Softpanorama

Home Switchboard Unix Administration Red Hat TCP/IP Networks Neoliberalism Toxic Managers
May the source be with you, but remember the KISS principle ;-)

National Security State as Racket on the Danger of Terrorism
Review of Literature

“Plunderers of the world, when nothing remains on the lands to which they have laid waste by wanton thievery, they search out across the seas. The wealth of another region excites their greed; and if it is weak, their lust for power as well. Nothing from the rising to the setting of the sun is enough for them. Among all others only they are compelled to attack the poor as well as the rich. Robbery, rape, and slaughter they falsely call empire; and where they make a desert, they call it peace.”

Tacitus, Agricola
 

News Corporatism Recommended Links Did Obama order wiretaps of Trump conversations Neofascism Nation under attack meme
Neoliberal war on reality or the importance of controlling the narrative  Inverted Totalitarism The Deep State Is national security state in the USA gone rogue ? Reconciling Human Rights With Total Surveillance Operation Gladio - Wikipedia
The problem of control of intelligence services in democratic societies History of American False Flag Operations False flag operations as an important part of demonization of the enemy strategy Mystery of Building 7 Collapse Charlie Hebdo - more questions then answers Manchester attack vs Charlie Hebdo
Total Surveillance Media-Military-Industrial Complex The Grand Chessboard Elite Theory And the Revolt of the Elite Two Party System as Polyarchy Corporate Media: Journalism In the Service of the Powerful Few
Edward Snowden as Symbol of Resistance to National Security State Facebook as Giant Database about Users Social Sites as intelligence collection tools Systematic Breach of Vienna Convention Neocolonialism as Financial Imperialism The Iron Law of Oligarchy
American Exceptionalism New American Militarism Machiavellism   Humor Etc

"The greatest threat is that we shall become like those who seek to destroy us"

the legendary US diplomat George Kennan warned in 1947

“In this present crisis, government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem”


Ronal Reagan about a different crisis

Books have been written about President Eisenhower’s famous farewell warning in 1961 about the “military-industrial complex,” and what he described as its “unwarranted influence.” But an even greater leviathan today, one that the public knows little about, is the “intelligence-industrial complex.”

Michael Hirsh in

How America's Top Tech Companies
Created the Surveillance State )

If Tyranny and Oppression come to this land, it will be in the guise of fighting a foreign enemy.

- James Madison


Introduction

The National Security State is an ideology and practice of the USA elite, closely connected with the idea of the rule of the Media-Military-Industrial Complex, and especially three-letter agencies ("Trumanites" because of our 33rd president's role in founding the CIA, the modern Defense Department, the Joint Chiefs of Staff, and the National Security Agency).  It is somewhat different from national socialist idea as it is married to neoliberalism and does not included the decisive influence of the state in economic sphere.

Under neoliberalism society has become increasingly militarized, meaning that as most aspects of the social-democratic state (New Deal state) are eliminated, a police state is rising in its place. All problems that in the past were seen as social problems, and hence required social solutions, now acquire police solutions. Heavily militarized police became praetorian guard of 0.1% that is in power.

In economic sphere deregulation (economic liberalism or neoliberalism) produce social conflict, which at some point can not be masked by neoliberal demagogy ("shareholder value", "stakeholder participation" and other neoliberal crap).  As the state now represents interest only of the top 0.1% population, economic and political spheres became merged under authoritarian rule of financial oligarchy, not unlike the USSR under bolshevism with the only difference that "nomenklatura" was more aligned with the interests of the society then financial oligarchy,  Tax laws, inheritance rules, status to trade unions, "revolving door" regulations (which highly correlates with the degree of corruption of the society) became political decisions and  require constant brainwashing of the population and instilling fear using external threat. Terrorism is used for this purpose not unlike permanent war between Oceania and Eurasia in the Orwell's famous  novel 1984,  It is clear that the war with terrorism is quintessential for waging "permanent war for permanent peace".  This link to rampant militarism is close to what we observe in typical neo-fascist movements (Fascism - Wikipedia ):

Fascism is a form of radical authoritarian nationalism[1][2] that came to prominence in early 20th-century Europe, influenced by national syndicalism. Fascism originated in Italy during World War I and spread to other European countries. Fascism opposes liberalism, Marxism and anarchism and is usually placed on the far-right within the traditional left–right spectrum.[3][4]

Fascists saw World War I as a revolution that brought massive changes in the nature of war, society, the state, and technology. The advent of total war and total mass mobilization of society had broken down the distinction between civilian and combatant. A "military citizenship" arose in which all citizens were involved with the military in some manner during the war.[5][6] The war had resulted in the rise of a powerful state capable of mobilizing millions of people to serve on the front lines and providing economic production and logistics to support them, as well as having unprecedented authority to intervene in the lives of citizens.[5][6]

Fascists believe that liberal democracy is obsolete, and they regard the complete mobilization of society under a totalitarian one-party state as necessary to prepare a nation for armed conflict and to respond effectively to economic difficulties.[7] Such a state is led by a strong leader—such as a dictator and a martial government composed of the members of the governing fascist party—to forge national unity and maintain a stable and orderly society.[7] Fascism rejects assertions that violence is automatically negative in nature, and views political violence, war, and imperialism as means that can achieve national rejuvenation.[8][9][10][11] Fascists advocate a mixed economy, with the principal goal of achieving autarky through protectionist and interventionist economic policies.[12]

Since the end of World War II in 1945, few parties have openly described themselves as fascist, and the term is instead now usually used pejoratively by political opponents. The descriptions neo-fascist or post-fascist are sometimes applied more formally to describe parties of the far right with ideologies similar to, or rooted in, 20th century fascist movements.[13]

In this social system US intelligence apparatus and military establishment are raised to the level above and beyond civilian control and become a somewhat autonomous system, a hidden government of the USA. Deep state as it is now called. Which, as a minimum, assume the role of king maker for the most top positions in the USA government. And, if necessary, can act as a king remover (JFK assassination is a nice example here; CIA fingerprints are all over the place, but nobody from CIA went to jail for this "accomplishment": mission accomplished).

The colossal budget with  juicy cost-plus contracts of affiliated private companies gives those agencies not only tremendous power, but also vested ideological and financial interests. For example, for the moment of its creation, due to Allen Dulles background CIA was aligned with the interests of Wall Street. There no real overseeing of three letter agencies from neither executive branch, not from the Congress, nor from the Supreme Court.

But the reverse is not true. In a way they can serve as a surrogate king.   In other words, instead of the servant of the state intelligence agencies became the master. This phenomenon is not limited to the USA. The same hijacking of executive, parliamentarian and judicial braches of govern happened in other countries. A very interesting example provides the USSR: it was actually betrayal of KGB brass, who switched side and decided to privatize the country, that among other things doomed the USSR.

The key "three letter agencies" (CIA, DOD, NSA, FBI) were established by the National Security Act of 1947, signed in September 18, 1947 by President Harry S. Truman. This year can be considered as the year when National Security State was born and probably should be celebrated accordingly instead of old-fashioned Independence Day.  Very little was preserved from the "old republic" after this transformation of the USA. 

It is prudent to view National Security State as a modern form of corporatism, closely related to concepts of neo-fascism and Inverted Totalitarism. As ellatynemouth noted in the comment to the Guardian article Internet privacy as important as human rights, says UN's Navi Pillay (Dec 26, 2013):

The surveillance state is the ruling class's key hole through which they monitor us and our potential dissent. It's now an integral part of capitalism and can't be removed.

The game has changed. It's now about convincing us as much as possible that they will stop snooping on us. They won't though. It will just become more heavily hidden.

Surveillance state was made possible with the advent of computers, Internet and wireless communication. In some features it is close to neo-fascism and Latin-American far right authoritarian regimes, but there are important difference. Instead of organized violence against opponents it achieved its goals without relentless physical repression/elimination of opponents. It's key feature is mass surveillance, discreditation and blackmailing of opponents (like in German Democratic Republic there are dossier for every member of society and skeletons from the closet can be revealed for any politician or activist)  as well as control and manipulation of media, not mass repression of opponents. Like neofascist regimes of the past (such as Pinochet regime in Chile) and authoritarian "communist" regimes of the past and present, it make organized opposition to the government virtually impossible. Of the 20 characteristic traits of neo-fascist regimes probably around the half are applicable to the national security state.

After 9/11, Bush government's behavior and especially appeals to public clearly resonate with the proto-fascist "... uber alles" ideas. As an amazing example of doublespeak  Bushists managed to integrate American exceptionalism into the framework of globalist neoliberal regime (as the command-and-control center for neoliberal world empire, no less). Bush government inspired post-9/11 paranoia doesn’t come cheaply, though. Costs were staggering: the military ($682 billion), Homeland Security (about $60 billion), and 15 intelligence agencies (official figure of combined budget is perhaps $75 billion; but in reality in many times more then that). The total is probably over a trillion.

Nothing changed under President Obama, which suggests that he is just a figurehead and the  "deep state" is actually in charge. In most area Obama administration was more like Bush II administration , then "change we can believe in".  In this sense this was the most blatant "bait and switch" in the recent  political history of the USA. This is the view of Professor Michel Greenon, who in his book advocated the view that tradition troika of powers in the USA became by and large ceremonial and that real actors, at least in area of national security are not non-elected executives of super-powerful and well financed three-letter agencies. Here is a brief overview taken from review published by Reason (National Security State - Reason.com):

Though Glennon doesn't describe his thesis in terms of public choice theory, it echoes that discipline's insight that institutions are run for the benefit of the people who run the institutions. For the Trumanites, Glennon explains, "benefits take the form of enlarged budgets, personnel, missions; costs take the form of retrenchments in each." Witness the vast archipelago of intelligence facilities-nearly three Pentagons' worth of office space-that have been erected in greater Washington, D.C., since 9/11.

The national security state is becoming an autonomous, self-perpetuating entity, Glennon warns. It sets the table for elected officials' choices and increasingly dictates terms to them. The permanent bureaucracy basks in the "glow" of Madisonian institutions, drawing legitimacy from the illusion that elected officials are in charge. But while the buck may stop with the president, the real power resides with the Trumanites.

This explanation is strongest in the realm of state surveillance, which serves as Glennon's central case study. Recall the embarrassing revelation, in the summer of 2013, that the NSA was tapping German Chancellor Angela Merkel's cellphone. What did the president know, and when did he know it? If you believe top administration officials, Obama was almost as surprised as Merkel. Glennon quotes Secretary of State John Kerry to the effect that the Merkel wiretap, like a lot of NSA programs, occurred "on autopilot."

On one hand, that's what you'd expect them to say. On the other hand, the claim is entirely plausible, and it is consistent with the earlier history of NSA abuses uncovered by the Church Committee in the 1970s. Under Project SHAMROCK, for example, the NSA collected the content of virtually all cable traffic entering or leaving the United States for three decades-150,000 messages a month at its height. It was, the committee's final report concluded, "probably the largest governmental interception program affecting Americans ever undertaken." And yet it's not clear that any president ordered, approved, or was even aware of SHAMROCK. When the program's existence was exposed in the mid-'70s, Louis Tordella, longtime deputy director of the NSA, admitted that he didn't know whether any president or attorney general had ever been briefed on it.

The picture grows somewhat more complicated when we look at the modern practice of presidential war making. From the Truman administration onward, the president has accumulated enormous unchecked authority, despite James Madison's conviction that, since the executive department was "most distinguished by its propensity to war," it is "the practice of all states, in proportion as they are free, to disarm this propensity of its influence."

When it comes to picking the wars we wage, it's not clear that the Trumanites are fully in charge. Take four major war-powers decisions during the Obama administration: the Afghan surge, the escalation of drone attacks, the Libya intervention, and the current war against ISIS. I put the Trumanite win-loss record at roughly .500 here. The military and national security bureaucracy fought hard for the surge and the drone escalation, and got them. They generally opposed the Libyan action, and some prominent Trumanites-such as the chairman of the Joint Chiefs -appear to have been reluctant to endorse our latest war in the Middle East.

In the case of this most recent war, domestic politics seems a better explanation: The president yielded to the near-irresistible demand that he "do something" about the beheading of Americans and the implosion of the Iraqi state. Bombing ISIS is something, so we're doing it.

The Obama experience suggests we get the wars the Trumanites want -- and also some they don't. But this is hardly fatal to Glennon's thesis. He stresses that "a good theory of institutional behavior can predict, at best, only tendency over time"; his "predicts only that national security policy will change little from one administration to the next." So far, that theory is holding up rather well.

Even so, I've always been partial to one version of the "government politics" explanation. A few years ago, I wrote a book arguing that "Americans' unconfined conception of presidential responsibility is the source of much of our political woe and some of the gravest threats to our liberties." If the political reality is such that the president will be held personally accountable for any domestic terror attack, don't be surprised when he seeks powers nearly as vast as the expectations put upon him.

Glennon acknowledges it's not either-or; "explanations overlap," he writes. Dumb wars and security-state overreach are the result of political choices and the bureaucratic imperative. Policy continuity is depressingly overdetermined.

Real-time histories of key national security decisions in the Obama years tend to underscore this point. In Kill or Capture, reporter Daniel Klaidman describes the enormous political pressure the Obama administration was under after the failed "underwear bomber" attack on December 25, 2009. "For the White House," Klaidman writes, "the psychic toll of Christmas Day was profound. Obama realized that if a failed terror attempt could suck up so much political oxygen, a successful attack would absolutely devastate his presidency. And much as he liked to talk about returning to first principles, Obama also had a powerful instinct for self-correction-as well as self-preservation."

The psychic aftershock of Christmas 2009 helped shape a lot of what followed: from body scanners at airports to ramped-up drone strikes to the lethal targeting of an American citizen.

But to Glennon's point, the administration was under pressure from the Trumanites well before that. In the 2012 book, The Obamians: The Struggle Inside the White House to Redefine American Power, James Mann describes a concerted effort by then-CIA director Michael Hayden and other senior intelligence officials to preserve business as usual by scaring the hell out of the incoming Obama team. Their private name for this scheme was the "Aw, Shit! Campaign."

The scare tactics worked. Klaidman reports that both Harold Koh, legal advisor at the State Department, and Jeh Johnson, the Pentagon's general counsel, used the same metaphor to describe the military pressure for more targeted killings: a runaway train. It was like "a massive freight train hurling down the tracks" Koh said. "You would have to throw yourself on the tracks to try to stop it," said Johnson.

All this helps shed light on Obama's strange and disorienting May 2013 "drone speech" at the National Defense University in Washington, D.C., in which the president seemed to be speaking not as commander in chief, but as his own loyal opposition.

In the speech, Obama said things like "Unless we discipline our thinking, our definitions, our actions, we may be drawn into more wars we don't need to fight, or continue to grant Presidents unbound powers." And: "The very precision of drone strikes can also lead a president and his team to view [them] as a cure-all for terrorism." I remember thinking: "A president"? Which one? Anyone in particular? Who's in charge here, anyway?

National Security and Double Government suggests that the answer to that last question isn't quite so obvious, that the "most powerful man in the world" isn't nearly as powerful as he might appear.

It remains the case that Obama had the formal authority to say no to mass surveillance and perpetual war. But saying no would require resisting enormous bureaucratic and political pressure. And anybody willing to do what it takes to become president is unlikely to transform himself into a self-denying Cincinnatus once in office. Political survivors don't jump in front of trains.

While US government spent around $3.67 trillion in 2013, the revenue was just $2.77 trillion. Of that amount over one trillion went to three-letter agencies and DOD. Now you understand to whom real power belongs.  Moreover the government has to borrow about $900 billion in order to maintain national security state programs intact. And there are 5 million (yes million) people in the USA with security clearance and around 3 million with top security clearance. In other words "Welcome to the USSR." or even Third Reich (actually republican senators opposed Truman initiative due to fear that he replicated institution of the Third Reich in the USA and only support of powerful Democrats allowed the president to push the act through the Congress.

But even if it was close to the Third Reich in political effects and its essence, this type of political structure is different, because it does not rely on mass mobilization. Instead it relied on the power of "deep state" and mass surveillance as well as passivity of most electorate. 

As Paxton describes it (Tracking Fascism) fascism as just hypertrophied and misguided nationalism, a specific flavor of far right nationalism. The central emotions in fascism and nationalism are identical. In other words at the core of fascist emotional mobilization always lies far right nationalism and that is important distinction with national security state and neoliberalism which are globalist and  "imperial" and does not stress particular nationality as long of the person/group serves empire interests:

...Feelings propel fascism more than thought does. We might call them mobilizing passions, since they function in fascist movements to recruit followers and in fascist regimes to "weld" the fascist "tribe" to its leader. The following mobilizing passions are present in fascisms, though they may sometimes be articulated only implicitly:
  1. The primacy of the group, toward which one has duties superior to every right, whether universal or individual.
  2. The belief that one's group is a victim, a sentiment which justifies any action against the group's enemies, internal as well as external.
  3. Dread of the group's decadence under the corrosive effect of individualistic and cosmopolitan liberalism.
  4. Closer integration of the community within a brotherhood (fascio) whose unity and purity are forged by common conviction, if possible, or by exclusionary violence if necessary.
  5. An enhanced sense of identity and belonging, in which the grandeur of the group reinforces individual self-esteem.
  6. Authority of natural leaders (always male) throughout society, culminating in a national chieftain who alone is capable of incarnating the group's destiny.
  7. The beauty of violence and of will, when they are devoted to the group's success in a Darwinian struggle.

Post 9/11  "passions" in the USA were definitely skillfully used by Bush administration to push the nation into the Iraq war and the attacks on dissenters that occurred during it were pretty vicious, really in traditions of Third Reich ("you are either with us, or with our enemies"). 

But public was not really central in this whole issue. Americans were extras at best, patsies at worst,  Essentially all major decisions were made "behind the curtain" by deep state structures and public was just brainwashed into approval of those action. That's an important different between national security state and classical fascist regimes. In classic fascist state the leading fascist party would be central to unleashing such a war.  Here it was bust a bunch of highly placed bureaucrats in Bush II administration (so called neocons, which is an ideological group allied with the military industrial complex, but not an organized party as such).

Here is a more extended treatment of this issue (cited from Rush, Newspeak and Fascism An exegesis IV Tracking Fascism):

1. [Group primacy]: See, again, the Bush Doctrine. An extension of this sentiment is at play among those jingoes who argue that Americans may need to sacrifice some of their civil rights -- say, free speech -- during wartime.
2. [Victim mentality]: This meme is clearly present in all the appeals to the victims of Sept. 11 as justifications for the war. It is present at nearly all levels of the debate: from the White House, from the media, even from the jingoist entertainment industry (see, e.g., the lyric of Darryl Worley's extraordinarily popular country-western hit, "Have You Forgotten?": "Some say this country's just out looking for a fight / Well after 9/11 man I'd have to say that's right.").
3. [Dread of liberal decadence]: This meme has been stock in trade of the talk-radio crowd since at least 1994 -- at one time it focused primarily on the person of Bill Clinton -- and has reached ferocious levels during the runup to the war and after it, during which antiwar leftists have regularly and remorselessly been accused of treason.
4. [Group integration] and 5. [Group identity as personal validation] are, of course, among the primary purposes of the campaign to demonize liberals -- to simultaneously build a cohesive brotherhood of like-minded "conservatives" who might not agree on the details but are united in their loathing of all things liberal. It plays out in such localized manifestations as the KVI Radio 570th On-Air Cavalry, which has made a habit of deliberately invading antiwar protests with the express purpose of disrupting them and breaking them up. Sometimes, as they did recently in Bellingham, this is done with caravans of big trucks blaring their horns; and they are also accompanied by threatening rhetoric and acts of physical intimidation. They haven't yet bonded in violence -- someone did phone in a threat to sniper-shoot protesters -- but they are rapidly headed in that direction.
6. [Authority of leaders]: This needs hardly any further explanation, except to note that George W. Bush is actually surprisingly uncharismatic for someone who inspires as much rabid loyalty as he does. But then, that is part of the purpose of Bush's PR campaign stressing that he receives "divine guidance" -- it assures in his supporters' mind the notion that he is carrying out God's destiny for the nation, and for the conservative movement in particular.
7. [An aesthetic of violence]: One again needs only turn to the voluminous jingoes of Fox News or the jubilant warbloggers to find abundant examples of celebrations of the virtues -- many of them evidently aesthetic -- of the evidently just-completed war.

I would like to stress that similar processes occurred in different states after WWII as well (Latin America military dictatorships are one example). And with new force and on the new level after the dissolution of the USSR in Russia.  Of course the USSR was a National Security Surveillance State even before WWII, being one of the "pioneers" of this form of state along with Italy and Germany. But it was a rather "primitive" form of national security state  in a sense that it did not rely on computers, collecting "envelope" of all Internet communication, emails headers and other "meta-data" as well as systematic interception of SMS-based communications as well interception of wireless communication and financial operations via computerized banking (especially credit card transactions)  for surveillance.

Rule of Trumanites as the essence of the US National security state -- Boston Globe review of Michael Glennon book

Mickey Edwards, who served in Congress from 1977 to 1993, and is the author of “The Parties Versus the People: How to Turn Republicans and Democrats Into Americans.” published a very penetrating review of the book in  The Boston Globe. In which he stated:

It has long been the province of conspiracy theorists to claim that the real power of government is not wielded by the obvious practitioners of statecraft — presidents, members of Congress, the judiciary — but by secret or semi-secret entities, real wizards whose hidden machinations send us to war, sell us out to enemies, siphon public treasure into private hands. Depending on your talk show or paranoia of choice, these are the bankers, oil barons, one-worlders, war profiteers, Bilderbergers, Masons, Catholics, Jews, or Trilateralists. Our formal institutions, in this scenario, are stage sets, Potemkin villages; our officials are puppets; we are an unsuspecting audience.

Michael Glennon, a respected academic (Tufts’s FLETCHER SCHOOL) and author of a book brought to us by an equally respected publisher (Oxford University Press), is hardly the sort to indulge in such fantasies. And that makes the picture he paints in “National Security and Double Government” all the more arresting. Considering Barack Obama’s harsh pre-election criticisms of his predecessor’s surveillance policies, for example, Glennon notes that many of those same policies — and more of the same kind — were continued after Obama took office. “Why,” he asks, “does national security policy remain constant even when one President is replaced by another, who as a candidate repeatedly, forcefully, and eloquently promised fundamental changes in that policy?”

The answer Glennon places before us is not reassuring: “a bifurcated system — a structure of double government — in which even the President now exercises little substantive control over the overall direction of US national security policy.” The result, he writes, is a system of dual institutions that have evolved “toward greater centralization, less accountability, and emergent autocracy.”

If this were a movie, it would soon become clear that some evil force, bent on consolidating power and undermining democratic governance, has surreptitiously tunneled into the under-structure of the nation. Not so. In fact, Glennon observes, this hyper-secret and difficult-to-control network arose in part as an attempt to head off just such an outcome. In the aftermath of World War II, with the Soviet Union a serious threat from abroad and a growing domestic concern about weakened civilian control over the military (in 1949, the Hoover Commission had warned that the Joint Chiefs of Staff had become “virtually a law unto themselves”), President Truman set out to create a separate national security structure.

By 2011, according to The Washington Post, there were 46 separate federal departments and agencies and 2,000 private companies engaged in classified national security operations with millions of employees and spending of roughly a trillion dollars a year. As Glennon points out, presidents get to name fewer than 250 political appointees among the Defense Department’s nearly 700,000 civilian employees, with hundreds more drawn from a national security bureaucracy that comprise “America’s Trumanite network” — in effect, on matters of national security, a second government.

Glennon’s book is not a breezy read: It’s thick with fact and not unappreciative of conundrum (“The government is seen increasingly by elements of the public as hiding what they ought to know, criminalizing what they ought to be able to do, and spying upon what ought to be private. The people are seen increasingly by the government as unable to comprehend the gravity of security threats.”). Nor is he glib with proposed solutions: to adequately respond to the threats posed by a below-the-radar second government will require “a general public possessed of civic virtue,” which prompts Glennon to cite retired Supreme Court justice David Souter’s bemoaning of a “pervasive civic ignorance.” Not all of the problem can be laid at Truman’s feet. And if we ourselves are part of the zeitgeist that allows invisible governments to flourish, repair will be difficult. As Glennon puts it, “the term Orwellian will have little meaning to a people who have never known anything different, who have scant knowledge of history, civics, or public affairs, and who in any event have never heard of George Orwell.”

This is no secret conspiracy nor a plot to deprive Americans of their civil liberties. It is the unintended consequence of a thoughtful attempt to head off the very threats that those attempts have inadvertently created. But if Glennon’s book is enlightening it is also scary. And it’s not fiction.

Why National Security State needs provocations -- pseudo terrorist attacks (false flag attacks)

There are multiple reasons such as to instill fear, and to demonstrate competence (Big Brother’s Liberal Friends — Crooked Timber)

Dr. Hilarius, 10.27.14 at 11:44 pm
An excellent analysis and summation.

Any defense of the national security state requires the proponent to show, at a minimum, that the present apparatus is competent at its task. Having lived through Vietnam, the Gulf Wars, Iraq and Afghanistan (not to mention many smaller governmental adventures) I see no evidence of competence. Instead, it’s repetitive failures of analysis and imagination no matter how much raw intelligence is gathered.

Nor is there any evidence that existing oversight mechanisms function as intended. Recent revelations about the CIA spying on the Senate should be enough to dispel the idea that leakers have no role to play.

Kinsley is particularly loathsome. His position is little more than “your betters know best” and that the state’s critics are guttersnipes needing to be kicked to the curb. Kinsley doesn’t need a coherent position, his goal is to be a spokesman for the better sorts, nothing more...

Tremendous push (or acceleration of pre-existing tendencies) toward National Security State occurred after 9/11 under the banner of fighting terrorism. At the point technological capabilities of mass surveillance using computers and the ability to have a dossier for everybody were in place, while mass deployment of PC, credit cards and cell phones provides constant stream of information to those dossiers, not that different from "gum shoes" reports. On November, 2001 the phone records of most Americans begin flowing to the N.S.A. After 9/11, President Bush authorizes the N.S.A. to collect phone and Internet content and metadata without a warrant. Within weeks, under the so-called President’s Surveillance Program (P.S.P.), the major telephone companies voluntarily hand over the data. The N.S.A. creates a twenty-four-hour “Metadata Analysis Center” (MAC) to search the phone records. In October 26, 2001: The Patriot Act is passed. Section 215 allows the government to seize “any tangible things (including books, records, papers, documents, and other items) for an investigation to protect against international terrorism or clandestine intelligence activities.”

At this point the process started with adoption of Truman doctrine came to a logical end: national surveillance state became a reality. Formally Truman Doctrine was created "to support free peoples who are resisting attempted subjugation by armed minorities or by outside pressures." but in reality their function was more questionable and after 9/11 (some people date this event as early as 1963 -- JFK assassination) those activities created what is called "The State Within a State" similar to the USSR KGB role (see The State Within a State by Yevgenia Albats and Catherine A. Fitzpatrick). Here is one review of the book:

A Customer

passionate albeit muddled, August 24, 1999

I have problems with the author's obvious hatred of the Russian Revolution and Stalin and the way she claims there is an unbroken chain of horror going all the way back to 1917. Obviously things are better today -- hence her book! She says 66.7 million people died under "Chekist" rule since the Russian Revolution -- and then cites the Guiness Book of Records as her source!? No one could ever prove such a figure, I think its one of things that's repeated 'til it becomes fact.

I also find the author's lack of knowledge about our own CIA kind of disheartening. This fine organization has spread as much death and terror in the Third World (Indonesia, Guatemala,Chile, Argentina, Brazil etc. etc. ) as the KGB ever did anywhere, yet she seems to make them out to be benevolent compared to the KGB (which if you read this book are responsible for everything wrong with the world today).

After reading this book I still don't understand why she thinks the KGB or its incarnations are as bad today as they were at the height of the Terror in 1937. Its not really explained in the book. I still am not convinced that the KGB was the NKVD, and definitely convinced that either was the SS. Research I have done casually has never come up with hard, convincing figures for a Nazi style genocide in the USSR, and this anecdotal, unconvincing book didn't change my historical views.

See Michael J. Hogan, A Cross of Iron: Harry S. Truman and the Origins of the National Security State, 1945-1954. New York: Cambridge University Press, 1998; which "explains the transformative process that ended in the ultimate demise of the New Deal state with its emphasis on social spending and ushered in the militarist National Security State." From Amazon review:

Hogan, a specialist in American diplomatic and national security studies, has written a complex but interesting work on the emergence of the national security state. To create this state, it was necessary to merge the armed forces, the Defense Department, and scientists into a single unit to enhance the military's capabilities. To a large extent, this unification was accomplished in the 1950s. The driving forces were James Forrestal, Dean Acheson, and powerful members of Congress such as Carl Vinson (D-GA), who chaired the Committee on Naval Affairs, along with presidents Truman and Eisenhower.

