvel at the words of George Robertson, Secretary-General of NATO, when he says that NATO enlargement to possibly include countries of the former USSR carries no threat to Russia and that NATO’s enlargement follows precisely the post-Cold War logic. (That term, Cold War logic again!)

Indeed, how would Americans feel if Cuba decided it wanted closer ties with Russia and if this included a much heavier (and possibly nuclear) presence?

The US, however, seems set on ignoring these Russian sensitivities. In the words of a liberal minded Russian journalist, while Clinton’s Washington uncritically endorsed everything that the Russian elite did, the Bush administration seems bent on criticizing everything. This may be because, also in her words, the new administration is staffed by people who know Russia primarily from the books of old Sovietologists.

Foolishly, in my view, the Who lost Russia? debate at the end of the Clinton administration has become a Who needs Russia? attitude in the Bush administration.

Some Australian commentators have expressed a belief and relief that the NMD does not mean that the US will become isolationist.

I agree that it is generally very desirable that the US remains internationally engaged.

However, from the NMD debate perspective it might be better for the world if the NMD is accompanied by increased US isolation. Other countries (eg China, Russia etc) will feel less threatened by increased US defense capability if they feel that a less internationally engaged US will not be out there causing trouble for them. That is, that US policy makers will not be sitting there comfortably in their walled home, coming out occasionally to biff the neighbors around the ears before retreating inside again.

International engagement is not always positive. In the decades prior to WW1, Britain attempted for as long as possible to combine an isolationist policy, which consisted of hiding behind its powerful navy and resisting strong formal alliances, with one which was prepared to take action to prevent domination of Europe by one country be it Germany or France. However, when Britain eventually abandoned this policy partly in response to growing Germany military power and entered into the Triple Entente with France and Russia, Germany’s fear of a war on two fronts was magnified and WWI hastened.

(f) Other arguments against include:

Expanded nuclear arms production that is stimulated in response to the NMD inevitably increases the prospect of leakage of materials and knowledge to other non-nuclear countries (and, ultimately, terrorists) the very thing the US says it fears. The US attempt to protect itself from rogue states may thus actually increase the number of countries capable of a credible nuclear threat.

The simple way for a nuclear rouge state to threaten another state and avoid any NMD system may be to simply land an aircraft carrying a nuclear device at a major airport and threaten to explode it unless whatever demands are carried out, or to carry out some other relatively simple delivery.

Remember that France built the Maginot Line of fixed fortifications along its eastern frontier in the 1930’s to keep out aggressors, and it was considered impregnable. At the start of World War Two the Germans simply went around it.

(4)…………..Consequences for Australia

The proposal to extent NMD protection to US allies is unrealistic as far as Australia is concerned. Australia is too far from the major geographical areas of US concern for any sort of NMD to be put in place. Apart from being technically difficult, the expense of putting such a system in place at the bottom of the world would be prohibitive.

An effective northern hemisphere NMD would leave Australia sitting like a shag on a rock. While it is not presently easy to conceive of rational reasons why a rogue state would want to threaten Australia with weapons of mass destruction, Australia would be a soft target unprotected and unable to fight back.

The US, comfortable and safe behind its NMD might be more inclined to help us. Just as likely, however, the people of the US might prefer to stay home behind their shield. They could form the view that if Australia wants protection, then it should build its own NMD.

Indeed, in my view, Australia’s support for the NMD is encouraging a series of events that suggest Australia itself should acquire nuclear weapons over the next few decades. Australia may need its own offensive capacity for defensive blackmail. This would be a sort of mini-MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction).

(5)…………..Alternatives

This still leaves the problem of how to handle the threats that are there. I accept and agree with Rubenstein and NMD proponents that the risks from rogue nations are real, or will become real.

As discussed above, alternatives to the NMD include boost-phase interceptors stationed close to potential missile launch sites in rogue nations. For example, missiles launched from North Korea would be shot down by interceptors fired from ships stationed close to that rogue state rather than waiting for them to get closer to the US (or Japan etc).

While perhaps better than an NMD system in its arms race implications I have to admit that I find the idea of such quick fire all knowing defense systems a little unconvincing.

However, my view is that the NMD itself brings so many potential new problems that some drastic alternative international measures to counter the threats might be needed.

I think that the US should be putting the proposition to Russia, China etc that it will forsake its NMD if they agree to cooperate in enforcing (with non-nuclear guns and bombs if necessary) weapons control in “undesirable” countries such as North Korea, Iraq etc. While there are some unpleasant aspects to such a suggestion and many unanswered questions (like who is “undesirable”), they are better than the NMD alternative with its inevitable consequences.

A basic starting point may be that any country is automatically undesirable if it refuses to show its nuclear hand or is suspected of hiding one. This would apply to Israel as much as North Korea.

This approach would also attempt to tackle the issue of weapons delivered by more basic means such as ships, planes etc by eliminating the weapons themselves.