Hogan presents a compelling case but overemphasizes the importance of Truman and Eisenhower while downplaying the role of Vinson and others in the security state's creation. In fact, both Truman and Eisenhower often seemed opposed to it but succumbed to pressure from Congress and key figures like Acheson. This extremely complex study, which deals with a subject few other books handle, is designed for scholars and informed lay readers interested in the creation of the "military-industrial complex." by Richard P. Hedlund, Ashland Community Coll., KY

Former CIA officer Victor Marchetti in his book "Propaganda and Disinformation: How the CIA Manufactures History" noted:

"As I pointed out in the preface to The CIA and the Cult of Intelligence in 1974, democratic governments fighting totalitarian enemies run the risk of imitating their methods and thereby destroying democracy. By suppressing historical fact, and by manufacturing historical fiction, the CIA, with its obsessive secrecy and its vast resources, has posed a particular threat to the right of Americans to be informed for the present and future by an objective knowledge of the past.

As long as the CIA continues to manipulate history, historians of its activities must be Revisionist if we are to know the truth about the agency's activities, past and present."

Attempts to curtain the surveillance proved to by fruitless.  Church Committee was probably the most important "after JFK assassination" attempt to somewhat tame three latter agencies and especially CIA, but it ended in nothing.

Later NSA overtook CIA in many areas of intelligence gathering activities. Which create internal frictions between two agencies. State Department also "infringed" in CIA role in foreign countries and, for example, in organization of neoliberal color revolutions in oil rich or strategically important countries it is difficult to tell when clandestine actions of State Department ends and clandestine actions of CIA stars and vice versa. 

In is interesting to note that even Senators feel threatened by this total surveillance system. In December 14, 2005 Senators Barack Obama, Chuck Hagel, John Kerry, Richard Durbin, and several colleagues sign a letter warning that Section 215 “would allow the government to obtain library, medical and gun records and other sensitive personal information” that “would allow government fishing expeditions targeting innocent Americans.” They demand that the records requested should “have some connection to a suspected terrorist or spy,” a requirement that would

protect innocent Americans from unnecessary surveillance and ensure that government scrutiny is based on individualized suspicion, a fundamental principle of our legal system.

In March, 2006, the Patriot Act is reauthorized without the changes sought by Obama and others.

In his October 19, 2012 review of the book Saman Mohammadi (The Excavator) wrote:

The case could be made that the creation of the CIA and the National Security State in 1947 was necessary. But after sixty years of human rights abuses, systematic attacks on the constitution, false flag terror events, assassinations of political reformers, and other horrible crimes against humanity, should not the CIA be reformed?

Let's put the question of morality aside. What are the "national security" reasons that legitimize the existence of the CIA? Once you learn that Al-Qaeda is a CIA creation and proxy insurgent army and that 9/11 was a massive false flag operation, you come to the natural conclusion that the CIA does not perform a national security role.

The CIA plays a much dirtier role: engineering the American mind. It is not denied that the shadow CIA has major influence in the mainstream media, especially amongst top newspapers such as The Washington Post and The New York Times. Michael S. Rozeff speculates that the New York Times is entirely run by the CIA.

We can't know for certain if that is true because of the lack of historical documentation in the public domain, but there is a mountain of observable evidence that proves the CIA has many of its spooks working for the New York Times. Go here for just one example.

Until the American people demand that the U.S. government commit to radical transparency and the principles enshrined in the U.S. constitution, the shadow CIA and the mainstream media can twist history and manage public perceptions of reality as much as they like.

The shadow CIA's greatest power comes from its command of the American public mind as well as its ability to create a fictional version of history. The false flag September 11 events was the shadow CIA's biggest media operation to date. It was their Mona Lisa. They painted the canvas of reality with the brush of myth, and worked day and night to shape the collective memory of the American people while the horror of the tragic attacks was still fresh in the nation's mind.

Although the shadow CIA doesn't have a total command of the American mind and of history, as proven by the rise of the global 9/11 truth and justice movement, it possesses enough media power to mold world public opinion and dictate government policy for the United States with ease. There is no question that its power is totalitarian in nature and its aims are evil. It does not serve the interests of the American people; that much is clear.

How can there be freedom when CIA officials in television studios, newspaper offices, and publishing companies drive the public conversation and form the national narrative on every issue of significance. The global alternative media is the only global civil society actor that is putting limits on the CIA's power to make up history and suppress the truth about historical events like 9/11 and the occult sacrifice of JFK.

In the past, the shadow CIA was presented with roadblocks in the Congress. But 9/11 fixed that problem. The laws and the politics changed. In "The Big Chill," author Dan Froomkin says the absence of Congressional leadership in the post-9/11 political universe has strengthened executive power. Here is an excerpt his article:

After past periods of executive excess, the Fourth Estate was certainly more robust and arguably more persistent, but it also found natural allies in the other branches of government—particularly Congress. By contrast, over the summer of 2012, the publication of a minimal amount of new information regarding drones, cyberwarfare and targeted killings incited bipartisan agreement on Capitol Hill—not to conduct hearings into what had been revealed, but to demand criminal investigations into the leaking.

That's how Congress has been ever since the terrorist attacks 11 years ago. "We never got our post 9/11 Church Committee," said Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists's Project on Government Secrecy, referring to a special investigative Senate committee that held hearings on widespread intelligence abuses after the Watergate scandal. "What we've got instead is the intelligence oversight committee drafting legislation to penalize leaks."

Since the Congress is not willing to stand up for the rights of the American people, the truth, human rights, and the U.S. Constitution, then the American people and global civil society must stand up. Congress has no real power. According to a recent Rasmussen survey, Congress only has an eight percent approval rating. There are underground, neo-Nazi groups in Europe that are more popular than the Congress.

The mainstream media is no better. It is content with its role as a propaganda arm of the shadow CIA, and that is a tragedy. American newspapers have the power to improve their nation and change the world for the better, but instead they choose to cover up independent investigations of shady events like 9/11 that shed light on how the U.S. government really operates.

Alternative media outlets like Infowars.com, Veterans Today, Lew Rockwell.com, Washington's Blog, The Corbett Report, and countless others are doing the best they can to educate the American people and wake up humanity.

The last thing the shadow CIA wants to see is an informed and awakened America. It is waging a silent war on human consciousness because it is scared of an enlightened world. A world that is awake and aware of its crimes against humanity is its greatest nightmare.

If the shadow CIA has its way, it will continue inventing stories and passing it off as history with total immunity. But the global alternative media is telling the shadow CIA: Enough is enough, stop lying to the American people and the world.

The CIA's reckless disregard of U.S. traditions and laws made former President Harry Truman rethink his decision to create the CIA in the first place. On December 22, 1963, Truman wrote in The Washington Post:

For some time I have been disturbed by the way the CIA has been diverted from its original assignment. It has become an operational and at times a policy-making arm of the Government. This has led to trouble and may have compounded our difficulties in several explosive areas. I never had any thought that when I set up the CIA that it would be injected into peacetime cloak and dagger operations.

On August 17, 1975 Senator Frank Church stated on NBC's Meet the Press without mentioning the name of the NSA about this agency (Wikipedia):

In the need to develop a capacity to know what potential enemies are doing, the United States government has perfected a technological capability that enables us to monitor the messages that go through the air. Now, that is necessary and important to the United States as we look abroad at enemies or potential enemies. We must know, at the same time, that capability at any time could be turned around on the American people, and no American would have any privacy left such is the capability to monitor everything—telephone conversations, telegrams, it doesn’t matter. There would be no place to hide.

If this government ever became a tyrant, if a dictator ever took charge in this country, the technological capacity that the intelligence community has given the government could enable it to impose total tyranny, and there would be no way to fight back because the most careful effort to combine together in resistance to the government, no matter how privately it was done, is within the reach of the government to know. Such is the capability of this technology.

I don’t want to see this country ever go across the bridge. I know the capacity that is there to make tyranny total in America, and we must see to it that this agency and all agencies that possess this technology operate within the law and under proper supervision so that we never cross over that abyss. That is the abyss from which there is no return.[11]

Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer list of features of National security state

In his book "Brave New World Order" (Orbis Books, 1992, paper), Jack Nelson-Pallmeyer argues that the Bush I war in Iraq (as well as Bush II invasion and occupation of the country) was an action of the military industrial complex usurping the "peace dividend". Iraq was attractive target as it has oil and far enough away to prove a good vehicle for eating up contract cash. He views the rise of the National Security Defense State as a consequence of "the threat of peace" for military industrial complex and identifies seven characteristics of a such a state:

  1. The military is the highest authority. In a National Security State the military not only guarantees the security of the state against all internal and external enemies, it has enough power to determine the overall direction of the society. In a National Security State the military exerts important influence over political, economic, as well as military affairs.
  2. Political democracy and democratic elections are viewed with suspicion, contempt, or in terms of political expediency. National Security States often maintain an appearance of democracy. However, ultimate power rests with the military or within a broader National Security Establishment.
  3. The military and related sectors wield substantial political and economic power. They do so in the context of an ideology which stresses that 'freedom" and "development" are possible only when capital is concentrated in the hands of elites.
  4. Obsession with enemies. There are enemies of the state everywhere. Defending against external and/or internal enemies becomes a leading preoccupation of the state, a distorting factor in the economy, and a major source of national identity and purpose.
  5. The working assumption is that the enemies of the state are cunning and ruthless. Therefore, any means used to destroy or control these enemies is justified.
  6. It restricts public debate and limits popular participation through secrecy or intimidation. Authentic democracy depends on participation of the people. National Security States limit such participation in a number of ways: They sow fear and thereby narrow the range of public debate; they restrict and distort information; and they define policies in secret and implement those policies through covert channels and clandestine activities. The state justifies such actions through rhetorical pleas of "higher purpose" and vague appeals to "national security."
  7. The church is expected to mobilize its financial, ideological, and theological resources in service to the National Security State.
Now we can add one additional feature
  1. Total surveillance

Compare that definition of the National Security State with the definition of Inverted Totalitarism. Most countries now have features of both.

The debate about National Security State reemerged in June 2008 due to revelations make about existence of the Prism program and similar program by British security services. For example, Jacob Augstein used the term "Obama's Soft Totalitarianism" in his article Europe Must Stand Up to American Cyber-Snooping published by SPIEGEL.

Here is an interesting comment of user MelFarrellSr in The Guardian discussion of the article NSA analysts 'willfully violated' surveillance systems, agency admits (August 24, 2013):

Here's the thing about the NSA, the GCHQ, Yahoo, Google, Microsoft, et al...

We all have to stop commenting as if the NSA and the GCHQ are in this thing on their own; the reality is that no one was supposed to know one iota about any of these programs; the NSA and the GCHQ began and put in place the structure that would allow all internet service providers, and indeed all corporations using the net, the ability to track and profile each and every user on the planet, whether they be using the net, texting, cell, and landline.

We all now know that Google, Yahoo, and the rest, likely including major retailers, and perhaps not so major retailers, are all getting paid by the United States government, hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer money, our money, to profile 24/7 each and every one of us..., they know how we think, our desires, our sexual preferences, our religious persuasion, what we spend, etc.; make no mistake about it, they know it all, and what they don’t currently have, they will very soon…

These agencies and indeed all those who are paid by them, will be engaged over the next few weeks in a unified program of "perception management" meaning that they will together come up with an all-encompassing plan that will include the release of all manner of statements attesting to the enforcement of several different disciplinary actions against whomever for "illegal" breaches of policy...

They may even bring criminal actions against a few poor unfortunate souls who had no idea they would be sacrificed as one part of the "perception management" game.

Has anyone wondered why, to date, no one in power has really come out and suggested that the program must be curtailed to limit its application to terrorism and terrorist types?

Here’s why; I was fortunate recently to have given an education on how networks such as Prism, really work, aside from the rudimentary details given in many publications. They cannot, and will not, stop monitoring even one individuals activity, because to do so will eventually cause loss of the ability to effectively monitor as many as 2.5 Million individuals.

Remember the “Two to Three Hop” scenario, which the idiot in one of the hearings inadvertently spoke of; therein lies the answer. If the average person called 40 unique people, three-hop analysis would allow the government to mine the records of 2.5 million Americans Do the math; Internet usage in the United States as of June 30, 2012 reached a total of over 245,000,000 million…

The following link shows how connected the world is… http://www.internetworldstats.com/stats2.htm

We should never forget how the Internet began, and who developed it, the United States Armed Forces; initially it was known as Arpanet, see excerpt and link below…

"The Internet may fairly be regarded as a never-ending worldwide conversation." - Supreme Court Judge statement on considering first amendment rights for Internet users.

"On a cold war kind of day, in swinging 1969, work began on the ARPAnet, grandfather to the Internet. Designed as a computer version of the nuclear bomb shelter, ARPAnet protected the flow of information between military installations by creating a network of geographically separated computers that could exchange information via a newly developed protocol (rule for how computers interact) called NCP (Network Control Protocol).”

http://inventors.about.com/library/weekly/aa091598.htm

There is no government anywhere on the planet that will give up any part of the program…, not without one hell of a fight...

Incidentally, they do hope and believe that everyone will come to the same conclusion; they will keep all of us at bay for however long it takes; they have the money, they have the time, and they economically control all of us...

Pretty good bet they win...

Whether the United States stands within the order of international law or outside it ?

The book American Exceptionalism and Human Rights (edited by Ignatieff) raised an important and probably the most controversial question in world politics: whether the United States stands within the order of international law or outside it.

Following are based on the article by Laurence W. Britt published in Free Inquiry magazine

To a secular humanist, the principles of international law seems logical, right, and crucial. Yet, there is one archetypal political philosophy that is anathema to almost all of these principles. It is fascism. And fascism’s principles are wafting in the air today, surreptitiously masquerading as something else, challenging everything we stand for. The cliché that people and nations learn from history is not only overused, but also overestimated; often we fail to learn from history, or draw the wrong conclusions. Sadly, historical amnesia is the norm.

We are two-and-a-half generations removed from the horrors of Nazi Germany, although constant reminders jog the consciousness. German and Italian fascism form the historical models that define this twisted political worldview. Although they no longer exist, this worldview and the characteristics of these models have been imitated by protofascist regimes at various times in the twentieth century. Both the original German and Italian models and the later protofascist regimes show remarkably similar characteristics. Although many scholars question any direct connection among these regimes, few can dispute their visual similarities.

Beyond the visual, even a cursory study of these fascist and protofascist regimes reveals the absolutely striking convergence of their modus operandi. This, of course, is not a revelation to the informed political observer, but it is sometimes useful in the interests of perspective to restate obvious facts and in so doing shed needed light on current circumstances.

The following regimes can be studies in this respect: Nazi Germany, Fascist Italy, Franco’s Spain, Salazar’s Portugal, Papadopoulos’s Greece, Pinochet’s Chile, and Suharto’s Indonesia. They constitute a mixed bag of national identities, cultures, developmental levels, and history. But they all followed the fascist or protofascist model in obtaining, expanding, and maintaining power. Further, all these regimes have been overthrown, so a more or less complete picture of their basic characteristics and abuses is possible. Analysis of these seven regimes reveals fourteen common threads that link them in recognizable patterns of national behavior and abuse of power. These basic characteristics are more prevalent and intense in some regimes than in others, but they all share at least some level of similarity.

One can wonder how many of those are applicable to Bush/McCain. What do you think ?
  1. Propaganda of nationalism and Exceptionalism ("shining city on the hill", beckon of democracy, etc). Prominent displays of flags and ubiquitous lapel pins. The fervor to show patriotic nationalism, both on the part of the regime itself and of citizens caught up in its frenzy. Pride in the military, and demands for unity are way of expressing this nationalism. It was usually coupled with a level of suspicion of things foreign that often bordered on xenophobia (French fries - Freedom fries).

  2. Disdain for the importance of human rights. Despite "freedom rhetorics" the party views human rights as of little value and a hindrance to realizing the objectives of the ruling elite. Through clever use of propaganda, the population was brought to accept these human rights abuses by marginalizing, even demonizing, those being targeted. When abuse was egregious and truth about gulags is out, the tactic was to use secrecy, denial, and disinformation.

  3. Identification of enemies/scapegoats as a unifying cause. The use of scapegoating as a means to divert the people’s attention from other problems, to shift blame for failures, and to channel frustration in controlled directions. The methods of choice—relentless propaganda and disinformation—were usually effective. Often the parties would incite “spontaneous” acts against the target scapegoats, such as Muslims, communists/socialists/liberals, ethnic and racial minorities, traditional national enemies, members of other religions, secularists, homosexuals, and “terrorists.” Opponents of these party were inevitably labeled as terrorists stooges and dealt with accordingly.

  4. The supremacy of the military/avid militarism. Ruling elites identified closely with the military. A disproportionate share of national budget is allocated to the military, even when domestic needs were acute. The military was seen as an ultimate expression of nationalism, and was used whenever possible to assert national goals, intimidate other nations, and increase the power and prestige of the ruling elite.

  5. Sexism. Beyond the simple fact that the political elite and the national culture were male-dominated, the party covertly views women as second-class citizens. Often are both anti-abortion and homophobic with the cover of religious values. For propaganda reasons those attitudes were masterfully blended into strong support of the fundamentalist religious sects, thus lending the party some legitimacy to cover for its abuses.

  6. A controlled mass media. The mass media could be relied upon never to stray from the party line. Control can be indirect and subtle with formal adoption of slogan about "free media". Methods included the control of licensing, access to resources, economic pressure, appeals to patriotism, and implied threats. The leaders and owners of the mass media are part of the power elite. The result is rampant brainwashing, which usually success in keeping the general public unaware of the party's excesses.

  7. Obsession with national security. A national security apparatus is bend to come under direct control of the ruling elite. It is used to bypass laws as a direct instrument of oppression, operating in secret and beyond any constraints. Its actions were justified under the rubric of protecting “national security,” and questioning its activities was portrayed as unpatriotic or even treasonous.

  8. Abuse of religion. The party attaches itself to the dominant religion of the country and chose to portray themselves as militant defenders of religious values. The fact that the ruling elite’s behavior was incompatible with those values is swept under the rug. Propaganda kept up the illusion that the ruling elites were defenders of the faith and opponents are “godless.” A perception was manufactured that opposing the party is tantamount to an attack on religion.

  9. Power of corporations protected. Although the personal life of ordinary citizens was under strict control, the ability of large corporations to operate in relative freedom was not compromised. The ruling elite saw the corporate structure as a way to not only ensure military production (in developed states), but also as an additional means of social control. Members of the economic elite were often pampered by the political elite to ensure a continued mutuality of interests, especially in the repression of “have-not” citizens.

  10. Power of organized labor suppressed or eliminated. Since organized labor was seen as the one power center that could challenge the political hegemony of the ruling elite and its corporate allies, it was inevitably crushed or made powerless. The poor formed an underclass, viewed with suspicion or outright contempt. Being poor was considered akin to a vice.

  11. Disdain and suppression of intellectuals. Intellectuals and the inherent freedom of ideas and expression associated with them were anathema to these party. Intellectual and academic freedom were considered subversive to national security and the patriotic ideal. Universities professors come under close scrutiny; politically unreliable faculty harassed or eliminated. Unorthodox ideas or scientific theories, especially economic, are strongly attacked, silenced, or crushed.

  12. Obsession with crime and punishment. Draconian systems of criminal justice with huge prison populations. The police is often glorified and had almost unchecked power, leading to rampant abuse. Criminal charges sometimes are used against political opponents. Fear, and hatred, of criminals or “traitors” was often promoted among the population as an excuse for more police power.

  13. Rampant cronyism and corruption. Those in business circles and close to the power elite often used their position to enrich themselves. This corruption worked both ways; the power elite would receive financial gifts and property from the economic elite, who in turn would gain the benefit of government favoritism. With the national security apparatus under control and the media muzzled, this corruption was largely unconstrained and not well understood by the general population.

  14. Fraudulent elections. Elections in the form of two candidates representing the same power elite are usually bogus. When actual elections with candidates were held, they would usually be perverted by the power elite to get the desired result. Common methods included maintaining control of the election machinery, intimidating and disenfranchising opposition voters, suppressing responsibilities for legal votes, and, as a last resort, turning to a judiciary beholden to the power elite.

Does any of this ring alarm bells? Of course not. After all, this is America, officially a democracy with the rule of law, a constitution, a free press, honest elections, and a well-informed public constantly being put on guard against evils. Historical comparisons like these are just exercises in verbal gymnastics. Maybe, maybe not.

Edward Snowden quotes about National Security State

The most recent debate about the legitimacy of national security state as exists in the USA was sparked by Edward Snowden revelations. The following are 27 quotes from Edward Snowden about National Security State modus operandi  might send a chill up your spine...


Top Visited
Switchboard
Latest
Past week
Past month

NEWS CONTENTS

Old News ;-)

National Security State

National Security State Bulletin, 2017 National Security State Bulletin, 2016 National Security State Bulletin, 2015

[Jun 18, 2018] The next year the strategic position of Ukraine might get worse

Jun 18, 2018 | www.unz.com

Beckow , June 16, 2018 at 12:24 am GMT

If Kiev wants to attack Donbas they better hurry. After World Cup, and definitely next year when the pipelines bypassing Ukraine will be ready, Ukraine's strategic situation will get worse. We are in a transition phase: sh..t happened in 2013-15 that is impossible to undo, but there were fortunately constraints on all sides that prevented a meltdown. In a year or two most of those constraints will be gone.

Saker is correct that EU countries will not work with Russia. Blaming it all on Washington was always stupid – there are forces in Europe, in all countries, who want a confrontation with Russia. Any event, real or fake, will be used to escalate. West cannot lose this one without another fight. And if they sit on their hands, they will eventually lose with a disillusioned Ukraine and slowly disintegrating EU. Populist energy needs to be re-directed eastward, and for that a more aggressive policy is required. This is not pessimism, there simply is no way for EU elite to climb down. How could UK make up with Russia without looking like complete idiots? Or Macron and Merkel? The hostility is at this point inherent in the situation – what started out as a badly thought-out attempt to get some quick goodies (bases in Crimea, Nato expansion, sell weapons) has evolved into a real death spiral.

We are one Franz Ferdinand moment away from a catastrophe. Let's enjoy the games while we still can. Trump knows this, so he is trying desperately to organize a summit or send some messages of conciliation. But he is powerless and it might be too late for that. Hubris never dissipates, it requires a disaster and an elite turnover to cure hubris.

Mattheus , June 16, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT
Saker is once again completely wrong. His theories fall short to explain lots of real events. He got hooked on his "Anglo-Zionist" theory and "one Hegemon", which is far from explaining the reality on the ground. There is no one single hegemon, but two powerful interest groups in the west. One of the power centers is dominated by the Rothschilds from the City of London and the other ruled by the Rockerfellers which is based in the US.
The powers described above are sometimes working in collusion but sometimes work against each other (They were in collusion during the Soviet Afghan war for instance). Currently, we don't see a collusion but a war being waged in between these two groups. I think it is highly self evident, so much so that it is happening almost all in the open. In the modern history we haven't witnessed such a openly fought war ever before (between these two powers). All is at stake and the war in between these two is vicious. Thus you can explain Trump's attitude towards EU, everlasting character assasination of Trump by certain opposing circles in the US, high level resignations, the state of confusion of Nato and much more. If this theory is right (and I think it is much more viable than any other theory that I came across in the Alt-Med), this makes Russia firmly embedded into one of the camps. Unfortunately, the position that Russia took makes him not a sovereign power but on contrary puts him into a subservient role. The late actions of Russia, especially in Syria, is quite telling. I know people who admire Russia get quite frustrated when they hear such a scenario and outcome, but this is possibly the only way Putin believes that Russia can survive. Thus it explains his latest house clean-up of Euroasian integrists. Even worse, if you believe in this scenario, it brings Russia and China against each other especially in the long run. This scenario also put a full stop to the idealist Euroasian multi-polar world order.
Here is the link to an older video in Russian with English subtitles. The guy's name is Andrei Fursov and he has some interesting things to say regarding this subject. This interview was just before Obama was elected but is still quite relevent. His newer videos seems to have lost steam, possibly because he is working for some state connected Russian institutions and think-thanks and thus I think he is somewhat restricted. After all it is again the famous "Game Theory", isn't it?
byrresheim , June 16, 2018 at 6:39 pm GMT
As long as the Author keeps talking about Ukronazis, we know that he is not at all prepared to see any problems on the Russian side at all.

Which serves devalue his argument, even if there are a lot of valid points otherwise.

Beckow , June 17, 2018 at 1:39 am GMT
@Philip Owen

I don't think you realize that armies need supplies. To break into Donbas cities would be hard enough, but to re-supply them would be impossible. Civilians would mostly evacuate, so there would be little to 'hide in'. Kiev cannot win militarily as long as Russia opposes it. Russia can always blast their bases from air, or with missiles. Don't kid yourself, if Russia has the will, they will prevail.

Since you mentioned 2014, there was a perfect opportunity for Maidanistas to avoid this. All they had to do was to be friendly and accommodating to its Russian minority. Offer them autonomy, re-assure them, promise that trade and ties with Russia would continue. Kiev did the exact opposite, an extremely bad tactic. US kept on telling them to cool it, that one doesn't win by attacking before ready. But in Kiev emotions prevailed, and so we are where we are.

Sooner or later a more accommodating government in Kiev will try the 'let bygones be bygones' tactic on Russia. If we are lucky enough to make it that far.

[Jun 17, 2018] As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of above, he must somehow understand (Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global

Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

m___ , June 17, 2018 at 9:24 am GMT

@mikkkkas

Dramatic shift in analysis of Saker,

As yours truly, we noticed the drastic shift as to pointing to supranational guidance of international political events. As for his mention, blaming Trump and Netanyahu to be suppreme leaders and deciders, we see them rather as spokespersons, blowing and hissing publicly the script of what Saker calls the Anglo-Jewish maffia, the only subgroup that sorted for quality, not quantity in strategy(global evidently and necessarily) and membership for in-group only benefit. Elitist, subjectively better organized than any entity other, territorially mostly independent in case of emergency, and moral conviction based on historical Judaist values, strategies and tactics. Play all sides and stay invisible.

Below the prudent lines of Saker quoted.

The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission.

As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of above, he must somehow understand (Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global, and Russian nationalism, or international expansion based on Russian nationalism are just a political tool to rally bulk humanity. Very similar to the palm oil, corn syrup and digital porn obese consumerism of the West promotion. At most bickering and infighting can be done by visible actors as Putin, Trump, Xi (affected indirectly), but there must be a scenario, and war cannot be anything more then policing.

To be noticed, that it pleads for Saker's intellectualism to correct and even reverse, after due analysis his opinions unlike a Tom Engelhardt(at that qualitative rather inferior). No "to big to fail" here. Let's wait and see, how Saker's intuition can take him into quantitative analysis of what moves beyond and against nationalist and EU, US, Russia, China dialectics. The old adagio of the information age: networks, was historically present in International Jewry. One can be a policeman, be a thief, but foremost one is a Jew.

Honest writing of Saker.

How good are these supranational, corporatacracy (another commenter), "globally organized elites" groups with better cohesion? To our definite impression, not good enough, though way above the bulk of humanity and most of the middle class media comprehension. Two singular dramas of our age, that will decide the twenty-first century. Better and not good enough. Only to be arrested by bringing in AI, eugenetics, rebranding goals and focus. It is in itself a pocket drama repeated over and over that analysis is mostly litterary, never relies on the best of information, is fragmented. Even today indexing big data lumps could solve this partly. Alternative media in the first place apply the same archaic methods while better tools are available. That said unz.com is above the fray in focussing and searching methods. It should spark some hidden outliers glued into the bulk of the deplorables by individual fate.

War-ing and economics, the epistomology of politics, the focus of daily news, should be seen as consequences, not prime causes of attention. In the end they impose toxicity, migrations, excess population densities, excess total human numbers. The goal itself of humanity should be reasserted as quality of life for all standing and future humans. Then strategy and tactics derive from there. Why? Well the same supra national elites, the only ones that can take on the essentials tend to forget they are frogging in the same tub, that nature probably using more disruptive method will take care of the human plague if not.

[Jun 17, 2018] the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia

Highly recommended!
Notable quotes:
"... There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid. ..."
"... There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on. ..."
"... After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. ..."
Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

renfro

Saker is correct that EU countries will not work with Russia. Blaming it all on Washington was always stupid
Bullshit. ...try to keep up with whats actually happening.

U.S. Is Trying to Kill Major Gas Deal Between Russia and Germany
By Tom O'Connor On 5/18/18 at 2:41 PM
http://www.newsweek.com/us-trying-kill-major-gas-deal-between-russia-germany-934603

The U.S. has warned both Russia and Germany against pursuing a planned gas pipeline that would run between the two countries, threatening to impose sanctions and claiming the project would threaten the security of its European allies.

Construction has recently begun for the Nord Stream 2 project, a planned pipeline that would extend from Russia along an existing pipeline through the Baltic Sea into northeastern Germany. Once finished, Nord Stream 2 would reportedly double the amount of gas that Russia could provide Europe. State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Sandra Oudkirk told reporters in Berlin Thursday that the project could bolster Russia's "malign influence" in the region and that Washington was "exerting as much persuasive power" as it could to stop it, according to the Associated Press.

Europe in diplomatic push to ease Russia sanctions | Financial Times

https://www.ft.com/content/9b9bbd3c-44a5-11e8-93cf-67ac3a6482fdApr 20, 2018 - A Europe-wide diplomatic push is under way to persuade the Trump administration to ease US sanctions targeting Russia, as fears mount that ...

Beckow , June 17, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT

We are talking apples and oranges. EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export to Russia as much as possible without interference from US. That is pure business. But the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed by the security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed in US or UK. Some because that's just the way they are.

There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.

There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on.

After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again.

My advise to Russia would be to mind its own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always backfired because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in general. Business doesn't change that.

[Jun 17, 2018] Can the EU become a partner for Russia by The Saker

Notable quotes:
"... comprador elite ..."
"... The bottom line is this: currently, the EU is most unlikely to become a viable partner for Russia and the future does look rather bleak. ..."
"... They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense ..."
"... either Russia is a sovereign country, or there is no Russia ..."
Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

... ... ...

First, there is no "EU", at least not in political terms . More crucially, there is no "EU foreign policy". Yes, there are EU member states, who have political leaders, there is a big business community in the EU and there are many EU organizations, but as such, the "EU" does not exist, especially not in terms of foreign policy. The best proof of that is how clueless the so-called "EU" has been in the Ukraine, then with the anti-Russian sanctions, in dealing with an invasion of illegal immigrants, and now with Trump. At best, the EU can be considered a US protectorate/colony, with some subjects "more equal than others" (say, the UK versus Greece). Most (all?) EU member states are abjectly obedient to the US, and this is no surprise considering that even the so-called "EU leader" or "EU heavyweight" – Germany – only has very limited sovereignty. The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the opinions and interests of the people of Europe. The undeniable fact is that the so-called "EU foreign policy" has gone against the vital interests of the people of Europe for decades and that phenomenon is only getting worse.

Second, the single most powerful and unified organization in Europe is not even an EU organization, but NATO. And NATO, in real terms, is no less than 80% US . Forget about those fierce looking European armies, they are all a joke. Not only do they represent no credible force (being too small, too poorly trained, under-equipped and poorly commanded), but they are completely dependent on the US for a long list of critical capabilities and " force multipliers ": command, control, communications, intelligence, networking, surveillance, reconnaissance, target acquisition, logistics, etc. Furthermore, in terms of training, force planning, weapon systems procurement, deployment and maintenance, EU states are also totally dependent on the US. The reason? The US military budget totally dwarfs anything individual EU states can spend, so they all depend on Uncle Sam. Of sure, the NATO figurehead – the Secretary General – is usually a non-entity which makes loud statements and is European (I think of that clown Stoltenberg as the prefect example), but NATO is not run by the NATO Secretary General. In reality, it is run by the Supreme Allied Commander Europe (SACEUR), who is the head of the Supreme Headquarters Allied Powers Europe (SHAPE) and these guys are as red, white and blue as it gets. Forget about the "Eurocorps" or any other so-called "European armies" – it's all hot air, like Trudeau's recent outburst at Trump. In reality in the EU, as in Canada, they all know who is boss. And here is the single most important fact: NATO desperately needs Russia as justification for its own existence: if relations with Russia improve, then NATO would have no more reason to exist. Do you really think that anybody will let that happen? I sure don't! And right now, the Europeans are busy asking for more US troops on their soil, not less and they are all pretending to be terrified by a Russian invasion , hence the need for more and bigger military exercises close to the Russian border . And just to cover all its bases, NATO is now gradually expanding into Latin America .

Third, there is a long list of EU governments which vitally need further bad relationships with Russia . They include:

  1. Unpopular governments which need to explain their own failures by the nefarious actions of an external bogyman . A good example is how the Spanish authorities blamed Russia for the crisis in Catalonia. Or the British with their "Brexit". The Swedes are doing even better, they are already preparing their public opinion for a "Russian interference" in case the election results don't turn out to be what they need.
  2. Governments whose rhetoric has been so hysterically anti-Russian that they cannot possibly back down from it. Best examples: the UK and Merkel. But since most (but not all) EU states did act on the Skripal false-flag on the basis of the British "highly likely" and in the name of "solidarity", they are now all stuck as accomplices of this policy. There is no way they are simply going to admit that they were conned by the Brits.
  3. EU prostitutes : states whose only policy is to serve the US against Russia. These states compete against each other in the most abject way to see who can out-brown-nose each other for the position of "most faithful and willing loyal servant of the US". The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets, but the #1 position has to go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be militarily occupied (even though the very same Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for billions of dollars ). True, now that EU subsidies are running out, the situation of these states is becoming even more dire, and they know that the only place where they can still get money is the US. So don't expect them to change their tune anytime soon (even if Bulgaria has already realized that nobody in the West gives a damn about it ).
  4. Governments who want to crack down on internal dissent by accusing any patriotic or independent political party/movement to be "paid by the Kremlin" and representing Russian interests. The best example is France and how it treated the National Front. I would argue that most EU states are, in one way or another, working on creating a "national security state" because they do realize (correctly) that the European people are deeply frustrated and oppose EU policies (hence all the anti-EU referendums lost by the ruling elites).

Contrary to a very often repeated myth, European business interests do not represent a powerful anti-russophobic force . Why? Just look at Germany: for all the involvement of Germany (and Merkel personally) in the Ukraine, for all the stupid rhetoric about "Russia being an aggressor" which "does not comply with the Mink Agreements", North Stream is going ahead! Yes, money talks, and the truth is that while anti-Russian sanctions have cost Europe billions, the big financial interests (say the French company Total) have found ways to ignore/bypass these sanctions. Oh sure, there is a pro-trade lobby with Russian interest in Europe. It is real, but it simply does not have anywhere near the power the anti-Russian forces in the EU have. This is why for years now various EU politicians and public figures have made noises about lifting the sanctions, but when it came to the vote – they all voted as told by the real bosses.

Not all EU Russophobia is US-generated , by the way. We have clearly seen that these days when Trump suggested that the G7 (or, more accurately, the G6+1) needed to re-invite Russia, it was the Europeans who said "nope!". To the extend that there is a "EU position" (even a very demure and weak one), it is mostly anti-Russian, especially in the northern part of Europe. So when Uncle Sam tells the Europeans to obey and engage in the usual Russia-bashing, they all quickly fall in line, but in the rare case when the US does not push a rabidly anti-Russian agenda, EU politicians suddenly find enough willpower to say "no". By the way, for all the Trump's statements about re-inviting Russia into the G6+1 the US is still busy slapping more sanctions on Russia .

The current mini-wars between the US and the EU (on trade, on Iran, on Jerusalem) do not at all mean that Russia automatically can benefit from this . Again, the best example of this is the disastrous G6+1 summit in which Trump basically alienated everybody only to have the G6 reiterate its anti-Russian position even though the G6+1 needs Russia far more than Russia needs the G7 (she really doesn't!). Just like the US and Israeli leaders can disagree and, on occasion, fight each other, that does not at all mean that somehow they are not fundamentally joined at the hip. Just think of mob "families" who can even have "wars" against each other, but that does not at all mean that this will benefit the rest of the population whom all mobsters prey upon.

The Ukrainian crisis will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe . There is a very high probability that in the near future the Ukronazi regime will try to reconquer Novorussia (DNR/LRN). I submit that the outcome of such an attack is not in doubt – the Ukronazis will lose. The only question is this: to whom will they lose:

I will admit that there is still a small possibility that a Ukronazi attack might not happen. Maybe Poroshenko & Co. will get cold feet (they know the real condition of the Ukie military and "dobrobat" death squads) and maybe Putin's recent not-so-veiled threat about " grave consequences for the Ukrainian statehood " will have the needed effect. But what will happen even if this attack does not take place? The EU leaders and the Ukronazi regime in Kiev will still blame Russia for the Ukraine now clearly being a failed state. Whatever scenario you find more likely for the Ukraine, things there will only get worse and everybody will blame Russia.

The crisis in Syria will only benefit anti-Russian forces in Europe. It is becoming pretty clear that the US is now attempting a reconquista of Syria or, at least, a break-up of Syria into several zones, including US-controlled ones. Right now, the US and the "good terrorists" have lost the war, but that does not stop them from re-igniting a new one, mostly by reorganizing, retraining, redeploying and, most importantly, re-branding the surviving "bad terrorists" into "good ones". This plan is backed by Saudi money and Israeli firepower. Furthermore, Russia is now reporting that US Special Forces are already working with the (new) "good terrorists" to – you guessed it – prepare yet another fake chemical attack and blame it on the Syrians. And why not? It worked perfectly already several times, why not do that again? At the very least, it would give the US another try at getting their Tomahawks to show their effectiveness (even if they fail again, facts don't matter here). And make no mistake, a US "victory" in Syria (or in Venezuela) would be a disaster not only for the region, but for every country wanting to become sovereign (see Andre Vltchek's excellent article on this topic here ). And, again, Russia will be blamed for it all and, with certifiable nutcasts like Bolton, Russian forces might even be attacked. As I wrote already many times, this is far from over . Just as in the Ukrainian case, some deal might be made (at least US and Russian military officials are still talking to each other ) but my personal opinion is that making any kind of deal with Trump is as futile as making deals with Netanyahu: neither of them can be trusted and they both will break any and all promises in a blink of an eye. And if all hell breaks loose in Syria and/or Iran, NATO will make sure that the Europeans all quickly and obediently fall in line ("solidarity", remember?).

The bottom line is this: currently, the EU is most unlikely to become a viable partner for Russia and the future does look rather bleak.

One objection to my pessimism is the undeniable success of the recent Saint Petersburg summit and the Parliamentary Forum. However, I believe that neither of these events was really centered around Europe at all, but about the world at large (see excellent report by Gilbert Doctorow on this topic here ). Yes, Russia is doing great and while the AngloZionist media loves to speak about the "isolation" of Russia, the truth is that it is the Empire which is isolated, while Russia and China are having tremendous success building the multi-polar world they want to replace the Empire with. So while it is true that the western leaders might prefer to see a liberal "economic block" in the new Russian government, the rest of the world has no such desire at all (especially considering how many countries out there have suffered terrible hardships at the hands of the WTO/WB/IMF/etc types).

Conclusion :

The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission. Vladimir Putin put it best when he said " They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense ".

However, if the EU is, for all practical purposes, non-existent, Russia can, and will, engage with individual EU member states. There is a huge difference between, say, Poland and Italy, or the UK and Austria. Furthermore, the EU is not only dysfunctional, it is also non-viable. Russia would immensely benefit from the current EU either falling apart or being deeply reformed because the current EU is a pure creation of the US-backed Bilderberger types and not the kind of Europe the European people need. In fact, I would even argue that the EU is the single biggest danger for the people of the European continent. Thus Russia should use her resources to foster bi-lateral cooperation with individual EU member states and never take any action which would strengthen (or even legitimize) EU-derived organizations such as the EU Parliament, the European Court of Human Rights, etc. These are all entities which seek to undermine the sovereignty of all its members, including Russia. Again, Putin put it best when he recently declared that " either Russia is a sovereign country, or there is no Russia ".

Whatever the ideology and slogans, all empires are inherently evil and inherently dangerous to any country wanting to be truly sovereign. If Russia (and China) want to create a multi-polar world, they need to gradually disengage from those trans-national bodies which are totally controlled by the Empire, it is really that simple. Instead, Russia needs to engage those countries, political parties and forces who advocate for what de Gaulle called " the Europe of fatherlands ". Both the AngloZionist Empire and the EU are undergoing the most profound crisis in their history and the writing is on the wall. Sooner rather than later, one by one, European countries will recover their sovereignty, as will Russia. Only if the people of Europe succeed in recovering their sovereignty could Russia look for real partnerships in the West, if only because the gradually developing and integrating Eurasian landmass offer tremendous economic opportunities which could be most beneficial to the nations of Europe. A prosperous Europe " from the Atlantic to the Urals " is still a possibility, but that will happen only when the current European Union and NATO are replaced by truly European institutions and the current European elites replaced by sovereignists.

The people of Russia, EU and, I would argue, the United States all have the same goal and the same enemy: they want to recover their sovereignty, get rid of their corrupt and, frankly, treacherous elites and liberates themselves from the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire. This is why pushing the issue of "true sovereignty" (and national traditional values) is, I believe, the most unifying and powerful political idea to defeat the Empire. This will be a long struggle but the outcome is not in doubt.


peterAUS , June 17, 2018 at 12:54 am GMT

The usual Saker, but, there are a couple of not bad snippets:

The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the opinions and interests of the people of Europe.

The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella.

They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense".

As for this:

If Russia (and China) want to create a multi-polar world, they need to gradually disengage from those trans-national bodies which are totally controlled by the Empire, it is really that simple.

can't wait

Mattheus , June 16, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT
Saker is once again completely wrong. His theories fall short to explain lots of real events. He got hooked on his "Anglo-Zionist" theory and "one Hegemon", which is far from explaining the reality on the ground. There is no one single hegemon, but two powerful interest groups in the west. One of the power centers is dominated by the Rothschilds from the City of London and the other ruled by the Rockerfellers which is based in the US.
The powers described above are sometimes working in collusion but sometimes work against each other (They were in collusion during the Soviet Afghan war for instance). Currently, we don't see a collusion but a war being waged in between these two groups. I think it is highly self evident, so much so that it is happening almost all in the open. In the modern history we haven't witnessed such a openly fought war ever before (between these two powers). All is at stake and the war in between these two is vicious. Thus you can explain Trump's attitude towards EU, everlasting character assasination of Trump by certain opposing circles in the US, high level resignations, the state of confusion of Nato and much more. If this theory is right (and I think it is much more viable than any other theory that I came across in the Alt-Med), this makes Russia firmly embedded into one of the camps. Unfortunately, the position that Russia took makes him not a sovereign power but on contrary puts him into a subservient role. The late actions of Russia, especially in Syria, is quite telling. I know people who admire Russia get quite frustrated when they hear such a scenario and outcome, but this is possibly the only way Putin believes that Russia can survive. Thus it explains his latest house clean-up of Euroasian integrists. Even worse, if you believe in this scenario, it brings Russia and China against each other especially in the long run. This scenario also put a full stop to the idealist Euroasian multi-polar world order.
Here is the link to an older video in Russian with English subtitles. The guy's name is Andrei Fursov and he has some interesting things to say regarding this subject. This interview was just before Obama was elected but is still quite relevent. His newer videos seems to have lost steam, possibly because he is working for some state connected Russian institutions and think-thanks and thus I think he is somewhat restricted. After all it is again the famous "Game Theory", isn't it?
renfro , June 17, 2018 at 5:34 am GMT
@Beckow

Saker is correct that EU countries will not work with Russia. Blaming it all on Washington was always stupid

Bullshit. try to keep up with whats actually happening.

U.S. Is Trying to Kill Major Gas Deal Between Russia and Germany By Tom O'Connor On 5/18/18 at 2:41 PM (http://www.newsweek.com/us-trying-kill-major-gas-deal-between-russia-germany-934603

The U.S. has warned both Russia and Germany against pursuing a planned gas pipeline that would run between the two countries, threatening to impose sanctions and claiming the project would threaten the security of its European allies.

Construction has recently begun for the Nord Stream 2 project, a planned pipeline that would extend from Russia along an existing pipeline through the Baltic Sea into northeastern Germany. Once finished, Nord Stream 2 would reportedly double the amount of gas that Russia could provide Europe. State Department Deputy Assistant Secretary Sandra Oudkirk told reporters in Berlin Thursday that the project could bolster Russia's "malign influence" in the region and that Washington was "exerting as much persuasive power" as it could to stop it, according to the Associated Press.

Europe in diplomatic push to ease Russia sanctions | Financial Times
https://www.ft.com/content/9b9bbd3c-44a5-11e8-93cf-67ac3a6482fdApr 20, 2018 – A Europe-wide diplomatic push is under way to persuade the Trump administration to ease US sanctions targeting Russia, as fears mount that

JR , June 17, 2018 at 7:55 am GMT
EU clueless?

http://www.imi-online.de/2015/06/26/expansion-assoziation-konfrontation/

Yes, the EU is immoral , imperialistic megalomaniac but definitely not clueless.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/war-in-ukraine-a-result-of-misunderstandings-between-europe-and-russia-a-1004706.html

Kiza , June 17, 2018 at 8:18 am GMT
@Beckow

Excellent comment as usual Beckow, I could have typed the same. In fact, I have been commenting online since 1992 that neither EU, nor most European states can be friends of Russia. This was based on how those treated Yugoslavia/Serbia during the recent Balkan wars that the same entities helped initiate. Because Serbia is Russia without nuclear weapons. Russia would have gotten exactly the same treatment (Barbarossa 2) as Yugoslavia if it did not have them. Nobody expected Russia to recover so quickly from Yeltsin and even develop the world leading stand-off weapons on a budget. This is the only reason that Barbarossa 2 will never happen. But they cannot stop hoping for a US-lead miracle.

Yet, the economic interest is there and if China and Russia manage to economically integrate Europe and Asia, then the Euro-doggies will stop yapping and biting at the Russian heels and will fall in line. What else could one expect from such pathetic shameless trash? Give the One-Road another 15 years and watch this unfurle.

Finally, although I believed that Ukronazis would attack Novorussians, I now think that Ukraine may have run out of suicidal dumb maniacs. It is much cheaper to make noise and beat your Galician chest then to engage the enemy protected by Russia. Ukraine is, unfortunately, already a total economic basket case, plus all One-Road plans circumvent it (as MH17 should have, due to instability). Will there ever be a better example than Ukraine of the benevolent influence of the Anglo-Zionist on a country?

The Anglo-Zionists versus OneRoad.
For more information disregard the dumb title and watch this Pepe Escobar interview: http://thesaker.is/interview-of-pepe-escobar-the-world-is-waiting-for-the-apocalypse-if-there-is-a-conflict-between-america-and-russia/
I watched his other interviews and it is interesting how Pepe is not so open when interviewed by the Westerners.

m___ , June 17, 2018 at 9:24 am GMT
@mikkkkas

Dramatic shift in analysis of Saker,

As yours truly, we noticed the drastic shift as to pointing to supranational guidance of international political events. As for his mention, blaming Trump and Netanyahu to be suppreme leaders and deciders, we see them rather as spokespersons, blowing and hissing publicly the script of what Saker calls the Anglo-Jewish maffia, the only subgroup that sorted for quality, not quantity in strategy(global evidently and necessarily) and membership for in-group only benefit. Elitist, subjectively better organized than any entity other, territorially mostly independent in case of emergency, and moral conviction based on historical Judaist values, strategies and tactics. Play all sides and stay invisible.

Below the prudent lines of Saker quoted.

The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella. You can think of it as a gigantic criminal gang racketeering the entire planet for "protection". To think that by presenting a "liberal" face to these thugs will gain you their support is extremely naive as these guys don't care about your face: what they want is your submission.

As for Putin, it could be, that he is, for now, on a footing of equal to the insiders of above, he must somehow understand(Putin gives a public impression to be cognitively superior to all other political tarts of the moment) that real problems are global, and Russian nationalism, or international expansion based on Russian nationalism are just a political tool to rally bulk humanity. Very similar to the palm oil, corn syrup and digital porn obese consumerism of the West promotion. At most bickering and infighting can be done by visible actors as Putin, Trump, Xi(affected indirectly), but there must be a scenario, and war cannot be anything more then policing.

To be noticed, that it pleads for Saker's intellectualism to correct and even reverse, after due analysis his opinions unlike a Tom Engelhardt(at that qualitative rather inferior). No "to big to fail" here. Let's wait and see, how Saker's intuition can take him into quantitative analysis of what moves beyond and against nationalist and EU, US, Russia, China dialectics. The old adagio of the information age: networks, was historically present in International Jewry. One can be a policeman, be a thief, but foremost one is a Jew.

Honest writing of Saker.

How good are these supranational, corporatacracy(another commenter), "globally organized elites" groups with better cohesion? To our definite impression, not good enough, though way above the bulk of humanity and most of the middle class media comprehension. Two singular dramas of our age, that will decide the twenty-first century. Better and not good enough. Only to be arrested by bringing in AI, eugenetics, rebranding goals and focus. It is in itself a pocket drama repeated over and over that analysis is mostly litterary, never relies on the best of information, is fragmented. Even today indexing big data lumps could solve this partly. Alternative media in the first place apply the same archaic methods while better tools are available. That said unz.com is above the fray in focussing and searching methods. It should spark some hidden outliers glued into the bulk of the deplorables by individual fate.

War-ing and economics, the epistomology of politics, the focus of daily news, should be seen as consequences, not prime causes of attention. In the end they impose toxicity, migrations, excess population densities, excess total human numbers. The goal itself of humanity should be reasserted as quality of life for all standing and future humans. Then strategy and tactics derive from there. Why? Well the same supra national elites, the only ones that can take on the essentials tend to forget they are frogging in the same tub, that nature probably using more disruptive method will take care of the human plage if not.

jilles dykstra , June 17, 2018 at 9:56 am GMT
@Quartermaster

The CIA seems to have spent five billion $ in Ukraine.
Who wants to incorporate Ukraine in the west therefore is not clear, the USA, NATO or EU, or all of them ?
In any case, many in Europe see Putin just as an honest gas supplier.
Trump's gas is much more expensive.

Heros , June 17, 2018 at 10:03 am GMT

The usual Saker

Definitely. He stays well within the Judeo-Overton window. He is kosher, so to speak. Sure, like Alex Jones, he will make the occasional slap at Israel or Zionism, but he will not verge outside of the window's "Nazi Germany was the ultimate evil" or the holy 6 million martyrs. I also have never read any of his work where he delves into 9/11, and what it means about everything that has happened since.

You have three "not bad snippets" that I don't really agree with:

The EU leaders are nothing but a comprador elite which doesn't give a damn about the opinions and interests of the people of Europe.

It is not that they don't give a damn, it is that they take their orders from a higher source. Euro-serfs see the coerced passage of Lisbon and Maastricht, the ongoing 3rd world invasion, the restriction of free speech, the increasing criminality, the ECB destruction and removal of elected officials in Greece and Italy. They know it is a sham, they just don't understand why, because they are constantly being lied to. Saker is not helping here.

The AngloZionist Empire is not based in the US, or in the EU, or Israel, or anywhere else on the planet. It is a trans-national entity with regional variations and which includes different interest groups under its umbrella.

Saker is not willing to tell us exactly who this entity is. He is not going to take us outside of the Judeo-Overton window.

They do not want to humiliate us, they want to subdue us, solve their problems at our expense

With this dog whistle he is treading on thin ice. Sure, "their problems" could describe past crimes like Maidan that may be catching up with them, but it could also cover such things as Gaza, the Liberty, the King David Hotel, or even the targeting of Nagasaki in 1945. As usual though, he won't confront the serpent.

Jake , June 17, 2018 at 11:26 am GMT
"At best, the EU can be considered a US protectorate/colony, with some subjects "more equal than others" (say, the UK versus Greece)."

That nails it as well as it can be done, though I'd say that some states are far more equal than others and add Germany to the UK in that category.

Jake , June 17, 2018 at 11:57 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

Yes, but also while allowing Germany to dominate the EU in every way, especially economically to the detriment of other EU states.

Miro23 , June 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm GMT

The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets, but the #1 position has to go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be militarily occupied (even though the very same Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for billions of dollars).

Talking about individual EU countries, the Poles need to realize that they're no longer dealing with Imperial Russia or the Soviet Union, and try exploring avenues for productive co-operation with Russia. It's working with "historic enemy" Germany, so why not with "historic enemy" Russia?

There are plenty of opportunities, with the first one surely being shutting down US bases on Polish territory and getting US missiles out of Poland. The current USA and the UK are under UZA management which is clearly hostile to everything modern Poland stands for.

bj , June 17, 2018 at 2:39 pm GMT
@Heros

"targeting of Nagasaki in 1945″ ..

"For targeting purposes, the bombing crew used St. Mary's Urakami Cathedral, the largest Christian church in East Asia. At 11:02 a.m., on Aug. 9, 1945, when the bomb was dropped over the cathedral, Nagasaki was the most Christian city in Japan."

https://consortiumnews.com/2014/08/09/the-very-un-christian-nagasaki-bomb/

annamaria , June 17, 2018 at 4:31 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

Hey, Quartermaster, why don't you tell us more about the amazing progress achieved by Ukraine after the Kagans-sponsored revolution of 2014? For instance, you could tell us (proudly?) about the rise of neo-Nazi power in Ukraine and about certain Kolomojsky, the Ukrainian/Israeli thug, and his financing of the Azov battalion.
The EU countries put people in prison for questioning the tight official narrative/numbers of holocaust biz.

The same AngloZionist "elites" are content with the desecration of Jewish cemeteries in Ukraine by the local neo-Nazis: http://www.stalkerzone.org/banderists-came-ukraine-march-center-odessa/

"Antisemitic Hate Crimes Thrive in Ukraine:" https://www.algemeiner.com/2017/04/21/antisemitic-hate-crimes-thrive-in-ukraine/
"Symbols of the 1st Galician SS Division are not considered to be Nazi symbols in Ukraine:" http://eu.eot.su/2017/05/20/symbols-of-the-1st-galician-ss-division-are-not-considered-to-be-nazi-symbols-in-ukraine/
"The roots of fascism in Ukraine: From Nazi collaboration to Maidan:" http://liberationschool.org/the-roots-of-fascism-in-ukraine/

annamaria , June 17, 2018 at 4:49 pm GMT
@byrresheim

What is wrong with using the word "Ukronazis?" How would you name the happy warriors beholden to the memory of the 14th Waffen Grenadier Division of the SS (1st Galician)?

http://liberationschool.org/the-roots-of-fascism-in-ukraine/

https://www.jacobinmag.com/2015/09/stepan-bandera-nationalist-euromaidan-right-sector/

"The newly formed Ukrainian state will work closely with the National-Socialist Greater Germany, under the leadership of its leader Adolf Hitler which is forming a new order in Europe and the world and is helping the Ukrainian People to free itself from Moscovite occupation.
The Ukrainian People's Revolutionary Army which has been formed on the Ukrainian lands, will continue to fight with the Allied German Army against Moscovite occupation for a sovereign and united State and a new order in the whole world.

Long live the Ukrainian Sovereign United Ukraine! Long live the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists! Long live the leader of the Organization of Ukrainian Nationalists and the Ukrainian people – STEPAN BANDERA" https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Declaration_of_Ukrainian_State_Act

Beckow , June 17, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT
@renfro

We are talking apples and oranges. EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export to Russia as much as possible without interference from US. That is pure business. But the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed by the security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed in US or UK. Some because that's just the way they are.

There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.

There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on.

After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. My advise to Russia would be to mind its own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always backfired because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in general. Business doesn't change that.

[Jun 17, 2018] After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes

Notable quotes:
"... There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid. ..."
"... There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on. ..."
"... After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again. ..."
"... Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm. ..."
"... And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :). ..."
"... On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate. Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade. ..."
Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

Beckow , June 17, 2018 at 6:01 pm GMT

... EU wants cheap, reliable energy from Russia and to export to Russia as much as possible without interference from US. That is pure business. But the dominant political forces in EU are anti-Russia, some because they are fed by the security-military-academic spending, some because they 'studied' and were politically formed in US or UK. Some because that's just the way they are.

There is a strong, EU domestic anti-Russian population based on hundreds of years of history, resentment over losses (Germany, Poland, Sweden, Finland), self-brainwashing about perceived abuse (Poland, Baltics, eastern Europeans in general), hatred and contempt towards anything 'eastern', and the traditional anglo anti-Russian policies. Recently new emotional hatreds have been added with endless demonising Russia about xenophobia, hooligans, gays, stray dogs, anything the creative propagandists can push. Most Europeans turn out on reflection to be quite gullible and stupid.

There are a few minor exceptions and some Latin nations are more level headed. There is also a minority view in the German world, mostly based on their business realism that is neutral toward Russia, but not pro-Russian. There will be no political rapprochement between EU and Russia. There will be better business relations because water flows downhill and EU-Russia economic ties are such an obvious fit. The cultural hatred and political hostility will go on.

After WWII it took most Europeans less than a generation to revert to the traditional anti-Russian attitudes. In some cases, nations that were literally saved from extermination were more resentful than grateful. In Poland it took less than a year, in Czech Republic 20 years, but the old visceral hatreds emerged again.

My advise to Russia would be to mind its own business and not try to sacrifice for the others or to help them. It has always backfired because the cultural milieu in Europe is naturally resentful of Russia and the east in general. Business doesn't change that.

Beckow , June 17, 2018 at 11:10 pm GMT

@Kiza

Thanks. Current trends strengthen Euro-asia (and thus China and Russia), so West will have to do something, otherwise they get weaker over time.

There has been a maximalist group in the West who believe that ' anything is possible ', that even with nukes it is possible to defeat and dismember Russia. The key factor would be internal instability inside Russia. Maidan, Saaksavilli's mad dash in 2008, and the support for Caucas separatists were all done with that in mind. It has mostly failed with Russia becoming more united in the process.