Tony Abbott

Confidence — Abbott and Gillard · 26 October 2010

The Australian prime minister, Julia Gillard, and the leader of the opposition, Tony Abbott, last week very strongly supported the military efforts in Afghanistan.

A good summary article is here:
https://www.theaustralian.com.au/news/opinion/gillard-moves-labor-closer-to-obama/story-e6frg6zo-1225942439405

Whether or not you agree with the military actions in Afghanistan, it is difficult to argue that either Gillard or Abbott know much about or are even interested in—that part of the world that does not speak English.

Here is Gillard’s entry in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julia_Gillard

Here is Abbott’s entry in Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tony_Abbott

While both have recently made quick visits Afghanistan, their activities were confined to meeting Australian soldiers and a few meetings with officials with a set story to push.

There is no public (ie political) clamor for Australia to be part of the war in Afghanistan. So given their relative lack of knowledge and experience—where does the confidence of Gillard and Abbott come from?

In part, it comes from already being generally successful in politics. Louis de Bourreinne who was Napoleon’s friend and first secretary, wrote that intoxication which is occasioned by success produces in the heads of the ambitious a sort of cerebral congestion.

As a result, such leaders can all too easily begin to think like Mussolini, who in 1935 told a lieutenant: Too much ratiocination! We should rather concentrate on instinct! My instinct tells me that And that’s enough!

But instincts can easily be influenced by personal emotions. Emotions play a big part in all such decisions and the more complex the issue, the greater the role of emotion.

Indeed, the role of emotion is so important that even the best experts can succumb to it at least for a while!

I came across a striking example of this in an intense debate about business taxation reform which took place in Australia between late-1999 and mid-2002. The debate was about whether to move to a new system of taxing business income within a period by measuring the change in asset values (including cash in bank) between the beginning and end of the period. In theory, the new system eventually branded as the Tax Value Method or TVM—would have given the same result as the present method of directly measuring income/revenue flows and cost flows (including deductions such as depreciation) during a period.

One of the strongest proponents of TVM was a well-known Australian business taxation lawyer AND poet of considerable note. This unusual combination of very high level skills led to some compartmentalization of thinking at times but also provided some useful insights into human thought processes.

The lawyer/poet was very emotional when condemning the complexity of the existing business taxation system, and was desperate to see changes and he quickly supported TVM.

In September 2000 I organized and hosted a debate between some of the main proponents and opponents of TVM. The lawyer/poet was still in favour of radical change and spoke for TVM. Yet, he recognized that there was significant opposition and was quoted in the media as saying:

Eighty per cent of tax practitioners are opponents, and more than 80% of business leaders are supporters. Tax experts believe that Treasury (the originator of the concept) has done a snow job in convincing big business that TVM is the way forward. Business leaders reject this claim and believe the experts may be manufacturing a crisis where there is none. Behind the schemes, claim is following counter-claim.

About a year later the lawyer/poet changed his view and wrote a very detailed analysis that was extremely critical of the draft legislation for TVM.

I regarded the report as a brilliant example of taking a logical approach to a disputed issue. The lawyer/poet’s change of view was a turning point in the debate, and TVM thereafter died a slow death.

This lawyer/poet is the best example I have personally come across of someone allowing their powerful emotions (ie the poet side) to very significantly cloud their professional (tax lawyer) logic over a prolonged period of time. But over time—once the logic had reasserted itself there was a complete change their view.

One of the most prominent businessman supporters of TVM privately described the lawyer/poet’s critical analysis as turgid. But as the lawyer/poet’s quote above indicates, in the main it was NOT the tax experts who supported TVM; rather it was the non-experts looking for a silver-bullet to solve complex problems which, in the main, they understood little. The views of the non-experts were being led by their emotions.

If the views of most independent experts are any guide, that both Gillard and Abbott have such non-expert confidence—and that it is very possible that their expert advisers (military and non-military) may be allowing their emotional thinking to over-whelm their logical thinking.

I cannot more precisely demonstrate this in relation to Gillard (and do not know enough about the people who give her advice), but Abbott recently made a very revealing emotional comment about the recent election which led to Gillard becoming prime minister with the support of some independent members of parliament.

Abbott was quoted as saying: ‘’One of the things that so disappoints me about the election result is that I am the standard bearer for values and ideals which matter and which are important and as the leader of the Coalition, millions and millions of people invest their hopes in me and it’s very important that I don’t let them down. When I am unfairly attacked, I’ve got to respond and I’ve got to respond in a tough way.’’

Abbott’s comment is striking in its certainty. Abbott in his own view—is the standard bearer of the ONLY values and ideals which matter and which are important. In his view, the values and ideals of other people are not important.

In Abbott’s mind, there is little room for compromise. Abbott is a man who deals in certainties. He is more of an emotional poet than a logical tax lawyer. Whether Abbott is right or not in supporting the military effort in Afghanistan, it should be clear what the basis of his support is it is undoubtedly emotion.

As for Gillard, we will learn more about her over time!