Failure has never discouraged true fanatics. It is a mistake to see them only in Washington and London, there are plenty of them in positions of power in Berlin, Paris, Warsaw, and even Stockholm.

And in Washington the loudest ones are often bitter ethnics from eastern Europe. I honestly think it is about 50-50 whether this gets escalated beyond all reason and we face a catastrophe (so I admit that I don't know :).

On the one hand there are the nukes. On the other, it is so hard to climb down for any ideological fanatic. They felt that they were so close, when they bombed Beograd and Russia did nothing, they thought it was all just a question of time. And then Putin happened and the dream has been slowly dying. Imagine the painful void that they have to live with every day. So they hate. Any concession to people who hate you is counter-productive, thus there will be no deal between Russia-EU. Only obvious trade.

[Jun 17, 2018] On Polish Russophobia

Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

Miro23 , June 17, 2018 at 12:50 pm GMT

The best examples are, of course, the three Baltic statelets, but the #1 position has to go to the "fiercely patriotic Poles" who are now willing to actually pay Uncle Sam to be militarily occupied (even though the very same Uncle Sam is trying to racketeer them for billions of dollars).

Talking about individual EU countries, the Poles need to realize that they're no longer dealing with Imperial Russia or the Soviet Union, and try exploring avenues for productive co-operation with Russia. It's working with "historic enemy" Germany, so why not with "historic enemy" Russia?

There are plenty of opportunities, with the first one surely being shutting down US bases on Polish territory and getting US missiles out of Poland. The current USA and the UK are under UZA management which is clearly hostile to everything modern Poland stands for.

[Jun 17, 2018] In the German parliament Merkel and her supporters battle to continue their anti German policy against the CSU even in the CDU (Merkel's party) there are courageous people who that remind Merkel by whom she is paid, and to who she has obligations.

Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

jilles dykstra , June 17, 2018 at 11:16 am GMT

http://www.achgut.com/artikel/wir_truemmerfrauen_nach_dem_merkelsturz

Im Bundestag kämpfen Merkel und ihre Treuesten derweil darum, ihre Anti-Deutschland-Politik unter anderem gegen die CSU durchzusetzen -- sogar in der CDU gibt es erste Mutige, die sich daran erinnern, wer sie bezahlt und wem sie eigentlich verpflichtet sind.

Rough translation:

" In the German parliament Merkel and her supporters battle to continue their anti German policy against the CSU -- even in the CDU (Merkel's party) there are courageous people who that remind Merkel by whom she is paid, and to who she has obligations. "

There are German rumours that Merkel will fall this week.

Historians from time to time write how curious it is that apparently unrelated events in different parts of the world change history.

I wonder if the Trump election with the realisation, long overdue, in Germany, that the migrants are a burden in stead of a contribution to the economy, may combine to Merkel's fall,in her wake maybe the implosion of the EU, and the end of the euro.

It was Merkel who prevented Greece leaving the euro.

[Jun 17, 2018] "The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth

Jun 17, 2018 | www.unz.com

Carlton Meyer , Website June 16, 2018 at 4:28 am GMT

From my free on-line book:

http://www.g2mil.com/strategy.htm

Military Strategists

"The men the American people admire most extravagantly are the greatest liars; the men they detest most violently are those who try to tell them the truth."

H.L. Mencken

[Jun 16, 2018] Putin and orthodox religion

Jun 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

Frankie P

It is completely unnecessary and foolish to bring up and try to argue about the faith of another man, especially by superimposing one's own views onto the matter. It's clear that you believe it is impossible or highly unlikely to have high intelligence and be a true believer, but to me that is neither here nor there.

The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of the Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands Orthodox Christianity. Yes! Russia's history and the levers of power were wrenched away from its traditional Orthodox roots by those intent on revenge, those with a mad desire to unite the world under the banner of international communism, bringing about (so they hoped and continue to hope) the birth of their messiah. Thankfully that chapter of history is over, but it's not over for the chosen: intent on revenge on Russia, just as they are forever intent on their innocence in all historical matters, they have moved on and rooted themselves into another host: the USA. They will be smacked down and put in their place again, but I hesitate to estimate the scheduling. The main question is how many human lives will they end through their machinations before the smack down.

Frankie P

EugeneGur , June 15, 2018 at 4:22 pm GMT

@Frankie P

The point is that Putin realizes that the Orthodox faith is the cultural framework of the Russian nation; its development historically, socially and culturally rest in the hands Orthodox Christianity.

No, it's not. No one can enter the same river twice. Russia will thankfully never go back to its Orthodox roots completely, although Orthodoxy will co-exist peacefully within the secular society. Putin's public insistence on rituals of the Orthodox faith is one of his least attractive features.

Thankfully that chapter of history is over

It's not over until it's over. This sentence of yours simply shows how misunderstood the Soviet period of the Russian history is in the West.

The Soviet Union has been gone for more than a quarter of a century and yet it is – to borrow a phrase from a popular Soviet song – is more alive than the living. The Soviet period has become a sort of a yardstick against which the modern Russia is compared in every area: culture, economy, moral climate, everything.

It is a universal agreement that in many areas Russia doesn't measure up to the Soviet standards – culture and education are the prime examples. Hardly anyone in Russia would disagree that in 25 years Russia hasn't produced anything even remotely comparable with the Soviet achievements in this spheres. Until it does – the Soviet Union will live one.

[Jun 16, 2018] Current Russian regime got bad roots. It cares not for people. Current increase of retirement age is another testament to this

Russia still is a neoliberal country. What do you expect ?
It is interesting that Russia which oppose neoliberal globalization in foreign policy, implements neoliberal reforms within the country. The current pensoin reform is clienly neoliberal in spirit, even if it does not include privatization. there is a big different between those who work at factories and those who work at offices.
Notable quotes:
"... I don't share your and some other commenters' fixation on Jews. I believe it's a red herring. Elites, Jewish and gentile, are equally repulsive and guilty of most ills that afflict our world. Despite its many failings, one of the redeeming qualities of communism was that it called for confiscation of the possessions of moneyed elites. In reality, they were mostly hanged or shot. Considering what they are doing to the US and other countries, this was amply justified. ..."
"... Basically there were real issues behind those color revolutions in Ukraine and elsewhere but without progressive force caring about people there were ulterior forces that led those eruption of real grievances and these grievances are caused by the system of capitalism you have just described. Yours and other former Soviet citizens excellent education is another testament to communism regime. ..."
"... Regarding new found religious feelings. it is obviously all fake. ..."
"... I can't say that today's Russia is all bad or all good. I think open borders is a huge achievement. People have a chance to see the reality with their own eyes: wherever you go in Europe or Asia now, you meet lots of people from Russia, which means that they have the money to travel and an interest in other cultures, as you meet them in museums and at historical sites all over Europe. ..."
"... I do resent what current authorities did to the education system: they degraded it, ostensibly in an attempt to reform and make it more Western-like. I think these "reforms" were extremely ill-conceived, the school is becoming much worse (in fact, American-like, although it must be degraded a lot more to sink all the way down to the US level). ..."
"... I resent than instead of improving Russian Academy of Sciences (it was pretty bad in the USSR) they essentially emasculated it. If you go by publications, there is less decent research in Russia now than there was in the USSR. ..."
"... Huge inequality is another negative, especially considering that most oligarchs got rich by looting state property, and now continue to enrich themselves the same way (heads of most Russian corporations, state-owned and private, are nothing but thieves). That made Russia more US-like, but I consider that regress rather than progress. ..."
"... On the other hand, I consider it a huge achievement that in international affairs Russia today is pursuing its own interests, rather than engaging in a thankless task of saving the world. I subscribe to the Protestant dictum that "God helps those who help themselves", so whoever is worth saving will save themselves, and the rest be damned. ..."
Jun 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 2:40 am GMT

@Frankie P

Maybe it is presumptuous to express my opinion about another person's faith, but let me remind you that Putin was a KGB officer and a member of the communist party. As such, he was (or pretended to be) a militant atheist. Now he publicly goes to church and remains there throughout the service (mind you, Russian Orthodox Christmas and Easter services are all-night affairs). Thus, he either lied then or is lying now about his faith. Take your pick.

Yes, Orthodox Christianity was one of the pillars of Russian culture. But again, let me remind you that one of the greatest Russian writers, Leo Tolstoy, was excommunicated by the church. What's more, current patriarch Kirill, the head of the Russian Orthodox church, was photographed with a watch worth hundreds of thousands of dollars, owns an apartment in the center of Moscow, likely worth millions of $, and a collection or rare books in this apartment with a huge value. If you are a Christian, you should know that "it is easier for a camel to go through the eye of a needle, than for a rich man to enter into the kingdom of God" (Matthew 19:24; also Mark 10:25).

I don't share your and some other commenters' fixation on Jews. I believe it's a red herring. Elites, Jewish and gentile, are equally repulsive and guilty of most ills that afflict our world. Despite its many failings, one of the redeeming qualities of communism was that it called for confiscation of the possessions of moneyed elites. In reality, they were mostly hanged or shot. Considering what they are doing to the US and other countries, this was amply justified.

Sergey Krieger , June 15, 2018 at 9:25 am GMT
@AnonFromTN

I frankly do not think that communism requires redemption. It was first attempt at moving humanity towards next step in social evolution and it did not happen under the best conditions. It happened in the country ridden with accumulated problems from previous regime mishandling the country for a couple of centuries with those issues coming to a head and after so much pressure it resulted in massive eruption of violence which would have been even worse without Bolsheviks as it would lead to Russia disintegration and Russian state death., There would have happened something similar to modern Ukraine.

Basically there were real issues behind those color revolutions in Ukraine and elsewhere but without progressive force caring about people there were ulterior forces that led those eruption of real grievances and these grievances are caused by the system of capitalism you have just described. Yours and other former Soviet citizens excellent education is another testament to communism regime.

Current Russian regime got bad roots and I do not believe anything good will come out of these bad roots. The system is freakish and rotten at the core. It care s not for people. Current increase of retirement age is another testament to this. Bolsheviks when they started made their intentions rather obvious in destroyed and poor country. They assured real human rights while current system removed those rights and there is no guarantees that we as a soviet citizen used to enjoy. Obviously things were not perfect. They never are.

Regarding new found religious feelings. it is obviously all fake.

I also wonder what do you think of spontaneous life appearance? I read some books on this issue including Dawkins' and Behe, but considering your experience and professional background it would be very interesting to hear your thoughts.

AnonFromTN , June 15, 2018 at 4:21 pm GMT
@Sergey Krieger

I can't say that today's Russia is all bad or all good. I think open borders is a huge achievement. People have a chance to see the reality with their own eyes: wherever you go in Europe or Asia now, you meet lots of people from Russia, which means that they have the money to travel and an interest in other cultures, as you meet them in museums and at historical sites all over Europe.

I do resent what current authorities did to the education system: they degraded it, ostensibly in an attempt to reform and make it more Western-like. I think these "reforms" were extremely ill-conceived, the school is becoming much worse (in fact, American-like, although it must be degraded a lot more to sink all the way down to the US level).

I resent than instead of improving Russian Academy of Sciences (it was pretty bad in the USSR) they essentially emasculated it. If you go by publications, there is less decent research in Russia now than there was in the USSR.

Huge inequality is another negative, especially considering that most oligarchs got rich by looting state property, and now continue to enrich themselves the same way (heads of most Russian corporations, state-owned and private, are nothing but thieves). That made Russia more US-like, but I consider that regress rather than progress.

On the other hand, I consider it a huge achievement that in international affairs Russia today is pursuing its own interests, rather than engaging in a thankless task of saving the world. I subscribe to the Protestant dictum that "God helps those who help themselves", so whoever is worth saving will save themselves, and the rest be damned.

[Jun 16, 2018] Remember general plan Ost

Jun 16, 2018 | www.unz.com

Plan Ost , June 16, 2018 at 11:09 pm GMT

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generalplan_Ost

German Plan Ost to exterminate " inferior races "

Percentages of ethnic groups to be destroyed and/or deported to Siberia by Nazi Germany from future settlement areas.[15][16][3]

Ethnic group/Nationality Population percent subject to removal

Russians[17][16] 50–60% to be physically eliminated and another 15% to be sent to Western Siberia
Estonians[3][18] almost 50%
Latvians[3] 50%
Czechs[16] 50%
Ukrainians[16] 65%
Belarusians[16] 75%
Poles[16] 20 million, or 80–85%
Lithuanians[3] 85%
Latgalians[3] 100%

[Jun 15, 2018] The West, not Putin, organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate "government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county

The "collective West" clearly pursued its own goals in Ukraine, and the last thing they were concerned was well being of Ukraine people. Russia also viewed Ukraine mainly from the position of its own interests, although being isolated they provided somewhat better terms for economic cooperation, just to counter influence of the EU and the USA.
The USA wanted the Ukraine to became yet another Baltic republic as a part of its geopolitical efforts of encircling Russia and, if possible, installing another Yeltsin-style comprador government. EU wanted a market for its good and to exclude Russia from using Ukrainian resources as well as the leverage to get better prices for Russian natural resources.
So the Ukrainian people got on the receiving end of those efforts and paid a huge price. Was it unavoidable or not is difficult to say. May be less bloodshed was possible but economic decimation of Ukraine and conversion it into a debt slave was in the cards, and probably was not avoidable. It just occurred faster and the drop of the standard of living went deeper that in other circumstance.
For all his corruption and thugishness Yanukovich tried to play Russia against the West and get some concession from both. Now such a policy is impossible as the country de-facto lost independence as happens with any debt-slave.
So the conflict in Donbass became important for Poroshenko government as the mean of uniting people, who became disillusioned in the results of EuroMaydan and pointing to Russia as a scapegoat for all their difficulties. In a way Poroshenko now needs Donbass conflict to survive politically.
Jun 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Quartermaster , June 14, 2018 at 12:37 pm GMT

While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much truth out there, some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than conspiracy theories.

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead. Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is possible that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is likely he knows what is going on.

While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form iron Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah. Eastern Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly, that the extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist appropriate as well.

Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path, he impoverishes his people even more.

EugeneGur , June 14, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.

The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted should we be so inclined?

It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.

He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate "government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed for that.

jilles dykstra , June 14, 2018 at 2:27 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

"What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah. "

What did he do there ?
And what did the CIA do there ?

fredyetagain aka superhonky , June 14, 2018 at 5:05 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American))) advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

[Jun 15, 2018] Lies and contradictions pile up on Ukraine's faked murder of Babchenko

By Clara Weiss 4 June 2018
Notable quotes:
"... Financial Times ..."
"... the Wall Street Journal ..."
"... Their criticism of Babchenko and the Ukrainian government's media hoax has nothing to do with concern for journalistic integrity or "truth." Quite the contrary: it is motivated by a well justified fear that the crudity of this fraudulent propaganda operation will further discredit the anti-Russia campaign of the imperialist powers, in which the bulk of Western journalists and major bourgeois newspapers and media outlets are fully complicit. ..."
Jun 15, 2018 | www.wsws.org

Six days after the Ukrainian Security Service (SBU) revealed that it had staged the supposed murder of the anti-Kremlin journalist Arkady Babchenko, the Ukrainian government continues to seek to exploit the case for the anti-Russia campaign even as contradictions and lies concerning the state operation pile up. (See: " The New York Times and the murder that wasn't ")

Last Tuesday, the Ukrainian and Western press was filled with media reports about the killing of Babchenko in Kiev. The journalist, who supported the US-backed far-right coup in Kiev in early 2014 and the war of the Kiev regime in eastern Ukraine against pro-Russian separatists, had fled Russia in early 2017 after receiving death threats.

Ukrainian officials and Western media outlets, including the New York Times , immediately rushed to blame the killing of Babchenko on Russia. Yet in a stunning turn of events on Wednesday, Babchenko and the head of the Ukrainian Secret Service held a press conference to announce that the murder had been staged in a "special operation" allegedly designed to disclose a murderous plot against Babchenko by the Russian secret service, the FSB.

At the press conference, Babchenko described how he had faked his fall, put on a T-shirt that had been shot through to show bullet wounds, and was then covered in pig's blood. His wife found him lying on the floor and called the ambulance. He was pronounced dead in the ambulance and brought to a morgue where he started to watch news coverage of his alleged murder.

The story since presented by the SBU to justify the faked murder and describe the alleged Russian plot to kill Babchenko resembles a poorly written spy novel, filled with glaring inconsistencies and blatant lies.

Only two suspects have been identified by the SBU. Boris German is allegedly the man tasked by the Russian FSB to kill Babchenko. He is the executive director of the Ukrainian-German weapon manufacturer Schmeisser. There have been reports, but no official confirmation, that he was in fact working for Ukrainian counterintelligence.

The hit man allegedly hired by German is Oleksiy Tsimbalyuk, who had previously fought in the civil war in eastern Ukraine for the fascist Right Sector on the side of the Kiev regime. No explanation has been offered for why Tsimbalyuk, by all appearance an ardent Ukrainian nationalist and opponent of Russia who has described the killing of Russian soldiers as "an act of mercy," decided to change sides to kill Babchenko.

The Ukrainian general prosecutor, Yuriy Lutsenko, said that the staging of the murder led to the disclosure by the suspect of a list of 30 names of journalists whom Russia planned to kill in Ukraine. This number has since been revised upward, to 47. German was supposedly also tasked to stockpile secret weapons caches throughout Ukraine. How all of these plots were connected and how they were to be executed by a handful of people has not been explained.

The SBU also published as proof of Russian involvement the "dossier" the Russian FSB had allegedly compiled on Babchenko for his "killer." Yet, as the journal meduza has pointed out, almost the entire biography of Babchenko in the dossier was copied from Babchenko's Wikipedia article, while all other information had been published by Babchenko himself on various social media platforms.

The dossier included no information about Babchenko's phone number or address in Kiev, both of which would have been important for the "killer" and easy for any secret service to obtain. The only private information in the dossier was Babchenko's registered Moscow address and his Russian identification and passport numbers, all of which could have been (and in all likelihood were) revealed by Babchenko to the SBU, but appear to be of no immediate use to a hired killer in Ukraine.

These contradictions are in addition to more minor lies in the Ukrainian government's account. For instance, Babchenko, in a very dramatic gesture, apologized to his wife at the press conference last Wednesday for having made her believe that he was dead. Yet on Thursday it was revealed that his wife had been in on the plot.

The Ukrainian government has not revealed whether it was aware that the killing had been faked when it declared that Russia was to blame for Babchenko's "murder."

Babchenko and the Ukrainian government have staunchly defended the media hoax and continue to seek to use it to whip up the campaign against Russia.

Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko hailed the staged murder as a "brilliant operation" and said on Ukraine television, "The whole world saw the real face of our enemy It is not Ukraine you should condemn, but Russia."

He promised that Babchenko and his family would receive around-the-clock protection, arguing that "Moscow would hardly calm down" and that the Ukrainian secret services were growing stronger in "fighting Russian aggression."

The advisor to the Interior Ministry Anton Gerashchenko wrote on Facebook: "Even Sherlock Holmes successfully used the method of faking his own death to effectively investigate difficult and complicated crimes, however painful that may have been for his relatives and for Dr. Watson."

Babchenko, who worked for the Russian army in both Chechen wars in the 1990s, posted a series of vulgar and aggressive comments on Facebook to denounce his critics. In one post, he pledged "to die at 96 while dancing on Putin's grave."

Responding to criticism in the British press, he wrote: "Dear British press, will you please go fuck yourselves. If you want to do something useful, you can give me a British passport and British sanctuary. Then you will have earned the right to lecture me on how I should save myself and my family. Fucking smart arses!"

He also wrote: "I wish all these moralisers could be in the same situation -- let them show their adherence to the principles of their high morals and die proudly holding their heads high without misleading the media."

Babchenko's boss at the Crimean Tatar television network ATR, Ayder Muzhdabayev, described the journalist's critics to Al Jazeera as "vermin." Muzhdabayev had been the first to report on Babchenko's alleged death last Tuesday.

Several pro-Western Russian journalists who are close to the liberal opposition have published op-eds defending Babchenko. However, a few voices also raised concerns.

An editorial by Pavel Kanygin in the pro-liberal Novaya Gazeta argued that Babchenko had "died as a journalist by breaking professional ethics and engaging in an unprecedented collaboration with secret services." Another op-ed in the same newspaper ridiculed the operation as a "parody" on Soviet spy novels and films.

The Russian business daily Vedomosti , which is associated with the Financial Times and the Wall Street Journal , wrote in an editorial that the Babchenko operation had "blurred the border between truth and fiction" and would lead to more distrust in the media.

Similarly, numerous opinion pieces in Western outlets such as the Guardian and the German Spiegel , which have been heavily involved in the anti-Russia and anti-Putin campaign, raised concerns about the Babchenko operation and its consequences for the credibility of the media. The Guardian noted that "by faking Babchenko's murder, Ukraine has smeared itself," and that it had "handed Russia a massive propaganda victory."

The New York Times ran an article on Sunday as an exercise in damage control that was headlined "Faked Killing of a Putin Critic Can't Get Much Murkier. And Yet It Does."

Numerous Western politicians, including German Foreign Minister Heiko Maas, have also criticized how the Ukrainian government handled the case.

Their criticism of Babchenko and the Ukrainian government's media hoax has nothing to do with concern for journalistic integrity or "truth." Quite the contrary: it is motivated by a well justified fear that the crudity of this fraudulent propaganda operation will further discredit the anti-Russia campaign of the imperialist powers, in which the bulk of Western journalists and major bourgeois newspapers and media outlets are fully complicit.

[Jun 15, 2018] Russia, the Neoconservatives, and the Real Issues Involved by Boyd D. Cathey

Pathological Russophobia of neocons is explanation by two factors: (1) they are lobbyists for MIC and this is the way MIC wants the US foreign policy to be execute; (2) this is the way of earning money for people, many of whom are good no nothing else.
Notable quotes:
"... The Washington Post ..."
"... reductio ad Hitlerum ..."
"... National Review ..."
"... The Weekly Standard ..."
"... Two Hundred Years Together ..."
"... The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, ..."
"... Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and Bruxelles, or ..."
"... From the beginning of his tenure Putin has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't need your assistance or intel." ..."
Jun 15, 2018 | www.unz.com

Almost one year ago the United States Congress (with only a handful of "nay" votes) adopted new and severe sanctions against Russia for its supposed attempt to influence and interfere in the 2016 national elections. Included in that legislation was a provision -- specifically placed there by Russophobe Senator Lindsay Graham (R-SC) -- that President Trump cannot alter or lift any of the sanctions without future Congressional approbation.

The government of Vladimir Putin, in response to this provocation, announced that the American diplomatic presence in Russia would be reduced by 755 persons, a drastic move by any standards. But we cannot say it was unexpected -- or undeserved.

That sanctions vote was fascinating as it illustrated during the first year of the contentious Trump presidency a rare point of political unity between the socialist Left, the Democrats and the mainstream media -- formerly noted for their "soft" and favorable attitude to the old and unloved Soviet Communist Russian regime -- and the conservative/GOP mainstream, dominated by the Neoconservatives. Of course, perspectives and approaches to the question differ, whether it was the Trump campaign that was colluding with Moscow, or if it was Hillary and the Clinton Foundation that had collaborated in some way, but their target remained the same: that man in the Kremlin and the country he governs.

One thing was clear: the result of the 2016 presidential election had the most unheard of and remarkable result in recent American political history: a de facto alliance of these supposedly antipodal political forces. And what we have witnessed is a phalanx of the pseudo-Right Neocons and the formerly pro-Soviet Left linked together, competing to see who could be more "anti" and who could come up with the more far-fetched Russia conspiracy theories, and -- as with the 2017 sanctions -- the latest unwarranted, over the top legislation.

Consider the recent -- but largely unreported -- formation of an umbrella group, the Renew Democracy Initiative (RDI), with the goal of "uni[ting] the center-left and the center-right." Its leaders include former John McCain foreign policy advisor Max Boot, The Washington Post 's Anne Appelbaum, Never Trumper Bill Kristol, former chess wizard Gary Kasparov, and Richard Hurwitz of Council on Foreign Relations. [See " Neocons & Russiagaters Unite! ," April 27, 2018] RDI's manifesto calls for "fresh thinking" and urges "the best minds from different countries to come together for both broad and discrete projects in the service of liberty and democracy in the West and beyond . Liberal democracy is in crisis around the world, besieged by authoritarianism, nationalism, and other illiberal forces. Far-right parties are gaining traction in Europe, Vladimir Putin tightens his grip on Russia and undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left."

Or, recall those on-camera Fox News Russia experts -- think here of General Jack Keane or the unhinged Colonel Ralph Peters who literally foamed at the mouth when talking about Putin, calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had committed "worse crimes" than the German dictator. (Peters is so anti-Russian that he finally left the Fox News network in March 2018 )

When Tucker Carlson on his prime time program last July 11, 2017, demanded that Peters provide facts and figures for his accusations, Peters immediately exploded and implied that program host Carlson was a "Hitler apologist." It was a classic argument and instance of reductio ad Hitlerum .

Of course, such examples aren't rare in the establishment "conservative movement" media. Pick up any issue of National Review or The Weekly Standard or listen to the Glenn Beck radio program and you can find the same hysteria, largely laced with faked quotes or disinformation (e.g., "Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union" or "Putin was head of the KGB" or "Putin has had his enemies assassinated," and so on, ad nauseum ).

Indeed, another ploy by Neocon pundits (and Congress) has been to parade Bill Browder, the grandson of American Communist Party boss Earl Browder, as a star witness to President Putin's nefarious dealings. Of course, it should be noted that Browder fils lost big time financially in his manipulations in Russia, as investigative journalists Philip Giraldi and Robert Parry have documented, and he is engaged in a vicious personal vendetta against Vladimir Putin.

For the Neoconservative leaders of what passes for "conservatism" these days, it is as if nothing has changed since 1991, since the ignominious fall of Communism. It's even arguable that their hostility to Moscow has increased since then.

Let me suggest several reasons for this: First, many of the more prominent Neoconservatives descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement, whose memories go back to the pre-Communist days of persecution and pogroms under the Tsars. They originally welcomed Lenin and the Communist regime as liberators and formed some of its staunchest supporters and apparatchiks in the regime of terror that followed (especially in the Cheka and KGB) until Josef Stalin unleashed a wave of anti-semitism after World War II. [See the partially translated excerpts from Solzhenitsyn's Two Hundred Years Together at: https://200yearstogether.wordpress.com , and the commentary ]

Putin, despite his strong support from native Russian Jews and from the Moscow Rabbinate, is a Russian nationalist and fervent supporter of the traditionalist Russian Orthodox Church, and those two factors bring up painful memories of the "bad old days" of discrimination and Jewish persecution for the Neocons.

A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist and homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick: The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening ominously in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a subtle "holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to reassert national traditions and Christian identity; for him these are nothing less than attempts to bring back "fascism."

Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable: Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry, anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal democracy and equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage, across-the-board equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).

Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, " George Soros Aghast as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent, " January 19, 2018]

But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros defend?

Beyond the ideological foundations for their hatred of nationalist Russia are economic considerations and the issue of who controls and manages the Russian economy: Wall Street and Bruxelles, or Russia, itself. Unlike the weak and pliant Boris Yeltsin, Putin the nationalist ended the strangle-hold of Russian industry, in particular control of Russia's important energy sector, by those few international businessmen, the oligarchs (many of them Jewish), most of whom fled the country. That could not stand! How dare Russia -- and its president -- oppose the economic diktats of Bruxelles and Wall Street!

Lastly, we should add one more reason for hostility, and that is Russia's remaining international presence, in particular, in Syria. It is very simple: you don't go from being one of the world's two "superpowers" to all of a sudden a second-rate, economically-handicapped "has been" without some remorse. As a patriot and nationalist President Putin has, understandably, attempted to reassert Russian prosperity and power -- certainly, not as much or in the same manner as the old Communist leaders. But, from his reasonable point of view, the largest country in the world does have interests, and not just in what goes on in neighboring nations where millions of Russians (formerly within Russia) reside, but also with long-time allies such as Syria.

Is not this same criterion true for the United States and its dealings with its neighbors and allies?

More, for the past twenty-five years Russia has experienced the poisoned tip of Islamic terrorism, domestically, including the brutal war in Tchechnya in the Caucasus region and the horrid bombings in the heart of the country, Moscow. From the beginning of his tenure Putin has offered to cooperate with the United States in the fight against international Islamic terror, but each time it was the United States -- us -- who refused, including famously Paul Wolfowitz during the George W. Bush administration who replied to one such offer: "We don't need your assistance or intel."

And thus, the revealing files on the Tsarnaev brothers (Boston bombing) were not received. But, as Neocon Charles Krauthammer once declared: "We live in a unipolar world today, and there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States." That attitude was not received with equanimity by post-Communist Russia, a Russia that has discovered its heritage and its traditions and has asked for partnership with the United States, and not the hysteria we have witnessed in the United States sweeping aside all rationality.


Anon [425] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 4:22 am GMT

The BitChute Interview
Carlton Meyer , Website June 14, 2018 at 4:50 am GMT
Ralph Peters is one of the nuttiest neocons around, and Fox was smart to dump him. I recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA.

He lives off scraps from neocons by selling his soul for BS talking points and collects a monthly check from Uncle Sam after 20 years of sitting at a desk doing BS intel work, as I once did for a year. It seems he missed his chance at killing commies in Nam by touring Europe, as Fred Reed explained:

https://fredoneverything.org/dulce-et-decorum-est-if-someone-else-has-to-do-it/

Mikhail , Website June 14, 2018 at 6:18 am GMT
Nothing new in the above article. That such people are elevated to the stature of cushy mainstream propping and ridicule by some non-mainstream others is a tell all sign on what's wrong with the coverage.

Regarding this excerpt:

A prime example of this comes in a recent volume authored by prominent Neocon journalist and homosexual activist (yes, the two traits often seem to go together), James Kirchick: The End of Europe: Dictators, Demagogues, and the Coming Dark Age, 2017). In his jumble of Neocon ideology and prejudice, Kirchick evaluates what for him seems to be happening ominously in Europe. He is deeply fearful of the efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants from the Middle East. He blasts Marine Le Pen as a racist -- and most likely a subtle "holocaust denier!" -- and attacks the attempts in places like Hungary and Poland to reassert national traditions and Christian identity; for him these are nothing less than attempts to bring back "fascism."

Russia comes in for perhaps his harshest criticism, and the reason is unmistakable: Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry, anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal democracy and equality" (including, he would no doubt include, feminism, same sex marriage, across-the-board equality, and all those other "conservative values"!).

Kirchick's critique, shared by many of the leaders of the national Republican Party and dominating the pages of most establishment "conservative" publications and talk radio these days, joins him arm-in-arm with globalist George Soros in efforts to undermine the Russian state and its president all in the name of "democracy" and "equality." [See, "George Soros Aghast as Collapsing EU, while Russia Resurgent," January 19, 2018]

But, just what kind of "democracy" and what kind of "equality" do Kirchick and Soros defend?

JRL promoted a recent Kirchick piece:

http://russialist.org/newswatch-the-soviet-roots-of-invoking-fears-about-world-war-iii-brookings-james-kirchick/

The rant of a coddled establishment chickenhawk, who is quite overrated, relative to the positions accorded to him (Nasty people don't deserve kindness.)

A suggestive dose of McCarthyism that simplistically references the Cold War period with present day realities, which include a subjectively inaccurate overview of what has transpired in Syria and Crimea. Put mildly, James Kirchick is quite ironic in his use of "lazy".

jilles dykstra , June 14, 2018 at 7:22 am GMT
To me it is all quite simple.
FDR's aim was to rule the war with junior aides USSR, China and a smaller Britain.
Stalin had other ideas.
Even in 1946 FDR's main backer, Baruch pleaded for a world government, a USA government, in my view.
Deep State still tries to impose this world government.
Despite Trump 'America first' we see a Bolton in the White House, as many see 'the neocons are back'.
Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State.
The big mistake of the British empire was unwillingless to realise that it could no longer maintain the empire.
This already began before 1914, when the two fleet standars became too expensive, the one fleet standard expressed the inability to maintain the empire.
Obama was forcedto reduce the two war standard to one and half.
What a half war accomplishes we see in Syria.
Alas, seldom in history did reason rule.
If it will in the present USA, I doubt it.
Milton , June 14, 2018 at 8:23 am GMT
Sanctions are always a prelude to war. Sanctions are in fact an act of war. Putin's mistake was in thinking he could reason with the Neoconservatives. The Neocons are not guided by pragmatic or rational concerns. Of course, many are starting to think Putin was just "part of the show" all along, as evidenced by his recent capitulation to Netanyahu.
Dante , June 14, 2018 at 9:40 am GMT
That was a very good read and you make some excellent observations, Certainly worth sharing, Thanks very much.
Renoman , June 14, 2018 at 9:51 am GMT
The American Government are a bunch of morons. I ask again "what has Russia ever done to the USA"? A real thin book as far as I can see, time to grow up and be big boys, there's money over there.
Jon Halpenny , June 14, 2018 at 10:48 am GMT
The American diplomat, Bruce P Jackson, who is credited with expanding NATO, made a statement several years ago. He heavily criticized Putin, saying he was responsible for "the largest theft of Jewish property since the Nazis."

So there we can see a motive for hatred of Putin.

War for Blair Mountain , June 14, 2018 at 11:06 am GMT
In 2018, Russia is Conservative Christian .

In 2018, America is homosexual-pedophile-mutilated tranny freak

Anon [436] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 11:14 am GMT
@Milton

Bad start.

S=W-1

S=W

Which is it?

Kirt , June 14, 2018 at 11:15 am GMT
Excellent analysis by Dr. Cathey of the roots of the anti-Russian hysteria. This is also reflected in popular culture – Hollywood movies and the various spy/covert ops novels of people like Ted Bell and Brad Thor, who has hinted that he may run against Trump in the 2020 Republican primaries. Russians have replaced Arabs as the go-to villains.
Wizard of Oz , June 14, 2018 at 11:18 am GMT
@Jon Halpenny

Was Jackson referring to some of the oligarchs who had fallen out with Putin and was he suggesting Putin rather than the state benefitted? Would he have included the Orthodox Khordokovsky as Jewish?

Parbes , June 14, 2018 at 11:20 am GMT
The neocons are a collection of sick, murderous, fanatical supremacist ideologues who have turned the U.S. into the most despicable criminal regime on earth. Because of their control and influence over the U.S. imperial military/political assets, combined with their psychopathic mentality and ideology, these scumbags pose a clear threat to the entire world, but especially to Russia and Europe (and to the U.S. itself, of course). The irony in all of this is that, although these mostly Jewish bottom-feeders like to smear any foreign leader they'd like to demonize as "the new Hitler" etc., they themselves are more nefarious and dangerous to the planet than Hitler and his German Nazis ever were.

Nothing will change until the major members of the neocon collective start getting individually singled out and receiving the harsh punishments they deserve.

War for Blair Mountain , June 14, 2018 at 11:28 am GMT
Who wages war against Christian Russia every night on MSNBC?

Answer:The biological mutant IT .Rachel Maddow .an IT .

jilles dykstra , June 14, 2018 at 11:38 am GMT
@Jon Halpenny

I wonder what jewish property Putin stole.
In the USSR there was hardly any private property.
What was stolen, sold for ridiculously low prices, was state property, to former USSR managers, and/or foreign 'investors'.
As far as I understand it, some crooks have been persecuted.
Any foreigner who, after 1990, went to live in a former USSR state can explain it.
Some did to me.
Possibly Jackson is referring to how Putin threw out Soros, and his Open Society indoctrination organisation.
Hungary just now also threw him out.
Timmermans of the EU again threatened the E European nations, for refusing to let migrants enter.
Soros wants multi ethnic countries

Jake , June 14, 2018 at 11:48 am GMT
@jilles dykstra

"Cannot see much difference between neocons and Deep State."

And that means that the US Deep State can NOT have a Jewish creation, because it existed a long time before 1948, a long time before 1939, a long time before the creation of the Federal Reserve.

There is a reason that Neocons love Alexander Hamilton and Abraham Lincoln: the former was an apologist for the nascent American Deep State, and the latter its perfect tool right down to being ready and able to slaughter huge numbers of non-Elite whites so the then virtually 100% WASP-in-blood Elite Deep State could totally control the growing nation.

The source of the American Deep State is the same as England's Deep State: Oliver Cromwell's deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and privileges and made precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate non-WASP white Christian cultures and identities.

That is exactly what the Neocons are determined to continue, and they are correct whenever they assert that they are being loyal to the history and heritage of the Puritans and of Abraham Lincoln's Republican Party and of the US in the Spanish-American War, World War 1 and World War 2.

What is different about today's Neocons and, say, the growing number of Jews with major voices among the British Deep State at the height of Victorianism is that now the original junior partner has become the acting partner, the dominant partner.

But the original alliance is the same.

You cannot separate the Neocon problem from the WASP problem. You cannot solve the Neocon problem without also solving the WASP problem.

Anonymous [320] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 12:26 pm GMT
Russia sucks. The only things beautiful about it are the natural landscapes and some of the women.

Russia treats it's poor with utter indifference. It's hospitals are pathetic.

Housing is drab and depressing.

Alcoholism, drug use and prostitution are rampant.

Unless you come from money in Russia, education and opportunity seems non existent. Save for the few poor exemplars.

Yet it has lots of weapons.

Russia is not a great country.

It's basically a bunch of white people acting black.

Quartermaster , June 14, 2018 at 12:30 pm GMT
@War for Blair Mountain

In 2018, Russia is Conservative Christian .

This is true only in the loosest sense. There is a huge difference between holding church membership, or attending church, and being a Christian. Putin may have done the 1st two, but the last is utterly unknown to him.

anonymous [739] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 12:31 pm GMT
Can't believe any sane American thinks Russians – including beautiful Russian tennis players are more of a threat to us in 2018 then say M13 Gang banger invaders, Chicago Black street gangs, Afghan and Pakistani child rapists or just the sub Saharan Black African mobs with their machetes.

We commissioned some Farstar cartoons on this theme – seems pretty basic to me, but the J media mafia simply goes on and on – there is supposedly a Russian spy behind every bush, some Russians posted anti Hillary posts on Facebook – oh the horror!

https://www.bing.com/images/search?view=detailV2&ccid=wYcqmOzk&id=3B43263DD48F82D1FEC205044FBE66DCDA30A42F&thid=OIP.wYcqmOzkZCrNMrWlfuDUigHaJu&mediaurl=http%3a%2f%2fwww.occidentaldissent.com%2fwp-content%2fuploads%2f2017%2f06%2frussians-out.jpg&exph=1280&expw=974&q=occidental+dissent+farstar&simid=607993335092480560&selectedIndex=3&ajaxhist=0

Quartermaster , June 14, 2018 at 12:37 pm GMT
While there is some "hysteria" when it comes to Russia, there is also much truth out there, some of which the author is willing to write off as little more than conspiracy theories.

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead. Anytime one appears to be a serious threat to Putin's position they end up dead. It is possible that Putin isn't responsible, but given the numbers and the circumstances, it is likely he knows what is going on.

While Putin was never head of the KGB, much of what he has been up to was learned form iron Felix's organization. To say Putin is a KGB thug is far from being out of line.

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah. Eastern Europe is right to be concerned. The fact that Putin has stated, rather pointedly, that the extent of the USSR is Russia makes the accusation of him being a Soviet revanchist appropriate as well.

Much of what the author seeks to write off as hysteria, isn't. That "hysteria" is a proper concern for what Putin is up to, and what he intends. Fortunately, Russia is too impoverished to all Putin to realize his neo-Tsarist empire. And in pursuing his self-aggrandizing path, he impoverishes his people even more.

DESERT FOX , June 14, 2018 at 12:42 pm GMT
The business of the Zionist controlled U.S. gov is WAR and this has been the agenda since 1913 and the establishment of the Zionist FED and the Zionist IRS and thus began the WAR agenda and the American people were set up to pay for the Zionist created wars and the Zionist agenda of a Zionist NWO.

Thus the Zionists need an enemy and have created enemies where none existed, the case in point being Russia and lesser created enemies the case in point being any given country in the Mideast that Israel and the Zionists wish to destroy. In the case of Russia the Zionists have the added incentive of trying to destroy a Christian country as Russia is now and historically has been Christian with the exception of the Satanist Zionist takeover of Russia in 1917 and the murder of some 60 million Russian people by the Satanist ie Zionist communists.

The U.S. gov is under satanic Zionist control and proof of this is the fact that Israel and the Zionist controlled deep state did 911 and got away with and every thinking person knows this to be the truth, may GOD help we the people of America.

Cleburne , June 14, 2018 at 1:35 pm GMT
@Jake

Jake:

While I defer to no one in my loathing and contempt for the WASPs of the Northeastern U.S., whose career of mischief began with the brutal war of conquest against my native South, I'd would like to point out what I see as some problems in your assigning to Oliver Cromwell to baleful title of WASP the first.

To wit: "Oliver Cromwell's deal with Jews, a deal granting Jews special rights and privileges."

This simply isn't true. Menasseh ben Israel did indeed present a "Humble Address on Behalf of the Jewish Nation" to the Lord Protector and the Counsel of State in 1655. Readmission was opposed by most of the English people and of the Puritan pastorate. However, there was no Act of Parliament, proclamation by Cromwell or notice from the Council of State allowing readmittance. Some historians have "deduced" that Cromwell have Menasseh "verbal assurance that they'd be allowed it, but those are deductions and speculation and no more. As far as sa subsequent petition for Jews to be allowed to practice Judaism in their homes and have a burial place outside the City of London, Cromwell referred that to the Council of State, which took no action.

Who did grant the Jews religious tolerance and naturalized a number of Jews by an Act of Parliament? Why, Charles II – after the Restoration.

You wrote: "made precisely in order to have the money to wage total war to exterminate non-WASP white Christian cultures and identities."

I can only assume you are referring to the Cromwellian conquest of Ireland, which began in May 1649. I assume you're aware that Ireland had been engulfed in a bloody and brutal civil war since 1641; indeed, one of the precipitating causes of the English Civil War was the matter of who would control the army raised to suppress the rebellion (Charles I or Parliament). Also as you know, England was swept by fear that Charles meant to bring an Irish army to England to suppress Parliament (and, indeed, there's probably more evidence that this was the actual case than there is that Cromwell cut a deal with the Jews). At any rate, there is no one single shred of evidence or even contemporary speculation that the Cromwellian conquest was at the behest of the Jews. It should be instead regarded in the context of the 17th century wars of religion, rather than 21st century conspiracy theory. Cromwell ended the civil war and pacified Ireland – in a brutal fashion, of course, but probably less vicious than Wallenstein in Germany.

Or are you referring to the Scots, crushed at Preston, Dunbar and Worcester? Again, the quarrel with the scots was over the matter of church governance, and the English unwillingness to impost the Presbyterian system on England. If Cromwell stood for anything, it was religious tolerance for the various sects that exploded after the Civil War; the sort of forced conformity demanded by the Scots displeased him (see the letters to Major Crawford in 1643).

And while both the New Englanders and English are labeled "Puritan," may I point out that the Puritan movement was a large one, with considerable variance. Cromwell favored tolerance and theologically tended toward a sort of univeralism (to judge by his pastors, eg Jeremiah Burroughs); I imagine that if he had gone to New England, he'd have been chased out along with Sarah Hutchinson and Roger Williams by the fanatical shits of Boston.

Boston is the "urgrund" of the WASP plague; not Cromwell. And while there's any number of things to fault him for, creation of the WASP was not one of them. In theological and existential terms, Cromwell and the New Model were probably closer to the Puritan "pioneers" of the Appalachian and Southern frontiers – many of whom were descended of troops planted in Ireland by Cromwell – and who of course made up the rank and file of the Confederate States Army.

You might want to take a look at the history of the Unitarian movement. You'd find everything you need to support your dislike of the WASP plaque there; I certainly have.

anon [228] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 1:51 pm GMT
1 undermines democracy abroad, and America struggles with poisonous threats from the right and left."
Think of Israel. But no don't think of Isreal. That is anti Semitism
2 "Putin wants to re-establish the Soviet Union" or "Putin was head of the KGB" or "Putin has had his enemies assassinated," and so on, ad nauseum)."

Think of US – harking back to the past of Roosevelt and Reagan and Eisenhower or to Monroe

Think of Pap Bush working for CIA
Thinks of thousands of people – leaders, trade unionists, communist, socialists killed by USA

3 Bill Browder, the grandson of -- – have documented, and he is engaged in a vicious personal vendetta against Vladimir Putin."

Think of -
be afraid of the screwing the neocons They will move to China or India and denounce US sue the country, and poison the well of the democracy and the well of the justice ,media, religious organizations to get back at US

4 James Kirchick: -- efforts to "close borders" against Muslim immigrants "

Think of the perversions of the beliefs and attitudes within the psyche of this false man
He is of the same mindset that encourages Islamophobia among the clueless , zealous fervent bible thump er and among the poor indigent uneducated misinformed white populations of France USA Australia and Poland . He does same to the military and leftists secular outfit of Richard Dawkins .
He then encourages to dismember Arabs countries . The half-baked moron Richard Dawkins type, and military, and the white trash fall for it and get ready to pick up the gun for the invisible pervasive psychopathic chants of Kirchick. He also makes sure that each and every members of the opposite conflicting groups never stray way from kowtowing to Zionism who is the enemy of the Islam and the Christianity and the of the respective people.

Jews definitely feel comfortable in all weather and among the separates and in all kind of geography

anon [228] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 1:56 pm GMT
4 Neocon Charles Krauthammer once declared: "We live in a unipolar world today, and there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States."

And America felt validated , accepted and elevated by the media -mental -act of the bastards who should have met the fate of Saddam long time ago.

jilles dykstra , June 14, 2018 at 2:27 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

"What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah. "

What did he do there ?
And what did the CIA do there ?

Anonymous [128] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 2:30 pm GMT
The more Christian that country and its leaders become, the more the atheistic west hates them. Too bad "Uncle Joe" wasn't still the Premier. We would treat that murderous atheist as a beloved relative, maybe even hand him over half of eastern Europe like we did last time. Instead, we send in LGBT protesters to disturb their new found faith.
jilles dykstra , June 14, 2018 at 2:35 pm GMT
@Jake

From the other side of the Atlantic, what is the WASP problem ?
Whatever one thinks of the USA, protestants from NW Europe created the USA.
Their descendants, in my view, defend their culture.
Hardly any culture in the world goes under without a fight.
Some, maybe many, Germans, again the exception.

WHAT , June 14, 2018 at 2:40 pm GMT
@Anonymous

>muh bad housing
> muh alco and drugs
> muh poor
> muh no money fo dem pogroms
> muh weapons everywhere

I love how all this boilerplate wailing can be readily applied to US.

WHAT , June 14, 2018 at 2:44 pm GMT
Also waiting for that other nut who always comes with his tirades about "surrendering ukraine to Putin", no matter what article is about.
Mike something, was it?
Wally , June 14, 2018 at 3:01 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

"talking about Putin, calling him "the new Hitler," and who asserted that Putin had committed "worse crimes" than the German dictator."

Classic garbage in, garbage out.

fact: Hitler and the Germans did not, could not have committed the crimes they are alleged to have committed.

"we've often fantasized about drawing up an indictment against Adolf Hitler himself. And to put into that indictment the major charge: the Final Solution of the Jewish question in Europe, the physical annihilation of Jewry. And then it dawned upon us, what would we do? We didn't have the evidence."
- so called "holocaust historian" Raul Hilberg,

Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the ridiculous 'holocaust' storyline is the message.

The '6M Jews, 5M others, & gas chambers' are scientifically impossible frauds.
See the 'holocaust' scam debunked here: http://codoh.com
No name calling, level playing field debate here: http://forum.codoh.com

Wally , June 14, 2018 at 3:07 pm GMT
"Neoconservatives descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement, whose memories go back to the pre-Communist days of persecution and pogroms under the Tsars. They originally welcomed Lenin and the Communist regime as liberators and formed some of its staunchest supporters and apparatchiks in the regime of terror that followed (especially in the Cheka and KGB) until Josef Stalin unleashed a wave of anti-semitism after World War II."

There is no proof of these "pogroms" and the fake "wave of anti-semitism after World War II".
The source of such claims are Jews who benefit / profit from making such claims.

Recall the fake '6M' since 1823.

http://www.codoh.com

Michael Kenny , June 14, 2018 at 3:11 pm GMT
The umpteenth serving of the classic US hegemonist pro-Putin/anti-EU line. The distinction is thus not between those who favour the maintenance of US global hegemony and those who oppose it. It is whether Putin is still useful as a battering ram to destroy the EU precisely so as to maintain US global hegemony into the indefinite future. The most logical explanation of the known facts surrounding the Ukrainian coup is that Victoria Nuland was in cahoots with Putin. Behind Nuland, of course were the US neocons. The split came when Putin waded into the Syrian civil war on Assad's side. By doing so he made himself a threat to Israel and, for the neocons, the whole point of maintaining US global hegemony is to prop up Israel. Logically, therefore, their priority became Putin's defeat and removal. The other side of the US hegemonist camp, which seems to be motivated by something like hubris or a master race delusion, still believes that Putin can be used to break up the EU. That's the position Mr Cathey is arguing.
I don't think Putin is still viable as an anti-EU battering ram. The American groups that have been financing far-right nationalism in Europe have got caught in the web of their own contradictions. On the one hand, they preach national identity and sovereignty to us but then, as Mr Cathey is doing here, they justify Putin's refusal to respect Ukrainian sovereignty and the Ukrainian national identity. Secondly, European nationalism is essentially "anti-other". That means that it is inherently anti-American, which makes newly nationalist Europe the inevitable enemy of US domination. It also means that anti-Semitism is inherent in European nationalism, which is probably what has Soros up in arms. The final contradiction is that, very often, the same people who preach nationalism at us in Europe preach white nationalism in the US. If white Americans are a single ethnic group and entitled to live in a single political entity, then we white Europeans must also be a single ethnic group and should also live in a single political entity (the EU, for example).
I never cease to be amused at the way in which the various American anti-EU scams cut across each other and cancel each other out!
Dan Hayes , June 14, 2018 at 3:13 pm GMT
@anon

anon[228]:

Actually within the last several years Putin also made the statement that there is only one superpower and it is the United States!

Cleburne , June 14, 2018 at 3:39 pm GMT
@jilles dykstra

"WASP" in the "USA" refers fairly specifically to the Protestants of New England and New York who as a result of the War of Northern Aggression attained complete power over the development of the American empire. Their interests were concentrated in banking, railroads, industry and so on. While descended from the Puritans of New England, most of them had lost any traditional religious fervor by, oh, 1700 or so and gradually moved into loopy, nonsensical ideologies like Transcendentalism, Unitarianism, the Social Gospel, and various other creation-fixing endeavors like temperance, abolitionist, progressivism and so on. To them can be attributed the Gnostic notion of the United States as God's appointed righter of wrongs around the world, with quite coincidentally matched up with their commercial interests. On the whole about as nasty and horrible group of people that ever walked the earth; however. WASP does not include the white Anglo-Saxon Protestants of Appalachia, the Deep South, Texas and so on. The Bush family are WASPs. Robert E. Lee was not a WASP. Jake is correct to disdain them; he's wrong in saying Cromwell was the archetype.

anon [317] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 3:53 pm GMT
@ Neoconservatives descend from Russian Jews from the Pale of Settlement.. yes but the Lenin crowd were from Salonkia (1908) and Hertzl's Germany @ many above Exactly, the by name, rank and serial number identification including dual nationalities, corporate by name ownership, board membership, and positions, management, advisory positions or whatever.

Deeper yet into the deep state might identify the corporate officers, directors and outside auditors who serve the needs of those identified. Bureaucrat who echo deep state intentions might be a problem?

Who cannot name the few corporations and their owners and directors that strongly support the neocon ideology on the Internet? Which does the intelligence gathering (spying), which processes the data(data mining), which produces and sells OS(limits user security), which makes sleuthing back doors for browsers and application software, which make the devices that negotiate the bits between hardware (CPU) and software (OS), you know one bit for you the user and a duplicate bit of your bit for deep state intelligence units.

At the next level is the global benefactors(Profiteers) . expensive war equipment makers, oil well production gear makers, robot makers, transport organizations, phantom for hire mercenary armies labor agencies, Democrat and Republican candidates managers to be placed on the "vote for 5 election" ballots, inventors of the fake, producers of "the fake" into propaganda, distributors of the propaganda designed fake news to masses in the public, and access managers who gate, for massive fees, lobbyist into see and deal with politicians, media giants, and power wielding bureaucrats.

As I looked through this list I realized that if the public were to deny its elected government authority to support its neocon capitalist, the entire economy would be forced to switch from Global to Domestic.. showering all kinds of benefits on the governed sheep . No wonder the government is so insistent: without globalism there is no neocon-ism, without neocon-ism open competition would flourish, the restrictions on human progress in copyrights and patents would disappear and prices would move from controlled levels to competitive levels.

But I do not think the neocons are "ideologues" ; unless lawless disregard for humanity in search of profit, is an ideology. I am not even sure they are tightly organized, they are not colonist, they are monopolist (meaning any profit potential (tangible or intangible) will soon belong to them or be within their control. They will write laws, or get nations to sanction, start wars, regime change, terrorize, whatever to advance and to protect their exclusive right to competition free profit making); you might call it ownership of all of the factors of production by whatever means is necessary. I look at them as capitalist, who have co-opted many different governments, who have forgone their humanity, who independently profiteer, interactively, and for a multitude of different reasons, to produce a common collective set of extremely effective outcomes.

nickels , June 14, 2018 at 4:34 pm GMT
Interesting, the video asserts that part of Leo Strauss's philosophy was the introduction of Plato's 'Noble Lie', which, in this case, was the bugaboo of an evil Russian Empire as a foil to bring Americans together and avoid the inevitable collapse of liberalism into nihilism. I wonder if anyone can confirm this as part of Strauss's gift the the neopsychoticons?

Also, pretty obvious reason for hatred of Russia is the closeness of the State and the Church. Strauss here talks about how the secular sphere has but one purpose, providing room for the meddlers to thrive:

Cyrano , June 14, 2018 at 4:37 pm GMT
The Neocons are mad at Russia for standing in their way of taking over the world. All in the name of "democracy" of course, nothing sinister there. Russia, and as a matter of fact, the whole world stood by and let the US have their way for almost 25 years. What did they accomplish? Diddly. So now, they want Russia to get out of the way for another (at least) 25 years, so they can spread some more "democracy". Let me tell you something, if they couldn't do it with virtually no opposition between 1991 -2014, and on a trillion dollar "defence" budgets, maybe there is something else that should be blamed other than Russia. Maybe it's their incompetence.
anon [228] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 4:56 pm GMT
@Dan Hayes

Now tell us the difference or differences between the two.

anon [228] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 5:02 pm GMT
@anon

James Kirchick: by encouraging balkanization of ME per the plans advocated by PNAC now FDD and Friends of Syria or SITE -Sharon-Netanahyu Joe Lieberman Kirchick favorite White Helmet or Jishs Fishas Islam Whitewash ludicrous Jihadist and cemented in stone by Yoneen Yidod ( or what ever is the name of that Jew ) sends those same muslims he encourages the "deplorable" to feel suspicious and hate and same time advocating the acceptance by the countries .

fredyetagain aka superhonky , June 14, 2018 at 5:05 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

"Neo-Tsarist empire." Ha, that's rich. Congrats, you've managed to outdo even the most unhinged anti-Putin elements of the l'chaimstream media.
"impoverishes his people even more." You mean be improving their lives as measured by virtually every metric since kicking out the (((Russian))) banksters and their (((American))) advisers who were robbing the place blind? Dude, you're delusional. Go peddle your nonsense elsewhere.

John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , June 14, 2018 at 5:16 pm GMT
My favorite part of the Renew Democracy Initiative's manifesto:

10. The extremists share a disdain for the globalism on which modern prosperity is based. Whether they are far-left or far-right, they believe in top-down solutions to problems that can best be resolved through greater freedom, competition, openness and mobility . Both seek power without compromise or coalition and defer to the rule of law only when it strengthens their own position. These illiberal forces embrace divisive rhetoric that makes rational debate impossible. Indeed, they frequently reject established facts and scientific reasoning in favor of conspiracy theories and malicious myths. Liberal democracy must address the problems of those disadvantaged by economic change with practical programs grounded in fact and reason.

Amazing! There are two parts to this. The "openness and mobility" is a nod towards their status as rootless kosmopolity who destroy civil society and local communities in favor of a permanent, mobile underclass. But they actually imply that globalism is bottom-up; that globalism is the result of liberty and the free market. Such balls, these people.

John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , June 14, 2018 at 5:18 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

I recall an article long ago where he suggested that the US Govt. should address the drug addition problem in the USA by assassinating drug dealers on the streets in the USA .

Wow. At least Rodrigo Duterte is kinda funny.

Anon [425] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 5:21 pm GMT
"We live in a unipolar world today, and there is only ONE superpower, and that is the United States."

No, the ONE power is the Empire of Judea. US is its Jewel in the Crown.

Rurik , June 14, 2018 at 5:23 pm GMT

Russia seems to be returning to its older national and pre-Communist heritage, to its age-old Orthodox Christian faith. Russians are returning by the millions to the church and the "old-time" religion. For Kirchick this can only mean one thing: the triumph of bigotry, anti-semitism, and "extreme right wing" ideology, and the failure of what he terms "liberal democracy and equality".

more so even than any concern for Jewish supremacy or glorification of sodomy or all the other shibboleths oozing out of the gaping orifices of Jewish fudge packers like Kirchick, is a visceral, unearthly animosity (hatred) for the Western world and its (comparatively) beautiful, well-adjusted, happy and prosperous people.

Indeed, it is the 'happy' part that drives them insane with stinging malice and seething, rancorous rage.

I remember as a kid celebrating Christmas, and how the Jewish children I knew were not allowed. This is all part of the carefully constructed paradigm that the Jewish elite impose on their people to keep them resentful and envious. Eventually metastasizing into a deep-seated hatred.

They want to see all those ruddy-cheeked Christians pay! for their pain during those terrible years.

Like the boy who was picked last for sports or never 'got the girl', they develop a psychological imperium of wrath, which their religion bolsters in spades.

That is why when ever they get the drop on the Gentiles (who tormented them with good-natured hails of 'Merry Christmas!, which stung to their core, because all that love and happiness was not for them. ) – regardless of the obvious sincerity of the Christians. – [which made it even worse]

Eventually it roils and burns in their ids like an acid. And they want revenge. And that's why the Palestinians, and the Syrians and Lebanese are menaced day and night.

That's why the Russians and Ukrainians and Estonians and Poles, and so many others

suffered to monstrously under the cruel Jewish, Bolshevik yoke.

It has nothing to do with fear over a re-ascendant Russia. Hardly. That's laughable.

Rather, the reason they can't abide Russians going to church and thriving and prospering, is because it means the Russians have become happy again, and that drives them absolutely bonkers with murderous, Talmudic rage.

Them Guys , June 14, 2018 at 6:23 pm GMT
@Parbes

Good description of them. Basically I see all their anti Russian crap, as a revenge minded attitude so often seen from jews. They tried to overtake the largest nation, of mainly Whites and Christians, at least once prior to 1917 jewish revolt against Russia. That was I believe in 1905, it ended when the $$$ ended. But with another better funded, by usa and german fellow jew banksters, attempt in 1917.

Those Bolshevik jews took over Russia first, then every eastern nation which also was mainly a White and Christian peoples nation's. They did so basically by mass Murdering aprox 1/2 of orig populations in those nations. And now 100 years later, after Russian soviet commies has crashed, and a huge return to prior Christian ways etc, is going gangbusters Due to Bolsheviks and jews for the most part getting that Big Boot Out jews are so famous for.

So now here in America we have inherited most of those Children and especially Grand Kid jew commies of the Orig 100 years ago Russian Bolshevik butchers, torturers, and mass murderous bastards. And besides infiltrated into All what matters in usa society and govnt and culture, they also have as a "side agenda" of sorts a massive huge Lusting for typical jewish blood thirsty revenge upon Russia and its Christian Whites,and of course its leader Putin. Those jews had Russia in palm of hand, then totally Lost it. They began with around 8.5 to maybe 10-million jews in Russia/Poland soviet and today have around less than 27o,ooo total jews within Russia iirc.

Likely it was Putin more than all other issues or reasons those, mostly jewish swindlers, finally were also Booted Out and their scammed assets from their Raping of Russia resources etc Taken away from them Being such mamon/money worshipers they are also so famous for, no other thing would so piss them scamming jews off eh.

I also believe that after the jewish 1917 revolt in Russia, when top control jews there with plans to use control of Russia as largest nation on earth, to gain their foamed at mouth lust of a JWO control made reality. That it finally dawned on them that in order to Rule as a JWO one world govnt of jewry Vs all gentile others, they could never do so without a huge Navy like usa has.

You must have Navy ships to Carry Jet fighter planes To distant areas you wish to rule over, because most other nations wont simply agree to being jew-ruled with a JWO clan of fanatical jewry. Ergo you need also Ocean Waters, warm waters to Park said ships and navigate those waters to get to those other reluctant nations. Russia failed for such scheme plans for jewry.

So since so many of the tribe were in usa already .Just join fellow tribe in usa, and turn America and its military etc into a huge Tool of international jewry so to complete jwo plans that Russia didn't fulfill.

And both the agenda of jewish revenge, as well as their desired jwo plans probably play an equal part within those evil nasty minds that they are also so famous for having.

Dan Hayes , June 14, 2018 at 6:45 pm GMT
@anon

anon[228]:

In response to your query, the difference between the US and Russia is that in geopolitics the latter has performed well above the cards it has been dealt with.

John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , June 14, 2018 at 6:48 pm GMT
@Cleburne

And where, dear sir, can we find any "religious fervor" in the likes of that beau ideal of the Southern antebellum statesman, John C. Calhoun? Calhoun began life as a Calvinist (a Presbyterian) and ended it as a kind of Unitarian. This is almost the exact trajectory as the religious life of the Boston Yankee culture. The Old Nullificator was backcountry Scotch-Irish – as opposed to WASP – but Unitarian crap is Unitarian crap no matter where it exists.

Calhoun was, of course, a giant among those of the 1830s and '40s who pushed the South from the 18th century American conception of slavery – as something that should be contained until its eventual death – to a new conception that exclaimed, vigorously, that slavery was a legitimate part of the American way of life. No, no. I cannot abide this poison. If you all want to condemn Hamilton and Sumner and all, go ahead. I'll agree. But when Lincoln – that flawed man – saw the original sin of the American republic as the protection of slavery, he was right. And he was neither fanatical nor alone in his view. To this day, we tend to conflate Lincoln and the anti-slavery bloc with the radical Republican abolitionist bloc. This is unfair.

General Meade, the victor of Gettysburg, was condemned by the radical Republicans in Congress because of their hatred for Lincoln. Some unity there.

The Anti-Federalist Marylander Luther Martin was right to criticize the powerful framers for allowing the slavery problem to go on, for enshrining it in the Constitution. Too many antebellum Southern elites decided that the likes of Martin were wrong.

You will find few "Northerners" more amenable to the South than me. I live only a few miles north of the Mason-Dixon. I count Confederate soldiers among my kin. One was even born in Pennsylvania, and fought in his own hometown during Lee's invasion.

But no one forced the state of South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter. No one in the North forced the Southern elites to accept a conception of black slavery as a "positive good" (i.e. James Henry Hammond). The idea of a "War of Northern Aggression" is convenient and cute, but I live near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. You may not have heard of its burning, but I have. And it attests to the truth, which is that if the South had the numbers the North had, then it would have done what you all so hate Sherman and Custer for doing in Georgia and the Shenandoah: burn, burn, burn. Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone types in the South as there were in Boston.

P.S. Judah Benjamin. Apparently those Southern "Anglo-Saxons" (As General Lee described himself) weren't so uncomfortable with the Jewish folks.

AnonFromTN , June 14, 2018 at 6:51 pm GMT
There is a lot of truth in this piece, but I think that the overall spin is misleading. Putin's orthodox faith (likely pretended; he seems to be too intelligent for a true believer), history of Jewish persecution in Russia, etc., are secondary factors. The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired) are mad that the world refuses to be unipolar. Russia, China, Iran, Venezuela, North Korea, and many lesser countries, arouse "righteous indignation" of the robbers because they refuse to let themselves be looted and bossed by the US elites. All sorts of thieves joined the choir: Jewish and gentile, "right" and "left", military and civilian, the only common denominator being that they stole a lot and resent being thwarted from stealing even more. Moreover, the almighty dollar is about to be exposed as a king with no clothes by various countries switching the trade to their own currencies, undermining the Ponzi schemes of the US dollar and US government debt. The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain, like all dominant Empires before it, but cannot do anything about inevitable course of history.
John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , June 14, 2018 at 6:59 pm GMT
@Cleburne

P.S. Check this out for an opinion you may find controversial – but note the person posting his opinion is relying on primary sources: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-non-celtic-confederacy.120973/

Them Guys , June 14, 2018 at 7:07 pm GMT
@Wally

Wally, by keeping Americans always focused on Hitler and Nazis and SS storm troops, they will not have time, nor ever find out what the Real True 20th century crimes against humanity were. When starting in 1917 JEWS that invented communism, and Used it as main means to mass murder almost 1/2 of eastern euro nations and Russia itself Those crimes and mass killings jewry should get blame for makes whatever bads or evils done by Hitler and Nazis Pale in comparison, and makes german Nazis look like small kindergarten kiddies at play in back yard sand box with wooden swords.

Thanks to internet over past 15 years, many usa folks are waking up and getting very jewized up.

Which we know is main reason such massive attempts at internet censorship has been occurring. And is happening at a furious pace like no other agenda we have seen in our lives. Plus the EU and Canada nations non stop Prison terms for truth tellers of any jew issues. Soon to arrive here in usa with 99.9% of us senate and congress full approval votes when pressed by AIPAC and 599 Other jewish usa orgs.

We can toss out our sun glasses as our American future does Not look bright at all. Unless we see soon a massive wake up call and enough armed citizens willing to take back America. That too looks very dim so far.

SunBakedSuburb , June 14, 2018 at 7:47 pm GMT
I think Jake should say WASP elites rather than just WASP. The majority of the US Anglo-Saxon stock are working class and middle class who, along with the Catholic Irish, German, and Italian, have made this country what it is; and in their demographic decline we see the decline of the United States. The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.
jack daniels , June 14, 2018 at 7:48 pm GMT
@Anon

In every political question we should remember to look past grandiose abstractions and see the operative gut loyalties, both our own and those of the competing sides. What is going on with Russia is simply Jewish mania to prevent Russia from being Russian and keep it under Jewish or surrogate rule. Similarly, NATO and the EU are now just enforcers of political correctness. The Slavs and other illiberal peoples of central and eastern Europe are to be re-subjugated now that Communism is not there to persecute the priests and re-educate the sexists. The author, in citing ancient persecutions of Jews to excuse the machinations of current Jews, attempts to meet his critic half-way. Some day perhaps we will be able to state the truth without the dance of apology.
Here is an analogy: Suppose in the 90s we thought it critical to weigh in on the Northern Irish Question. Suppose we had a Department of Irish Affairs to formulate US policy, and it was staffed by Clancy, Reilly, Finnegan, O'Toole and O'Meara. Would anyone hesitate to raise the issue of objectivity? Or suppose our middle-eastern team consisted of 5 guys named Muhammad. Do you think there might be questions?

Rurik , June 14, 2018 at 7:51 pm GMT
@AnonFromTN

The US elites (neocons are just one type of servants they hired)

ah, so it was Dubya all along!

what a clever little schemer he was! Pretending all that time to be dumb as a rock, and a tool of organized Zionism, while he was using the neocons to his own advantage!

So while ((Wolfowitz and Feith and Pearl and Kristol)) were being schooled at the feet of ((Leo Strauss)), it was Dubya the college cheerleader all along who was the mastermind behind the Project for a New American Century and 9/11 !

sure, Goldman Sachs and Hollywood get federal subsidies, but it's the (dying) American middle class that has been exploiting the world's poor!

The hysterical US foreign policy in the last 10-15 years, with its mindless suicidal aggressiveness, is in fact death throes of an Empire that resents going down the drain,

what's been going down the drain has been the blood and tears and future of working class Americans, forced to suit up their children to go slaughter innocent Arabs and others in a transparent and treasonous policy intended to bolster Israel – at the direct and catastrophic expense of America and the American people.

I wonder, as the American people are taxed to the tune of billions every year, to send to Israel as tribute, is that also a case of US elites using Israel to their own devices? As Americas roads and bridges crumble, and veterans are denied care?

Or, is it just possible, that the ((owners)) of the Federal Reserve Bank, have used that printing press as a weapon to consolidate absolute power over the institutions of the ZUSA?

Do you suppose that when France bombs Libya or menaces Syria, that they're doing it to benefit the French elite? And that Israel is their dupe, who give them a pretext for doing so? Or that the French (and British and Polish and Ukrainian, etc..) elite are getting their marching orders from Jewish supremacist Zionists who're hell bent on using Gentile Christians to slaughter Gentile Muslims while they laugh and count the shekels? Eh?

EugeneGur , June 14, 2018 at 7:53 pm GMT
@Quartermaster

It is passing strange that those who have strongly criticized Putin have ended up dead.

The logic of this is fascinating in its perversity. Lot's of people who don't criticize Putin at all or downright admire him die including under unclear circumstances – the West just doesn't notice. For example, several Russian diplomat have died suddenly and prematurely in various countries – out UN representative Churkin would be the prime example. Can you imaging how many wonderful conspiracy theories we could have concocted should we be so inclined?

It's the same exact "logic" ridiculed in "conclusions" like this: "Everyone who eats cucumbers dies". And those who don't live forever?

What he has done in Ukraine should make the man, and the country he heads, a pariah.

He, meaning Putin, hasn't done anything in Ukraine – the West did. The West organized and supported a coup bringing to the power a super-corrupt illegitimate "government" that relies on armed neo-Nazi groups for the control of the county. Now Ukraine is a failed state with the dominant neo-Nazi ideology, nonexistent economy, impoverished and fleeing population and repressive political system, not to mention a civil war. All Putin did was to resist this development as much as possible, and I do not believe he should be blamed for that.

redmudhooch , June 14, 2018 at 7:56 pm GMT
War on the poor and defenseless, it what the Neocon and Zionist-puppet traitors do best. Terrorists in Syria (white helmets) getting 7 million in new funding from Trump, just as Russia warns of new chemical attack false flag is in the works. Must kill evil dicktater Assad for protecting those Christians inside Syria

Russia Warns "Credible Information" Of Impending Staged Chemical Attack In Syria

https://www.zerohedge.com/news/2018-06-14/russia-warns-credible-information-impending-staged-chemical-attack-syria

White House Tied to Terrorists, Trump Authorizes $6.6M in Aid to White Helmets

https://www.veteranstoday.com/2018/06/14/white-house-tied-to-terrorists-trump-authorizes-6-6m-in-aid-to-white-helmets/

Starvation Holocaust in Yemen.

Yemen – The Starvation Siege Has Begun

http://www.moonofalabama.org/2018/06/the-starvation-siege-on-yemen-has-begun.html#more

By the time the American people realize that the war on terror was designed for them to be the final victim, it will be too late.

Anon [698] Disclaimer , June 14, 2018 at 8:19 pm GMT
@Rurik

Hell of a lot of projection in this comment

Cleburne , June 14, 2018 at 8:44 pm GMT
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

Thanks for your eloquent response. A few thoughts:

1. I wouldn't extend Calhoun's religion, ot the lack thereof, to the "common soldier" of the Confederacy. You might take a look at Fehrenbach's "Lone Star" history of Texas; he understands the "puritanism" of the South.

2.

But when Lincoln – that flawed man – saw the original sin of the American republic as the protection of slavery, he was right.

–> sorry, I don't think "original sin" is attributable to nations. History is a bloodbath, and always will be, and the whole notion that slavery is some sort of "sin" demanding atonement is quite ridiculous. That's the sort of gnosticism practiced by the Bostonians that played sure a huge part in causing the War of Nort.. er. War for Southern Independence. Far as antebellum slavery itself, might I recommend the work of Genovese and Fogelberg on the character of American slavery? A review of how exactly the victorious Yankees and their Republican bosses provided for the liberated slaves after Appomattox is enlightening.

3.

But no one forced the state of South Carolina to fire at Fort Sumter.

Saint Abe himself admitted he connived South Carolina into opening fire.

4.

I live near Chambersburg, Pennsylvania. You may not have heard of its burning, but I have.

So we have that in common!

5.

nd it attests to the truth, which is that if the South had the numbers the North had, then it would have done what you all so hate Sherman and Custer for doing in Georgia and the Shenandoah: burn, burn, burn. Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone types in the South as there were in Boston.

This is speculation on your part, so hardly the truth. Stonewall Jackson, of course, would have been happy to bring fire and sword to the North. Probably Edward Ruffin, too. But at the same time, the South was primarily acting a defensive capacity during the war, not as a force of invasion.

5.a: "

Perhaps there were just as many hell-fire and brimstone types in the South as there were in Boston."

hellfire and brimstone in what sense?

6,

P.S. Judah Benjamin. Apparently those Southern "Anglo-Saxons" (As General Lee described himself) weren't so uncomfortable with the Jewish folks.

-- yes, AND? What's your point? what's this to do with anything? When the Confederate memorial in Beaumont, Texas was dedicated around the turn of the last century, the local rabbi gave opening remarks. Different creeds tended to get along somewhat better in Dixie. That's a well known fact.

7.

You will find few "Northerners" more amenable to the South than me. I live only a few miles north of the Mason-Dixon. I count Confederate soldiers among my kin.

I appreciate that, sincerely.

Cleburne , June 14, 2018 at 8:49 pm GMT
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

P.S. Check this out for an opinion you may find controversial – but note the person posting his opinion is relying on primary sources: https://civilwartalk.com/threads/the-non-celtic-confederacy.120973/

Why would I find that controversial? Are you suggesting I was arguing for a "celtic south"? I always thought the notion ridiculous. I know Grady McWhiney and others push it, but it's inaccurate to say the least.

Seamus Padraig , June 14, 2018 at 9:02 pm GMT
@Wizard of Oz

Khordokovsky's father was Jewish: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mikhail_Khodorkovsky#Early_years_and_entrepreneurship_in_Soviet_Union

AnonFromTN , June 14, 2018 at 9:03 pm GMT
@Rurik

Elites are robbing Americans and foreigners alike. In fact, the US population gets some crumbs off elites' table, and enjoys higher living standards than it would have in fair global competition.
The overall educational level and the level of awareness of what's going on in the world in the US is dismal. Elites arranged that by maintaining pathetic education system and spreading lies via MSM; ignorant sheep are more likely to obey, and to approve of persecution of those "black sheep" who are less ignorant and don't buy the lies of the MSM. Did we see any protests against "Patriot Act" that trampled the very foundations of our Constitution? Sheep don't protest, they just follow the leader.

However, we have to remember that clueless ignoramus in the US gets 5-10 times more than similarly clueless ignoramus in China or India. Bush junior was genuinely dumb, but would he become US President without his family's ill-gotten riches, or without his ex-CIA chief daddy becoming the President first? Of course not, most morons in the US never fly that high. The only reason for his "success" is the fact that he was born into an elite family.

As far as Jews are concerned, this appears to be yet another red herring, like Russia-bashing. Are gentile Koch brothers or Walton family any better than the worst Jews in the US? They are just as selfish, greedy, and repulsive as George Soros or Sheldon Adelson.

See comment 51:

The problem here and abroad are elites. Elites of any kind.

[Jun 13, 2018] Note on Us strategy

Notable quotes:
"... Erster General-Quartiermeister ..."
"... The US strategy is based on two core principles: (1) Maintain – extend hegemony over whole world. (Resources, military etc etc) (2) Act as Israel's Golom. ..."
"... Of course this (very abbreviated) view of US "strategy" is open to the criticisms that it's both dumb & evil. As if US establishment cares. Compared to cost of traditional "war" it's pretty cheap ..."
Jun 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

In truth, infinite war is a strategic abomination, an admission of professional military bankruptcy. Erster General-Quartiermeister Ludendorff might have endorsed the term, but Ludendorff was a military fanatic.

Check that. Infinite war is a strategic abomination except for arms merchants, so-called defense contractors, and the " emergency men " (and women) devoted to climbing the greasy pole of what we choose to call the national security establishment. In other words, candor obliges us to acknowledge that, in some quarters, infinite war is a pure positive, carrying with it a promise of yet more profits, promotions, and opportunities to come. War keeps the gravy train rolling. And, of course, that's part of the problem.

Who should we hold accountable for this abomination? Not the generals, in my view. If they come across as a dutiful yet unimaginative lot, remember that a lifetime of military service rarely nurtures imagination or creativity. And let us at least credit our generals with this: in their efforts to liberate or democratize or pacify or dominate the Greater Middle East they have tried every military tactic and technique imaginable. Short of nuclear annihilation, they've played just about every card in the Pentagon's deck -- without coming up with a winning hand. So they come and go at regular intervals, each new commander promising success and departing after a couple years to make way for someone else to give it a try.

... ... ...

Congressional midterm elections are just months away and another presidential election already looms. Who will be the political leader with the courage and presence of mind to declare: "Enough! Stop this madness!" Man or woman, straight or gay, black, brown, or white, that person will deserve the nation's gratitude and the support of the electorate.

Until that occurs, however, the American penchant for war will stretch on toward infinity. No doubt Saudi and Israeli leaders will cheer, Europeans who remember their Great War will scratch their heads in wonder, and the Chinese will laugh themselves silly. Meanwhile, issues of genuinely strategic importance -- climate change offers one obvious example -- will continue to be treated like an afterthought. As for the gravy train, it will roll on.


Anon [323] Disclaimer , June 7, 2018 at 9:57 pm GMT

"The United States of Amnesia."

That's actually a universal condition.

unseated , June 7, 2018 at 11:00 pm GMT
@Andrei Martyanov

1. WW1 had total casualties (civilian and military) of around 40M. WW2 had total casualties of 60M. So yes WW2 was more deadly but "pales in comparison" is hardly justified, especially relative to population.

2. Marshal Foch, 28 June, 1919: "This is not a peace. It is an armistice for 20 years."
WW1 inevitably led to WW2.

c matt , June 8, 2018 at 1:18 pm GMT
"Enough! Stop this madness!"

The only politician with a modest national stage to have said that (and meant it) in the last 50 years was Ron Paul, who was booed and mocked as crazy. Trump made noises in that direction, but almost as soon as the last words of his oath echoed off into the brisk January afternoon, he seemed to change his tune. Whether he never meant it, or decided to avoid the JFK treatment, who knows.

No, as I believe Will Rogers said, democracy is that form of government where the people get what they want, good and hard.

anonymous [340] Disclaimer , June 8, 2018 at 2:08 pm GMT
@c matt

Yes.

I supported Ron Paul in 2012. But after his candidacy was crookedly subverted by the Establishment (cf., Trump's) I vowed never to vote again for anyone that I believe unworthy of the power wielded through the public office. I haven't voted since, and don't expect to until the Empire collapses.

Carlton Meyer , Website June 8, 2018 at 4:02 pm GMT
Kirk Douglas starred in a great film about fighting in World War I: "Paths of Glory." I highly recommend the film for its accuracy, best described in Wiki by the reaction of governments:

Controversy

On its release, the film's anti-military tone was subject to criticism and censorship.

In France, both active and retired personnel from the French military vehemently criticized the film -- and its portrayal of the French Army -- after it was released in Belgium. The French government placed enormous pressure on United Artists, (the European distributor) to not release the film in France. The film was eventually shown in France in 1975 when social attitudes had changed.[17]

In Germany, the film was withdrawn from the Berlin Film Festival to avoid straining relations with France;[18] it was not shown for two years until after its release.

In Spain, Spain's right-wing government of Francisco Franco objected to the film. It was first shown in 1986, 11 years after Franco's death.

In Switzerland, the film was censored, at the request of the Swiss Army, until 1970.[18]

At American bases in Europe, the American military banned it from being shown.[18]

Mike P , June 8, 2018 at 4:33 pm GMT

No, it's not the generals who have let us down, but the politicians to whom they supposedly report and from whom they nominally take their orders.

I'd say both. The generals have greatly assisted in stringing along the trusting public, always promising that victory is just around the corner, provided the public supports this or that final effort. Petraeus in particular willingly played his part in misleading the public about both Iraq and Afghanistan. His career would be a great case study for illuminating what is wrong with the U.S. today.

As to the apparent failure of the Afghanistan war – one must be careful to separate stated goals from real ones. What kind of "lasting success" can the U.S. possibly hope for there? If they managed to defeat the Taliban, pacify the country, install a puppet regime to govern it, and then leave, what would that achieve? The puppet regime would find itself surrounded by powers antagonistic to the U.S., and the puppets would either cooperate with them or be overthrown in no time. The U.S. are not interested in winning and leaving – they want to continue disrupting the peaceful integration of East, West, and South Asia. Afghanistan is ideally placed for this purpose, and so the U.S. are quite content with dragging out that war, as a pretext for their continued presence in the region.

TG , June 8, 2018 at 7:44 pm GMT
An interesting and thoughtful piece.

I would disagree on one point though: "Today, Washington need not even bother to propagandize the public into supporting its war. By and large, members of the public are indifferent to its very existence."

This is an error. A majority of the American public think that wasting trillions of dollars on endless pointless foreign wars is a stupid idea, and they think that we would be better off spending that money on ourselves. It's just that we don't live in a democracy, and the corporate press constantly ignores the issue. But just because the press doesn't mention something, doesn't mean that it does not exist.

So during the last presidential election Donald Trump echoed this view, why are we throwing away all this money on stupid wars when we need that money at home? For this he was attacked as a fascist and "literally Hitler" (really! It's jaw-dropping when you think about it). Despite massive propaganda attacking Trump, and a personal style that could charitably be called a jackass, Trump won the election in large part because indeed most American don't like the status quo.

After the election, Trump started to deliver on his promises – and he was quickly beaten down, his pragmatist nationalist advisors purged and replaced with defense-industry chickenhawks, and now we are back to the old status quo. The public be damned.

No, the American people are not being propagandized into supporting these wars. They are simply being ignored.

Left Gatekeeper Dispatch , June 8, 2018 at 9:10 pm GMT
When are you going to stop insulting our intelligence with this Boy's State civics crap? You're calling on political leaders to stop war, like they don't remember what CIA did to JFK, RFK, Daschle, or Leahy. Or Paul Wellstone.

https://www.globalresearch.ca/tribute-to-the-last-honorable-us-senator-the-story-of-paul-wellstones-suspected-assassination-2/5643200

Your national command structure, CIA, has impunity for universal jurisdiction crime. They can kill or torture anyone they want and get away with it. That is what put them in charge. CIA kills anybody who gets in their way. You fail to comprehend Lenin's lesson: first destroy the regime, then you can refrain from use of force. Until you're ready to take on CIA, your bold phrases are silent and odorless farts of feckless self-absorption. Sack up and imprison CIA SIS or GTFO.

James Kabala , June 9, 2018 at 11:24 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

Since Spain was smart enough to stay out of both World Wars (as was Switzerland, of course), I wonder what Franco was thinking when he banned the film. Anyway, the final scene may be the best final scene in the history of movies.

exiled off mainstreet , June 10, 2018 at 1:15 am GMT
This writer, a retired military officer whose son died in service to the yankee imperium seems to have as good a grasp as any if not a better grasp than any about the nature of the yankee system of permanent war.
smellyoilandgas , June 13, 2018 at 4:48 am GMT
@TG

While I agree the slave-American is ignored, I think the elected, salaried members of the elected government are also ignored.. The persons in charge are Pharaohs and massively powerful global in scope corporations.
Abe Lincoln, McKinnley, Kennedy discovered that fact in their fate.

Organized Zionism was copted by the London bankers and their corporations 1897, since then a string of events have emerged.. that like a Submarine, seeking a far off target, it must divert to avoid being discovered, but soon, Red October returns to its intended path. here the path is to take the oil from the Arabs.. and the people driving that submarine are extremely wealthy Pharaohs and very well known major corporations.

I suggest to quit talking about the nation states and their leaders as if either could beat their way out of a wet paper sack. instead starting talking about the corporations and Pharaohs because they are global.

Mr. Anon , June 13, 2018 at 4:49 am GMT
The yawning silence accompanying the centennial of the Great War is baffling to me. It was the pivotal event of the 20th century. It was the beginning of the unmanning, the demoralization of Western Civilization. It was the calamity that created the World we inhabit today.

I've heard nary a peep about it in the U.S. over the last four years. It's as if it were as remote in people's consciousness as the Punic Wars.

MarkinPNW , June 13, 2018 at 5:49 am GMT
The World Wars (I and II) can be seen as an increasingly desperate attempt of a fading British Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, with the material, human, and moral cost of the wars actually accelerating the empire's demise.

Likewise, the current endless "War on Terra" can be seen as an increasingly desperate attempt of a fading American Empire to hold on to and maintain its power and hegemony, again with the material, human, and moral cost of this war actually accelerating its demise.

But in the meantime, in both examples, the Bankers and the MIC just keep reaping their profits, even at the expense of the empires they purportedly support and defend.

animalogic , June 13, 2018 at 8:14 am GMT
@Mike P

Good points Mike P.

Author says: "strategy has ceased to exist".

In a traditional sense the author is right. Strategy is the attainment of political goals, within existing constraints. (diplomatic, political, resources etc)
"Goals" traditionally means "victories". (WWI is a great example of the sometimes dubious idea of victory)
Has the US ceased to have a strategy ? No. (Their strategy is myopic & self destructive – ie it's not a "good" strategy)

The US strategy is based on two core principles: (1) Maintain – extend hegemony over whole world. (Resources, military etc etc) (2) Act as Israel's Golom. Afghanistan, at (relatively) minimal cost, US controls key land mass (& with possible future access to fantastic resources). Threaten, mess up Russian – Chinese ambitions in this area. Iraq: Israeli enemy, strategic location, resource extraction. Syria: Israeli enemy, strategic location, key location for resource transfer to markets (EU esp). Deny Russia an ally. Libya: who cares ? Gaddafi was a pain in the arse. Iran: Israeli enemy, fantastic resources, hate them regardless.

Of course this (very abbreviated) view of US "strategy" is open to the criticisms that it's both dumb & evil. As if US establishment cares. Compared to cost of traditional "war" it's pretty cheap ( which is funny, because it's such a yummy gravy train for the 1% sorry, actually, forgot the FIRST core principle of US strategy: enrich all the "right" people)

Tom Welsh , June 13, 2018 at 10:05 am GMT
'There has never been a just [war], never an honorable one–on the part of the instigator of the war. I can see a million years ahead, and this rule will never change in so many as half a dozen instances. The loud little handful–as usual–will shout for the war. The pulpit will– warily and cautiously–object–at first; the great, big, dull bulk of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, "It is unjust and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it." Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will thin out and lose popularity.

Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers–as earlier– but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation–pulpit and all– will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths will cease to open. Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception'.

- Satan, in Mark Twain's "The Mysterious Stranger" (1908)

annamaria , June 13, 2018 at 2:06 pm GMT
@Carlton Meyer

European politicians, the war on terror, and the triumph of Bankers United: https://www.paulcraigroberts.org/2018/06/12/europe-brainwashed-normalize-relations-russia/
"Europe has not had an independent existence for 75 years. European countries do not know what it means to be a sovereign state. Without Washington European politicians feel lost, so they are likely to stick with Washington .

Russian hopes to unite with the West in a war against terrorism overlook that terrorism is the West's weapon for destabilizing independent countries that do not accept a unipolar world."

The world is ripe for barter exchange. Screw the money changers.

[Jun 13, 2018] How False Flag Operations Are Carried Out Today by Philip M. GIRALDI

Highly recommended!
When the media is controlled by people responsible for false flag operation chances to use investigation to discredit this false flag operation, no matter how many evidence they have is close to zero
In other word false flag operation is perfect weapon for the "sole superpower" and due to this status entail very little risks.
Notable quotes:
"... Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. ..."
"... False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time. ..."
"... Because the rebels succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful. ..."
"... The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime. ..."
"... The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4 th . Russia had no credible motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. ..."
"... Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the CIA. ..."
"... The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. ..."
Apr 26, 2018 | www.strategic-culture.org

False Flag is a concept that goes back centuries. It was considered to be a legitimate ploy by the Greeks and Romans, where a military force would pretend to be friendly to get close to an enemy before dropping the pretense and raising its banners to reveal its own affiliation just before launching an attack. In the sea battles of the eighteenth century among Spain, France and Britain hoisting an enemy flag instead of one's own to confuse the opponent was considered to be a legitimate ruse de guerre , but it was only "honorable" if one reverted to one's own flag before engaging in combat.

Today's false flag operations are generally carried out by intelligence agencies and non-government actors including terrorist groups, but they are only considered successful if the true attribution of an action remains secret. There is nothing honorable about them as their intention is to blame an innocent party for something that it did not do. There has been a lot of such activity lately and it was interesting to learn by way of a leak that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) has developed a capability to mimic the internet fingerprints of other foreign intelligence services. That means that when the media is trumpeting news reports that the Russians or Chinese hacked into U.S. government websites or the sites of major corporations, it could actually have been the CIA carrying out the intrusion and making it look like it originated in Moscow or Beijing. Given that capability, there has been considerable speculation in the alternative media that it was actually the CIA that interfered in the 2016 national elections in the United States.

False flags can be involved in other sorts of activity as well. The past year's two major alleged chemical attacks carried out against Syrian civilians that resulted in President Donald Trump and associates launching 160 cruise missiles are pretty clearly false flag operations carried out by the rebels and terrorist groups that controlled the affected areas at the time. The most recent reported attack on April 7th might not have occurred at all according to doctors and other witnesses who were actually in Douma. Because the rebels succeeded in convincing much of the world that the Syrian government had carried out the attacks, one might consider their false flag efforts to have been extremely successful.

The remedy against false flag operations such as the recent one in Syria is, of course, to avoid taking the bait and instead waiting until a thorough and objective inspection of the evidence has taken place. The United States, Britain and France did not do that, preferring instead to respond to hysterical press reports by "doing something." If the U.N. investigation of the alleged attack turns up nothing, a distinct possibility, it is unlikely that they will apologize for having committed a war crime.

The other major false flag that has recently surfaced is the poisoning of Sergei Skripal and his daughter Yulia in Salisbury England on March 4th. Russia had no credible motive to carry out the attack and had, in fact, good reasons not to do so. The allegations made by British Prime Minister Theresa May about the claimed nerve agent being "very likely" Russian in origin have been debunked, in part through examination by the U.K.'s own chemical weapons lab. May, under attack even within her own party, needed a good story and a powerful enemy to solidify her own hold on power so false flagging something to Russia probably appeared to be just the ticket as Moscow would hardly be able to deny the "facts" being invented in London. Unfortunately, May proved wrong and the debate ignited over her actions, which included the expulsion of twenty-three Russian diplomats, has done her severe damage. Few now believe that Russia actually carried out the poisoning and there is a growing body of opinion suggesting that it was actually a false flag executed by the British government or even by the CIA.

The lesson that should be learned from Syria and Skripal is that if "an incident" looks like it has no obvious motive behind it, there is a high probability that it is a false flag. A bit of caution in assigning blame is appropriate given that the alternative would be a precipitate and likely disproportionate response that could easily escalate into a shooting war.

Tags: CIA

[Jun 13, 2018] Leaving the past behind ... by TTG

Notable quotes:
"... Yes your last paragraph explains the neocon hysteria, their bitterness tastes sweet. ..."
Jun 13, 2018 | turcopolier.typepad.com

Bolton must be "turning and burning." Good! Will Kim survive this at home? We will see. Will the North Koreans actually follow through on this? We will see. Will the US follow through on this? We will see. Who will be the poor bastard who will be the first McDonald's manager in Pyongyang? Will he end his days in the Gulag? What will Nancy Pelosi say about this? Where was Kim's dishy sister during the Singapore expedition? She is the head of propaganda in NOKO. pl

TTG , 20 hours ago

I couldn't be happier with the outcome of this summit. No one is talking war in Korea anymore. So Trump gave away future military exercises on the Peninsula and characterized them as provocative. So what? In exchange we have a North Korea feeling a little less threatened. The idea of a denuclearized Peninsula could lead to a minimal or even nonexistent US presence along with a complete dismantling of the North's nuclear weapons program. That would be grand. There will be a lot of fault found in this summit and its outcome, but I don't care. This was a bold and courageous move on Trump's part. Some may think it was a courage born out of ignorance, but it was also born out of a willingness to try something new, a willingness to deal with KJU as a partner. This is refreshing. Trump done good and the world is better today than it was a few short months ago.

Perhaps Trump can apply this same reasoning to other military deployments and exercises. Recognize their potential provocativeness and withdraw. Withdraw from Syria. Withdraw from Europe. Apply the same type of conciliatory engagement to Iran, Cuba and others that he showed to North Korea. Now that would be a legacy.

Eric Newhill -> TTG , 9 hours ago
TTG,

Trump is blowing holes in old paradigms. The concepts he's applying aren't particularly genius; rather just sensible, but he's the only one who seems to be able think outside the box enough to even consider making a try for a new way. I'm sure that a lot of prep work went into this historic meeting; lots of wheeling and dealing. However, the simple yet elegant, idea behind it all is that it's better for all parties to be friends than enemies. Trump has transcended all the moralizing that holds back others (e.g."But North Korea has gulags!"). He realizes that redemption of bad actors is possible through friendship and prosperity. An adversarial relationship fixes nothing unless an actual existential war is waged and one winner emerges from the carnage- and war is costly. This kind of acting on cost/benefit analysis is one reason why some of us voted for a businessman as opposed to a career pol. Glad you are able to give credit where it's due.

TTG -> Eric Newhill , 6 hours ago
Eric Newhill,

Now if Trump can just blow holes in the old paradigms concerning Iran and Cuba. Now would be the time to do it. Obama was doing that in the case of Iran and Cuba and the neocons and Republicans gave him holy hell for daring to question those old paradigms. If Trump could get over supporting anything Obama supported, I believe he could carry these policies of reconciliation to fruition despite the opposition. He's like the honey badger. He just don't give a f#ck. And that's just what the situation calls for.

TTG -> TTG , 6 hours ago
The ultimate paradigm that needs holes blown into it is Israel's parasitic relationship with the US. I've said it before. The sooner Trump realizes our policies regarding Israel are a cost center, the better off we will all be.
Eric Newhill -> TTG , 5 hours ago
TTG,

IMO, he'll get there. First he needs to build momentum and trust. He has to prove himself to the world. NoKo is a great place to start. The neocons and borg are less invested in certain outcomes there - therefore the probability of sabotage is lower. Trump has to deal with both the external powers as well as the internal (I think the internal are the bigger barriers to success). I don't think he really gives a flying f###k about how Kushner or his daughter feel about Israel. He tossed Israel and the US rightwing a bone w/ the embassy move. That's as much as they'll get from here on out if they get too pushy. Despite some Islamic quarters making big noise about it, I don't see them actually doing anything more than protesting and getting shot for it. We've annihilated Iraqi uniformed forces twice in recent history. That serves as an object lesson to the rest of the countries in the region. So a cost free bone toss by Trump as far as he is concerned.

Rob -> TTG , 15 hours ago
Yes your last paragraph explains the neocon hysteria, their bitterness tastes sweet.
LeMoore00 -> TTG , 8 hours ago
Hello TTG,

I agree largely with your post, however I just cannot see how it can lead to further withdrawals, simply because it kind of implies the US is there for the benefit of others and not for themselves. They could pull out of Europe now. Pretty sure everyone knows Russia is not going to invade Europe, right?

But yes, Trump has shown good faith, and lets hope NK reciprocate. I think they will. The idea that Kim wants his country in its current state is just ignorant.

Pat Lang Mod -> LeMoore00 , 7 hours ago
Explain to me how the presence of US forces in Europe or Syria benefits the US.
LeMoore00 -> Pat Lang , 6 hours ago
I'd say the same reason why the US has bases all over the world. Please excuse my ignorance, I am just a lay man with a keen interest. Why have bases in Japan? Or indeed anywhere? Hegemony, no? Why not pull out years ago? Genuine questions. The US seems to want to check EU growth - why would they pull out their military presence there? Or, say, Japan? There are no "allies", just overlapping interests, right?
Babak Makkinejad -> LeMoore00 , 6 hours ago
Since Commodore Perry's mission to Japan in 1853, what has US gained except war and unemployment in her interactions with Japan? Would it not have been a superior policy to leave Japan alone to wallow in her brutal feudalism and delay or prevent the unleashing of that brutality on the rest of East Asia?
LeMoore00 -> Babak Makkinejad , an hour ago
Yes.

One could say the same about all empires I guess. The pursuit of power and domination seems to cloud all judgment. So, in your opinion, should the US have any bases outside of the US? I am from the UK, so there are still bases lingering from our own days of rule. They really just kept as forward operating positions, right? For example, the UK base in Cyprus used for ME operations.

Pat Lang Mod -> LeMoore00 , an hour ago
The two Cyprus bases are just springboards for adventurism. IMO we should abandon NATO as a vestige of the Cold War an leave you Europeans to your own devices. Korea? We should leave as soon as Trump can arrange it. Australia? Why are we there? So that we can meddle in Asia? Where else? I can't think of anywhere we should stay off our own territory.
Pat Lang Mod -> LeMoore00 , 6 hours ago
LeMoore00 "Hegemony" as a goal or reward has no value except to the collective ego of the Borg. If there was some economic value derived from these commitments and deployments there would be some basis for your remark but there is not.
LeMoore00 -> Pat Lang , 6 hours ago
Agree. But the"benefit" part of my comment was from the perspective of said Borg, not the people. So I think we're in agreement here.
Pat Lang Mod -> LeMoore00 , 5 hours ago
And the benefit is a psychological benefit.
LeMoore00 -> Pat Lang , 5 hours ago
So is Trump genuinely trying to extricate the US from these situations? There is a view amongst the commentariat that perhaps he is trying to alienate allies in order for them to begin cutting lossening ties with the US, causing the very isolation Trump made a significant part of his campaign. Thoughts?
Babak Makkinejad -> TTG , 19 hours ago
North Korea will not denuclearize...

US bid for Caesarism, in the absence of a new Peace to replace that of Yalta, will only make nuclear war more probable, in my opinion.

Yes, Trump might have reduced tensions on the Korean Peninsula but the fundamental insecurity of North and South Korea remains.

Who will guarantee the continued existence of the North Korean state?

Rob -> Babak Makkinejad , 9 hours ago
South Korea is strong and rich enough to look after the North. The complicated matter of how reunification will occur will be for them to work out between them. The nuclear issue is really the easy part.
Babak Makkinejad -> Rob , 6 hours ago
Seeing is believing.

We have seen this show 5 times already.

The necessary framework for nuclear disarmament or re-unification is a Global Peace - a la Peace of Yalta - is lacking; in my opinion.

We have entered a period of Warring States - waiting, I suppose, for the Shi, Hwang Ti moment - but until such time a multipolar world does not make itself conducive to such strategic settlements - certainly not with NATO still existing.

When one considers the fact that Arms Control is dead, NPT is dead, Peace of Yalta is dead, JCPOA is dead then one cannot rightly expect a strategic settlement on the Korean Peninsula between US and DPRK.

Jaime -> Babak Makkinejad , 4 hours ago
No doubt, for what can the NK leadership conclude when they have seen a consistent foreign policy -be Republican or Democrat- of destroying any nation whose policies are seen as a threat by the US? There is no basis of trust.
Michael -> TTG , 19 hours ago
Thanks TTG,
I fully approve and share this happiness

(ex Charles Michael according to disqus)

FB , a day ago
Today the world has seen a historic day...

Trump deserves huge credit for the way he handled himself with a man who has been demonized by our propaganda ministry media and the deep state criminals who have been trying to pull a regime change in Washington since January 2017...

I have to admit I gave up on Trump quite a while ago...today changes everything...

Is it surreal that President Trump is the most moderate and sensible voice not only in the room but in the entire country...?

This is what the people voted for...and this is what 'presidential' looks like...Trump is headed for the history books in a very very large way...

I have to believe that he is consolidating control of the machinery of state...I was actually first surprised by Pompeo's breakthrough and surprise visit to DPRK...and even Bolton has turned out not to be the spoiler I had feared...

What in the world is going on here...?

Did the universe just turn upside down...?

All of the questions Col Lang asks are relevant, but just the huge success that this day has become overshadows everything for now...

What next...will Putin and Trump finally get together and really start putting the screws to the enemies of mankind that are besetting both men...?

Let us dare to hope...

sbnat1ve -> FB , a day ago
Which enemies of mankind would that be? Climate change, famine, water scarcity? THAT would be miraculous!
Babak Makkinejad -> FB , 18 hours ago
Great day for North Korean diplomacy.
JohnA -> FB , 11 hours ago
Gregory Copley is interviewed by John Batchelor in these two episodes explaining the whole thing in geopolitical terms:

How will Trump strategically transform North Korea and North Asia?

https://audioboom.com/posts...

What do Tokyo and Moscow want strategically from the Trump taming of Kim?

https://audioboom.com/posts...

Very enlightening. Very hopeful.

sbnat1ve , a day ago
This seems to be the meat of the summit from the George Stephanopoulos interview:

G: Did you talk about pulling troops out? U.S. troops out of South Korea.

T: We didn't discuss that, no. But we're not gonna play the war games. You know, I wanted to stop the war games, I thought they were very provocative. But I also think they're very expensive. We're running the country properly, I think they're very, very expensive. To do it, we have to fly planes in from Guam -- that's six and a half hours away. Big bombers and everything else, I said, 'Who's paying for this?' I mean, who pays, in order to practice.

Apparently the South Koreans were caught by surprise (again).

I'm assuming canceling war games once in a while is fine....but what happens to readiness if they are cancelled over a long time and how important (and specific to a North Korean context) are these games? Experts...please weigh in? How long would it take North Korea to take over South Korea with conventional troops and weapons?

Makoshark -> sbnat1ve , a day ago
Kim invading SK, its 600,000 effectives (3mln reserves), 30,000 US servicemen & nukes & Carrier strike group, on the eve of a diplomatic breakthrough that could end up with engraving his name in gold throughout history...

Sounds a bit like Assad gassing his civilians right on the brink of a strategic victory. But on a devastating, enormous, monumental scale.

sbnat1ve -> Makoshark , a day ago
I wasn't thinking he would do it right away...and he sure would wait til Trump had pulled those expensive troops out of there.
SurfaceBook -> sbnat1ve , 16 hours ago
i dont know if you aware that south korean military is estimated 5x stronger compared to NK , and it is a folly to compare the 1950 SK and NK in term of combat strength , readiness and whatnot
Pat Lang Mod -> SurfaceBook , 10 hours ago
Yes, I know that. The small US ground force are just hostages to insure a US nuclear response to successful invasion.
william mcdonald , 9 hours ago
I can't help but think that events like this might have occurred earlier in his term if not for this Russian collusion thing.
Sid Finster -> william mcdonald , 6 hours ago
That is precisely why the Deep State has pushed Russiagate so hard.

It delegitimizes Trump and restricts his freedom of action to do things neocons don't like.

Pat Lang Mod -> Sid Finster , 6 hours ago
It SEEKS to delegitimize Trump.
TTG -> william mcdonald , 6 hours ago
william mcdonald,

The key condition that triggered this series of events was NK's development of a nuclear weapon and delivery capability. That put KJU in a position to make conciliatory moves towards SK and the rest followed. However, Trump's disposition to try something

TTG -> william mcdonald , 6 hours ago
william mcdonald,

The key condition that triggered this series of events was NK's development of a nuclear weapon and delivery capability. That put KJU in a position to make conciliatory moves towards SK and the rest followed. However, Trump's disposition to try something new was also instrumental... and fortuitous.

Pat Lang Mod -> TTG , 5 hours ago
It is inherent in his character, not fortuitous.
TTG -> Pat Lang , 4 hours ago
pl,

I meant it's fortuitous for us. I agree it's inherent in his character. That's why i think it's entirely possible he and/or his organization conspired with Russians to circumvent election laws and norms to gain some kind of advantage in the election. He would feel no inhibition to trying something new. It's inherent in his character.

Pat Lang Mod -> TTG , 4 hours ago
Thus fsr you have no proof whatever that he "conspired" with the Russians.
Valissa Rauhallinen , 17 hours ago
Hurray for peace-making!

Here's a fascinating tidbit on the Trump Teams PR efforts...
White House Created Production Video to Assist Singapore Summit Talks With North Korea . https://theconservativetree...
Details are surfacing of a video put together by the White House to assist in diplomacy messaging toward Kim Jong-un and the team of North Korea negotiators. According to reports, toward the end of the talks between President Trump and Kim Jong-un the video was shared in both Korean and English languages to the audience of both teams. The video was also shared with the international media audience prior to President Trump's remarks at the press conference
------------------------

The 4 min video is very well done, and as one commenter pointed out is a great example of positive propaganda.

You can also watch it at YouTube

Play Hide
ex-PFC Chuck , a day ago
As for
Bolton must be "turning and burning."


Perhaps his hiring as NSC chief was a case of "Keep your friends close and your enemies closer." Or as LBJ put it, "Have them inside the tent pi**ing out."

Babak Makkinejad , a day ago
This is the 5-th time we have seen this show.
The Beaver , a day ago
Colonel

Kim's sister was in Singapore. She is the one who handed him all the documents to be signed , after bringing him the pen which has been dusted and verified by a NOKO agent.

Pat Lang Mod -> The Beaver , a day ago
Good I am looking forward to seeing more of her. She would clean up beautifully.
David Lewis , a day ago
Seems like Trump echoed what I assume is a N Korean view..no nukes anywhere around the Korean peninsula which, I'd imagine, in the view, would include S. Korea and Japan and perhaps...and in return POTUS gets to build some resorts on N Korean beaches...I hope I'm wrong but that seemed the between the lines message

No more war games with S. Korea??? as added inducement for Kim..to sign an agreement that didn't expand beyond previous agreements with respect to nukes?

Pat Lang Mod -> David Lewis , a day ago
"and in return POTUS gets to build some resorts on N Korean beaches." If this is not irony you may actually be too stupid for SST. that would put you in an elite group.
David Lewis -> Pat Lang , a day ago
This is the age of Trump...today's irony is tomorrow's reality..http:// www.businessinsider.com/tru... .
Eric Newhill -> David Lewis , 9 hours ago
A lot of people totally miss that Trump jokes around quite a bit.
FB -> Pat Lang , a day ago
LOL...
Bill Herschel , a day ago
If you want some insight into DT's or Kim's personalities, look at the list of people Sammy "The Bull" Gravano murdered. DT and Kim are both criminals who have risen to the "top" through criminality. This current claptrap is DT trying to bring out the base for the midterms. How are things in Yemen these days?
Fred -> Bill Herschel , a day ago
I'm pretty certain that zero of Trump's supporters live in Yemen. How about the Obama replacement 2020 candidate; are they going to run on liberating Yemen? I'm sure that will pull the democratic base out to vote.
Pat Lang Mod -> Bill Herschel , a day ago
I didn't know you were a Democrat. Something new every day. Yemen?

[Jun 13, 2018] If Only We'd Listened To Ike... - Inside The Deep State

Jun 13, 2018 | www.zerohedge.com

Submitted by Kevin Paul,

Many Trump supporters, and even some on the left, like to talk about the "Deep State" secretly having complete control of our government, thus rendering our elected leaders to be nothing more than meaningless figureheads. Let's investigate.

Long before the term 'Deep State' became popular, the term "Military Industrial Complex" was coined by President Dwight Eisenhower.

He gave his now famous Military Industrial Complex (MIC) speech on Jan 17, 1961.

During his ominous farewell, Ike mentioned that the US was only just past the halfway point of the century and we had already seen 4 major wars. He then went on to talk about how the MIC was now a major sector of the economy. Eisenhower then went on to warn Americans about the "undue influence" the MIC has on our government. He warned that the MIC has massive lobbying power and the ability to press for unnecessary wars and armaments we would not really need, all just to funnel money to their coffers.

Jump to Ike's warning about the "unwarranted influence... by the Military-Industrial Complex" at 8:41

https://www.youtube.com/embed/OyBNmecVtdU

His warning though proven correct, was sadly not heeded. Within a few years JFK was assassinated shortly after giving his "Secret government speech" warning the American people about "secret governments and secret organizations that sought to have undue control of the government.

JFK was in his grave for less than 9-months before Gulf of Tonkin incident which was a series of outlandish lies about a fictitious attack on a US naval ship that never happened, which caused the US to enter the Vietnam war.

President Johnson lied his way into a war with North Vietnam and within less than a year would joke that "maybe the attack never happened". By the time the war ended in 1973, Johnson's bundle of lies had killed 2.45 million people.

The MIC however, saw the Vietnam war as a great victory and a template for the future success to their objectives. Ever since the Vietnam War, the MIC has urged the government to enter into as many ambiguous and unwinnable wars as possible, since unwinnable wars are also never-ending. Never-ending wars equate to never-ending revenue streams for the war industry.

Eisenhower warned us about the concept of one particular industry taking control of our government, but sadly his predictions fell of deaf ears.

Since Eisenhower's time several other over "Industrial Complexes" have followed the MIC example and taken control of our government to suit their needs as well. Their objective is to buy out politicians in order to control the purse strings of Congress and they have been highly successful.

The list of these ÏC industries includes, but is not limited to the companies below:

1. The Drug Industrial Complex. (DIC)

The prescription drug industry has massive control of our government and our health care system. A recent Mayo Clinic study concluded that 70% of Americans are on at least one prescription drug.

The most tragic example is opioids, though similar arguments can also be made in reference to the anti-depressant epidemic, obesity, heart disease and diabetes.

The sicker America is, the better it is for the DIC.

The drug lobby is 8x larger than the gun lobby and is indirectly responsible for the deaths of between 59.000 and 65,000 people in 2016 alone, but if we dig deeper, that number could easily be 2 or 3 times higher, Since deaths related to opioids from infection related to opioid related infections are extremely common Anti-depressants are being prescribed 400% more than they were in the 1990's. They are commonly prescribed to adolescent women and we live up to the name "Prozac Nation" when we realize that 1 in 5 women between the ages of 40 and 59 are taking antidepressants. The list of other prescription medicines to enhance the DIC revenue streams is extensive.

There are two primary industrial complex rules when it comes to prescription drug centric treatment:

Firstly, no curing is allowed, ever. Treatment of conditions with temporary benefits is allowed, but healing is not permissible, since it interrupts revenue streams.

And second, any and all "natural" or homeopathic treatment whether it be related to diet, supplements vitamins, anti-oxidants or physical exercise/meditation should all be relegated to "quackery." Doctors who do not adhere to the prescription drug method of treating patients should also be referred to as adherents to "quackery" and should be reprimanded, fined and in extreme cases have their medical licenses revoked.

2. Real Estate Industrial Complex. (RIC)

Goal: Keep housing prices rising as much as possible, year after year after year.

How this is implemented: Endorse the borrowing of money to entice people into buying excessively large homes in order to promote the "dream" of home ownership. Once people buy into this scheme, they are then saddled with massive home taxes to their city and the burden of the taxes utilities that go along with owning an excessively large home. Stigmatize anyone who is over the age of 25 and lives in the same domicile as a parent or grandparent.

Make sure all media channels repeat over and over incessantly that high real estate prices are "signs of a great economy," while ignoring the crippling effect high home prices have on working class families who can barely pay their mortgage.

3. College Industrial Complex (CIC)

The average tuition in 1971-1972 was $1832.00 and now it is officially over $31,000.00.

There are over 60 colleges and universities where the tuition has already exceeded $60,000.00 per/year.

A college education used to be something that people saved and paid cash for, but now there has been a cultural shift where students are expected to take out loans that are often in the hundreds of thousands of dollars to obtain a college degree.
Why is this all so expensive? When we look at our universities and colleges, we see an obsession with elaborate new buildings and sports stadiums, more than actual learning.

There are several emerging/innovative ideas to make a college education better, faster and far more affordable. Such concepts probably won't take hold until the inevitable collapse of the entire educational system takes place.

4. Health Insurance Industrial Complex (HIC)

Much of the US healthcare system is now governed by the "Healthcare Affordability Act" passed by the Obama administration in 2010.

The HIC proved how powerful they were when Congress was not allowed to read the legislation before voting for it, publicly displaying that the HIC who wrote the bill behind closed doors is more powerful than Congress itself.

What transparent public committees were behind this important legislation?

In reality, there was no transparency at all, this is stated clear as day by Healthcare Affordability Act primary architect Jonathan Gruber stated: "Lack of transparency is a huge political advantage, Call it the stupidity of the American voter or whatever, but basically, that was really, really critical for the thing to pass."

The Speaker of the House at the time was Nancy Pelosi, who famously said from the leadership podium as House Speaker: "We have to pass the bill so that you can find out what is in it.'

Our elected officials were not allowed to read the most important legislation of the past 30 years before voting for or against it. There is no greater testimony to the level of dysfunction in Congress than the Healthcare Affordability Act, formed by secret committees and then not allowing Congress to read it before voting.

* * *

Let's think back to 1961 when Eisenhower warned us about what would become the Vietnam War. The American people's ignoring his warning caused arms manufacturers and big business to assume nearly complete control of US government.

If we had listened to Ike, millions of people would not have died in the wars of the last 57 years and we would have trillions of dollars less in debt. Perhaps we still have time to heed his warning before our entire country collapses under the weight of corruption, crippling debt and never-ending wars, let's hope so.

* * *

Kevin Paul is the founder of Alternativemediahub.com, which refers to itself as "The megaphone of independent journalism." Born in MA, he came within 2% of winning the R party nomination to oppose Ted Kennedy in 2006 and holds degrees in business and political science.

[Jun 13, 2018] Egor Kholmogorov Stalin Is Not Great, by Anatoly Karlin - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... It is our joy that during the hard years of the war the Red Army and the Soviet people were led by the wise and experienced leader of the Soviet Union – the GREAT STALIN. ..."
"... "He found Russia working with wooden plows and left her equipped with atomic piles" ..."
"... "Wait, if the revolution hadn't happened, Russia would have simply frozen at 1913 levels forever?" ..."
"... "If Tsarist Russia was so industrially backward, where did her working class come from, with the Bolshevik Party as its self-proclaimed leadership?" ..."
"... physical eradication ..."
"... Petropavlovsk ..."
"... History of a Town ..."
"... so deep ..."
"... Map of the "Future Europe" (not like Wilhelm II would have liked it!) ..."
"... lesser ..."
"... starets ..."
"... Children of the Arbat ..."
"... In turn, this makes me wonder–had an independent Ukrainian state limited to central and western Ukraine been created, how viable would it have been? After all, this state would have been landlocked ..."
"... with the caveat that I do not consider it politically realistic even for the USSR ..."
Jun 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

Egor Kholmogorov: Stalin Is Not Great Anatoly Karlin June 8, 2018 6,500 Words 796 Comments

Vladislav Pravdin – GREAT STALIN (1949) . It is our joy that during the hard years of the war the Red Army and the Soviet people were led by the wise and experienced leader of the Soviet Union – the GREAT STALIN.

Translator's Foreword (Fluctuarius Argenteus)

And now for something completely different. Instead of snippets from larger works, here's Egor Kholmogorov's two-part takedown of the notion of "Stalin as a Russia national hero" merged into a single text.

The relationship of Russian nationalism and Neo-Stalinism is a torturous one. Modern Neo-Stalinism emerged in the early 2000s as one aspect of an anti-Yeltsinist and anti-Liberal consensus, an attempt to reconcile the Imperial and Soviet past under the banner of a broadly defined Russian patriotism and do away with the kind of historical nihilism that painted Stalin as the ultimate expression of a "millennium-old Russian yearning for slavery". Many, including the author of the article and its translator, paid lip service to this movement in their younger years.

By approximately 2005, the movement had gone mainstream, and by 2012, it completely morphed into a cancerous outgrowth. The nerve of early Neo-Stalinist rhetoric was the belief that Stalin had made a U-turn from (((Old Bolshevik cosmopolitanism))), legalised some forms of Russian national consciousness, and generally put Russian history back on track (i.e., was not true Marxism, and it was good ). The Neo-Stalinism of The New Tens is virulently hostile towards the slightest hint of Russian patriotism and a positive appraisal of pre-1917 Russia, going as far as to condemn liking Alexander Nevsky and Peter the Great (both lionised under Stalin) as "Vlasovism" (oh the sweet irony).

Needless to say, this text provoked some gnashing of teeth in the Neo-Stalinist camp.

AK's Foreword

After my takedown of Lenin , some people suggested that I extend it to Stalin. But what point is there when we have Kholmogorov? I agree with this 90%, down to the biographical details of my own modest (if still regrettable) quasi-Stalinophile sentiments a decade ago.

This is something that afflicted many Russian patriots of that time, being part of a general rejection of the Russophobic narratives of the liberal elites. Support for Stalin became intensely tribal, and a means to troll those people. However, it has now gone on for far too long. That particular culture war is no longer relevant, and lingering Stalinophilia now only serves to distort Russian history and Russia's self-image of itself. It is time to put that mustachioed, medals-bedecked Halloween costume back into the cupboard.

Although we may quibble with some details – I had quite a few myself as I edited this – this piece may be considered to be as close to a Russian nationalist statement on Stalin as any.

If you appreciate these translatinos, please feel free to give Kholmogorov a tip here: http://akarlin.com/donations-kholmogorov/

***

Part I: Pharaoh of the Plow and Atom

Original : https://tsargrad.tv/articles/faraon-sohi-i-reaktora_71311

38% of Russian citizens polled by Levada Center put Joseph Stalin at #1 among the greatest heroes of Russian and world history. He is followed by Putin, Pushkin, Lenin, Peter I, Gagarin, Leo Tolstoy, Georgy Zhukov, Catherine II, Lermontov, Lomonosov, Mendeleev, and even Brezhnev and Gorbachev. The only non-Russians who made it to the top are Napoleon, Newton, and Einstein.

Well well well This is an obvious disgrace. If trustworthy, it reveals than the average Russian doesn't have the vaguest idea about the course of Russian and world history and the true importance of historical figures. To be fair, sociologists aren't that far from the masses, mixing in the same poll politicians, generals, writers, and scientist, whose relative importance just can't be measured by the scale. Essentially, this a list of the best-advertised personalities.

The absolute disaster here is that, in 2017, almost a good half our citizens are confident enough to place Stalin at #1 in Russian and world history. Of course, the Generalissimo here is playing the part of an epic or even mythological hero; the details and real achievements do not matter. For our people, Stalin is a byword for "a strong Russia to be reckoned with in the global arena". And this strength acts as an acceptable rationale for everything else: millions of murdered Russians, from great scientists to common villagers, demolished churches and martyred priests, a completely fleeced countryside Everything is pardoned and justified, following Isaac Deutscher's formula : "He found Russia working with wooden plows and left her equipped with atomic piles" (which is frequently misattributed to Winston Churchill instead of this obscure Trotskyite and has "atomic piles" replaced with the "atomic bomb").

In other words, Stalin is seen by the Russian consciousness as the architect of our incredible grandeur, which was enabled by the tremendous industrial leap forward and Victory in the Great Patriotic War. This grandeur is enough to excuse his transformation of Russia into a hellish bloodbath of terror.

If we put mythological and epical thinking aside and deal with historical facts, is Stalin's #1 place among the greatest personalities in world history, afforded by our compatriots and sociologists, in any way justified?

I have never been into anti-Stalinist hysterics. I even published multiple articles calling to refrain from cartoonish nihilism while evaluating Stalin's contribution to our country's Victory in the Great Patriotic War. I am an even stauncher opponent of identifying Russia with Stalin, of using Stalin's horrifying atrocities as a pretext to erase our national heroism and demand "reparations", "territorial concessions", and other vile nonsense. I couldn't care less about Stalin being distasteful to other countries and nations – the Russians are blameless before them.

What really concerns me is Stalin's place in the history of the Russian people. And it is in this domain, no thanks to meddlesome "National Stalinists" who go as far as to put Stalin on icons , where the role of this historical figure is inflated to infinity and beyond. It now turns out that it wasn't Stalin's good fortune that the Russians stayed loyal to him during the military debacle of 1941, as he claimed himself in his famous Victory Toast . No, it was a great honor and mercy for the Russians on Stalin's part, because he condescended to rule them, shoot them, exile them where they could plow permafrost, let them get slaughtered in Nazi encirclements, and starve them with famines. It turns out that we Russians are allegedly unworthy of Stalin, our Messiah.

This boundless and hypertrophied propaganda poisoning the minds of our countrymen is sometimes even more obscene than the cult of the Great Leader as it existed in his lifetime. To heighten Stalin's pedestal, they keep placing more and more falsehood at its base, be it myths of a pathetic backward Tsarist Russia or new slander against victims of the regime, long rehabilitated by state security and never held in contempt by the nation or history. Even the greatest of victims, such as Nikolai Vavilov , are now dragged through the mud, and the most despicable of rogues, such as Trofim Lysenko , are now lionized, for the sole purpose of keeping Stalin's halo intact.

That is why we have to return to the question of Stalin the historical figure and not Stalin the myth, and enquire into the degree and character of his greatness.

The first foundation stone of Stalin's pedestal is the Industrialization. Allegedly, the very Russia that languished in backwardness under the pathetically incompetent Tsars made a huge industrial leap under Stalin, storming into global industrial leadership, beating Hitler, and becoming a superpower.

This claim is false in several respects. First, Tsarist Russia wasn't backward either in industry or in military technology. The country was developing dynamically, and there is no reason to suggest she would have reached a lower level of industrial progress than the one attained by the USSR in 1939. When we were little kids, Soviet textbooks hypnotized us with diagrams of industrial development compared to "Russia in 1913". And no one would pose the question: "Wait, if the revolution hadn't happened, Russia would have simply frozen at 1913 levels forever?" . And here's another naïve question no one came to ask Soviet history teachers: "If Tsarist Russia was so industrially backward, where did her working class come from, with the Bolshevik Party as its self-proclaimed leadership?"

Russian industrialization began in the 1890s mostly thanks to the efforts of Count Sergei Witte, who was a follower of the great German economist Friedrich List, the theorist of the forces of production (a term later plagiarized by Karl Marx) and protectionism. An active ally of Witte's was Dmitry Mendeleev, not only a famous chemist but also an economist who organised the Russian oil industry and also followed List's principles of economic protectionism.

Enjoying the complete support of Emperors Alexander III and Nicholas II, Witte achieved an impressive surge in industrial development. However, he was often criticised for overstraining the Russian peasantry to achieve said surge, which backfired with the unrest of 1905-06 that coincided with a cyclic crisis in world economy. In 1909, Russia saw the start of a new economic boom and a new wave of industrialization overseen by Peter Stolypin.

Stolypin's approach was much more merciful to the peasantry than Witte's. The countryside stopped being an economic donor and became a full-fledged partner, reaping the benefits of industrialization together with urban areas. The Great War, despite extreme conditions, gave an even greater boost to Russia's military and industrial development. It was was the Bolshevik Revolution, as well as the ensuing "War Communism" and Civil War, which caused the terrible desolation that almost plunged the country into a new Stone Age. As a member of the Bolshevik leadership, Stalin was directly responsible for that.

Evidently, to endure as a Great Power (and, consequently, protect the Bolshevik dictatorship from being deposed by a foreign invasion), Russia couldn't stay at the rock bottom where Bolshevism had flung her. Hence the idea of resuming industrialization, now under a new Communist management and based on Communist ideas. Stalinism didn't attempt anything new here, because industrialization had already been running for a quarter of a century under the Tsars and was in any case supported by all rival Communist factions. Stalin's contribution to industrialization is limited to inventing a new method, not based on strong-arming the countryside (as with Witte) or robbing it blind (as proposed by Trotsky and Pyatakov ).

Stalin's industrialization was powered by the physical eradication of the Russian countryside via forced collectivization, punitive expeditions, mass exile, famine, and terror. Yes, this method of industrialization had been previously unknown to the wider world and could be perfectly dispensed with, as demonstrated by Tsarist Russia. But can the invention of cannibalism be considered a contribution to the culinary arts? Probably not.

To Stalin's credit, he was very successful in simultaneously bleeding the country dry to gain funds for industrialization with exploiting the vicissitudes of the global market. The Great Depression engulfed the entire world, flooding the market with cheap imported machinery and tractors, as well as jobless American engineers. In this respect, Stalin's industrialization turned out to be cheaper for the USSR than if it had happened at the peak of the global business cycle. But let's not forget that Russian bread and Russian exports also became cheaper cheaper. To turn a profit, Soviet industrialization needed not just cheap labor, but a slave-like one, spurred by a famine stemming from Stalin's 1930-31 attempts at monopolizing global grain exports. As grain prices kept falling during the Great Depression, the Soviet Union was forced to increase export volume and thus physically decimate its own citizenry with starvation and terror.

In 1929, the Soviets exported 1.3 million metric tons of grain worth $68 a ton, earning $88 million. In 1930, the exports amounted to 4.8 million tons worth $45 to $60 a ton, netting a marvelous $288 million in profits. However, in October 1930, grain prices on the world market collapsed. After completely fleecing the peasantry and exporting 5.2 million tons, Stalin earned a paltry $72 million. At the same time, a mass urban exodus from the countryside required greater grain procurements for the domestic market as well. Combined with plummeting grain harvests in 1931-32, this would lead to a terrible famine, now appropriated by Ukrainian nationalists under the name of "Holodomor" and "genocide" (in reality, the Kuban and Volga regions didn't suffer any less).

Stalin's great contribution to industrialization consisted in employing slave labor not in a Bronze Age or plantation economy, but in an economy of the Industrial Age, a feat hitherto unknown to human history. Stalin surpassed the kings of Egypt because the Pharaohs used slave labor to build the Pyramids only in Soviet textbooks. In reality, the work teams of peasants that took part in those colossal construction projects were well remunerated and had decent working conditions by Ancient Egyptian standards. Stalin demonstrated that Southern slave owners could compete with the industry of the Union if only they had abandoned their paternalistic views of their slaves and sent them, overseen by cruel taskmasters, to build factories, roads, and mines

Low labor costs, achieved through extreme coercion and terror, did make the USSR capable of undertaking projects that hadn't been considered economically viable in Tsarist Russia, such as the Magnitogorsk Iron and Steel Works, dependent on both Kuznetsk coal and Urals ore. When capital was the main factor of production, such projects wouldn't have made a profit. The historical Russian model of industrialization was capital-intensive: the Morozovs, Ryabushinkys, Tereschenkos, Putilovs, Konovalovs and other tycoons invested in costly machinery, often more advanced than in neighboring Germany. Based on this trend, the Russian-American economist Alexander Gerschenkron wrote of the advantages of "economic backwardness", that is, a belated industrialization.

The Bolsheviks blew the old Russian industry to smithereens. However, the Great Leader and the Great Teacher successfully triumphed over the laws of economics. The leading economic factor in Soviet industrial projects, in Soviet circumpolar canal-digging and railroad construction, was labor . Slave labor. The profitability of most industrial projects soared, as a train full of Gulag convicts acted as a replacement for costly machinery, which was doubly economical: money was saved on both expensive equipment and maintenance for the workers themselves.

Stalin sought to apply the same principle of making labor the main industrial factor while lowering the importance of capital everywhere, including science. Sharashkas and threats of arrest turned out to be a better stimulus for scientific progress, in the short run at least, than German sausages and American mansions with swimming pools. Alas, biology is different from mechanics: Vavilov couldn't get wheat chromosomes to vernalize even at gunpoint, which ended in his elimination and the rise of Lysenko, who promised to impose Stalinist labor discipline even on plant life

Is enriching global economic thought with the principle of forced labor superiority to the capital enough to make Stalin the greatest person in history? I don't think so. Russia used to have its own model of industrialization, which had produced excellent results and created an industrially developed economy integrated into the global economic system. Of course, it wasn't without its failings, and had patent elements of financial dependence. But didn't the USSR have the same kind of dependence on foreign credit, both during and after the industrialization, though only working harder to conceal it? Professor Katasonov's calculations reveal that all profits from Soviet exports, all the gold pillaged from the Church and the general populace, all the money made from art sales couldn't pay for the equipment imported by the USSR. This meant that the Soviets were systematically dependent on foreign loans, which Stalin himself acknowledged on multiple occasions in his correspondence. In this respect, the Great Leader merely differed from the Tsar in hiding his debts from the masses.

World War II caught Stalin's Soviet Union in the midst of an incomplete industrialization, dependent on foreign imports in many types of machinery, up to the eyes in debt, with a part of the populace – oftentimes the intellectually and economically superior one – exterminated or jailed, and with a unique slave-labor driven industrial economy. Any organic path of Russia's development, especially Stolypin's, would have given Russia much better historical prospects.

But perhaps the Stalinist Soviet Union developed some kind of unique technology that was beyond the powers of old Russia? Nope. Stalin did bequeath us the proverbial atomic piles, using slave labor and nuclear espionage to save the billions of dollars spent by the USA on the Manhattan Project, which the Soviets simply didn't have. God forbid me from chastising Stalin for that act of espionage – actually, it was one of his greatest and most innocent achievements that cost only two human lives (the Rosenbergs) and saved millions of them.

However, Stalin kept dreaming of Soviet battleships for the entirety of reign, but the USSR never managed to complete its large warships program. The naval contribution to the defense of Leningrad in WWII consisted of Gangut and Petropavlovsk , two Tsarist battleships built by Admiral Grigorovich and paid for by a Duma browbeaten into submission by Stolypin. Soviet aircraft carriers at that time were also a complete impossibility.

The story of Stalin's fighter planes turned into a tale of endless anguish for engineers, constructors, and pilots, which the Great Leader himself confirmed by mass imprisonment of the apparatchiks responsible for the wartime aircraft production (the so-called "Aviation Affair"). The same thing happened with bombers: It would suffice to mention that the Soviet Tu-4 was a reverse-engineered copy of the American B-29.

These examples have nothing to do with the myth of Russia's backwardness. Quite to the contrary: Russia, by virtue of NOT being a backward country and having amassed a huge intellectual and technological potential, could survive the emigration and mass murder of scientists and engineers and the savagery of the slave labor system, and advance to new technological horizons. However, almost all of these new horizons were revealed to us by "old-schoolers". The most prominent of the Soviet scientists involved in the nuclear and missile projects came almost exclusively from the ranks of the "enemy class

These examples have nothing to do with the myth of Russia's backwardness. Quite to the contrary: Russia, by virtue of NOT being a backward country and having amassed a huge intellectual and technological potential, could survive the emigration and mass murder of scientists and engineers and the savagery of the slave labor system, and advance to new technological horizons. However, almost all of these new horizons were revealed to us by "old-schoolers". The most prominent of the Soviet scientists involved in the nuclear and missile projects came almost exclusively from the ranks of the "enemy class" of the pre-revolutionary intelligentsia, receiving their education either before the Revolution or in the 1920s, when the old foundations of education hadn't been completely ruined. Without these human resources, Stalin wouldn't have had a shot at leaving Russia with atomic piles. The same atomic piles, however, could well have be developed by the same date by a Tsar Alexey Nikolayevich or Mikhail Alexandrovic h

By the way, about those plows that Stalin "found Russia" with. Indeed, Stalin took Russia with wooden plows from Lenin. And Lenin had grabbed Russia by the neck after she had lost her Tsar, under whose rule she had been a country with automobiles, armored cars, Sikorsky airplanes, early aircraft carriers, battleships and tank blueprints. And the truth is that Stalin took Russia from Lenin with plows and left her with the same implements. The plow was in use in 1953 just as in 1924, which isn't necessarily a bad thing (the sokha , the Russian light wooden plow, is better suited to certain soil types than heavier plows). All in all, measuring the trajectory of Stalinism in terms of plows and atomic piles is a gross oversimplification.

However, let us not lapse into slander and calumny by claiming that all Stalin's achievements came only as a result of cannibalism and mass destruction of his own citizens. After the war, many residential and industrial objects in the Soviet Union were erected by German POWs, following the same slave labor model. Some select citizens of the USSR whirled around Moscow in an Opels (rechristened Moskvitch) while sporting nice Carl Zeiss glasses. Stalinist industrialization got a new a material and moral resource: Victory. And that Cictory is what our compatriots deservedly count as one of Stalin's greatest achievements.

Can the victor in the greatest war in history not be named the greatest man in history? This is a story for our next article.

***

Part II: Stalin's Toxic Gifts

Original : https://tsargrad.tv/articles/otravlennye-podarki-stalina_71529

So, let's go back to Stalin as the "greatest person in Russian and world history". This reputation – to the degree that it actually exists among the populace and wasn't engineered by sociologists – dwells mostly upon the Soviet Victory in the Great Patriotic War. World War II being the greatest war ever waged by mankind, it seems reasonable and justified to hail the victor in this war as the greatest man ever.

There can be a lot of objections to this. First, the Great Patriotic War was just one part of World War II, won fair and square by the United States. The Americans, having lost the least amount of people by dint of replacing them with guns and dollars, using the Russians to do the bloody work, and stealing the thunder of their British allies, went on to become the masters of the postwar world order.

Even during the Cold War, the USSR was, for a long time, a mere challenger to American supremacy and not an equal contender. And we all know how this war ended for us. The US victory in WWII under President Roosevelt is undisputed. He died when their victory was a fait accompli , and President Truman took no new decisions of his own (Roosevelt would have probably nuked Hiroshima, too). But is Roosevelt the greatest person in history? Not quite! He keeps getting flak from the left and the right, even for his New Deal, even for his meagre concessions to the Soviets in Tehran and Yalta. Even in the US proper, his ranking among top US presidents never rises above #2, and usually he occupies the #3 spot.

Regarding Russia, her greatest pre-1941 war was the Patriotic War of 1812, greatest by the stature of the enemy (Napoleon, one of the greatest characters in history), by the size and the power of his Army of the Twelve Nations, the tragedy of the fall of the Russian capital, the charity and sacrifice of the nobility, the merchant class, and the peasantry, the complete destruction of the adversary – in all these respects, the "thunder of 1812" was historically unparalleled. Who won this war? Alexander I the Blessed. To quote Pushkin's lines, "he conquered Paris, he founded the Lyceum ".

But is this Emperor counted among the all-time greats of Russian history, according to Levada or whatever other poll? No. He is half-forgotten, his reputation destroyed by ignominious military settlements (still less outrageous than the Gulag), the infamy of Arakcheevschina (still not quite the Yezhovschina ), the sin of patricide[1] (is it worse than Patria-cide?), the ridicule of other, much less flattering Pushkin poems[2]. And if it is ever to be proven that he was already been canonised by the Orthodox Church as a saint and revered by the common folk under the name of Feodor Kuzmich[3], this glory and grace would only be bestowed upon his second life, granted to expiate the sins of the first.

Stalin founded no Lyceum, he created the sharashkas, and, to paraphrase Saltykov-Schedrin's History of a Town , "torched public schools and abolished (some of) the sciences". He didn't reach Paris but quite definitely conquered Berlin, a feat unseen since the days of Empress Elizaveta Petrovna, God bless her memory. He lucked out with his enemy – Hitler wasn't as great as Napoleon, but he was extraordinary vile towards the Russians and brought Russia untold of devastation. Before the invasion, his generals fulminated with very clear instructions: "war crimes in the East are not to be considered as such", "any cultural assets in the East do not matter". Anyone who would stand between Hitler and the Russians and organize resistance was deserving of great praise.

Stalin is deserving of such praise, too. He managed to collect himself and lead the struggle, distributing his forces so that Hitler's onslaught got bogged down in Russia's expanse and failing to reach any Russian capital except Kiev. He evacuated and thus preserve the bulk of Soviet industrial production. The army that he assumed supreme command of experienced almost no defeats after November 1942 and led an unstoppable march to the Elbe. Stalin was prudent enough to make peace with the Russian people and unfurl the banner of Russian patriotism – quickly furled back up after the war but not as completely, since no one dared to derogate the Russians as brazenly as in the 1920s and 1930s. Stalin was shrewd enough while dealing with the Alleis that the USSR ended the war with large, even somewhat excessive gains. It is historically disingenuous to deny Stalin these achievements, and it would be nothing but a parallel falsehood to the rising tide of diehard Stalinist lies, which provoked this essay in the first place.

If we are to speak of Stalin's greatness in world history and Russian history, his halo needs to be knocked down a couple of notches. Who is to blame but the country's political and military leader for allowing the claws of the German eagle to sink so deep into the chest of our eagle-turned-red-star? Who is to answer for the unthinkable casualties sustained by our army in the 1941 encirclements?

Of course, these losses can't be deemed "excessive". Modern calculations place Soviet and German irrevocable military losses at 11.5 million vs. 8.6 million, a ratio of 1:3 to 1. But what are these 3 million "surplus" dead if not the price paid for the chaos and incompetence reigning in 1941, especially in September and October, when the tide of the Blitzkrieg seemed to have been stemmed?

Yes, June 22, 1941 was a case of the Wehrmacht's military luck, intensified by a vile sneak attack. Luck has its place in warfare. But the encirclements near Kiev and Vyazma, the siege of Leningrad, to say nothing of the crushing 1942 defeats, were less a case of German good luck than our own failures.

The more one reads documents and memoirs, the clearer it is that Stalin's interference in warfare was incompetent, arbitrary, and short-sighted. He was intelligent, driven, obstinate, obsessive about details, and despotic, all great qualities for a general, but his mind was corrupted by Bolshevism, a belief that applying enough pressure is all it takes to achieve a result, and a resulting utopian mindset. His meticulousness often turned into nitpicking, and he would obsess over trivial details. In spite of the Neo-Stalinist mythology, his views were ideologically blinkered in many important questions. Given the conditions of a hyper-centralized system of military management, all of the Commander-in-Chief's foibles, all of his idiosyncrasies and fantasies took their greatly magnified toll on the real command of warfare. Yes, Stalin was smarter than Hitler, but setting the bar for greatness so low would be embarrassing even for the Generalissimo himself.

"It is all well and good", some might say, "and a lot of what you say might be true – but don't forget, the winner takes it all. "

Perhaps a winner does take it all, but it doesn't make him immune to criticism for misusing his spoils of victory. An untold loss of life, devastation, suffering, the horror of POW camps, occupation, and terror should have given the Russian a right to sizeable reparations. Did Stalin give its due to the nation he called "great" in his Victory Toast? Let's give an objective rundown of military gains and talk about Stalin's diplomacy.

When you hear any talk of Stalinism as an era when Russia was a Great Power to be reckoned with, you should realize that World War II started, and started the way it did, only because the pre-war Stalinist USSR was a pariah state, a rogue state written off by everyone. Through Foreign Affairs Commissar Maksim Litvinov, Stalin kept proclaiming a policy of collective defense, trying to cobble together anti-Fascist coalitions. He waged a "proxy war" with the Nazis in Spain, which was such an ideological trash fire that many past Republican sympathizers had to admit that Franco, a rational nationalist with a strong vision of unity, was better than bloodthirsty Red psychos. Nothing revealed the truth about Red methods for the European Liberal Left and pitted former fellow travelers against the Soviet Union quite like the Spanish Civil War.

When, in 1938, an agreement regarding the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was reached in Munich, no one bothered to ask the opinion of the USSR, an alleged "Great Power".

When, in 1938, an agreement regarding the dismemberment of Czechoslovakia was reached in Munich, no one bothered to ask the opinion of the USSR, an alleged "Great Power". This pushed Stalin towards a reasonable and prudent idea: if you can't side with hyenas against a wolf, you pit the wolf against the hyenas. In his 1939 pact with Hitler, Stalin attempted, without a major war or sometimes without a single shot fired, to restore the territorial losses of 1918: the Baltics, Western Ukraine and Belarus, and Bessarabia. He bungled with Finland but at least got Vyborg back. He also grabbed what hadn't belonged to Russia but should have: Galicia and Bukovina (the latter would be cited by Hitler as a pretext for the invasion on June 22, 1941).

Was this return to imperial borders justified? It was. Did Stalin do well by this? Probably yes. Did those returned territories do any good for the Russians? Not at all. Stalin fixed the crimes and mistakes of Lenin, a fellow Bolshevik. He pushed the balance of Russian history from "in the red" to "zero". Doesn't sound much for a "great leader".

But what happened to the regathered lands? They were turned into ethnic republics that easily "de-occupied" themselves in 1991. Only tiny tracts of borderlands were annexed to the Pskov oblast. A once heavily Russified Vilna, recaptured from Poland, was given to the Lithuanian SSR. A Moldovan Republic was merged from Bessarabia and Transnistria, which is now on its way to fusing with Romania and dragging the Transnistrian Russians with it. However, Stalin's most toxic and jinxed gift of all was Galicia. The entirety of Ukrainiznig potential accumulated there over the course of Austrian and Polish dominance engulfed Soviet Ukraine and dragged it into the abyss of "anti-Moskalism". Stalin could fight the Banderites however he wanted, but, in the national absence of a Russian idea in the USSR, with Ukrainism propped up by all means possible, it became inevitable that Ukrainian identity would crystallize according to Galician precepts. Petro Poroshenko owes an enormous debt to Stalin, who enabled the Ukrainization of Ukrainizers.

All of these toxic gifts came with a terrible price, paid for by our people during the war. This price gave the Russians the right to expect even greater gifts, now destined only for the Russian people and no one else.

So what happened in reality? Pechenga, once the scene of St. Tryphon of Pechenga's ascetic devotion, became Russian once again. Another restoration of what had been ours before. Carpathian Ruthenia, however, despite the pleas of Rusyn delegates to incorporate their land into the RSFSR, was not united with Russia and sacrificed on the altar of Ukrainization.

The rest was a gift to Poland, that backstabber who managed to reap three harvests from the same field. In exchange for restoring to Russia what Lenin had given away with the Riga peace treaty , they occupied, with Stalin's consent, all of Eastern Germany, and expelled its ethnic German population, and gained highly developed industrial regions, and received the lion's share of East Prussia, and got the Augustów district back from the USSR, and kept running around the world for 80 years complaining about the "Russian occupation" and demanding Lvov and Grodno back. Talk about stuffing the goose! And who kept feeding that pocket monster as a ploy to appease the British? Stalin, that's who.

If there's ever a World War III, it will start with a NATO blockade of Kaliningrad. And Stalin would be to blame for that, because he stripped the Augustów district from Belarus and carved up East Prussia in such a way that our communications with Kaliningrad stretch through Lithuania, always eager to block them entirely. Another toxic gift, because Stalin didn't even believe that Prussia would not stay with the Russians forever. He wanted to trade it in exchange for German neutrality, which is why the first wave of Russian settlement there mainly consisted of exiles. As a result, it wasn't really Stalin's gift to the Russians but Adenauer's: the West German Chancellor wasn't swayed by the prospect of neutrality.

The same happened in the Far East. Stalin did the barest minimum of what every government of nationalist Russia would have done in a military grudge match against Japan: restoring the losses of the Russo-Japanese War and grabbing the Kuril Islands "for the trouble". However, even those gains were left in a suspended and toxic state. Instead of strong-arming Japan into accepting the totality of our gains without further delay, the peace treaty question was dragged out until it blossomed into the mythical problem of the so-called Northern Territories. Toxic gifts, here we go again.

Let's not forget the assets in Manchuria sacrificed in the name of solidarity with Red China – the Chinese Eastern Railway and Dalniy/Dalian, all the more frustrating because Manchuria's specificities made it possible to give it a sui generis status profitable to the Soviets.

What could have been : Map of the "Future Europe" (not like Wilhelm II would have liked it!)

For the USSR, WWII resulted in lesser territorial gains that would have been plausibly claimed by Russia at the end of the Great War, which was "surrendered" by the Bolsheviks in Brest-Litovsk. Almost everywhere he would go, Stalin only picked up what had been squandered by Lenin. He failed to gain from a crushing German defeat even a half of what could have and would have been acquired by the Tsar. Under the Tsar, Galicia would have been incorporated into Russia under a Russian banner (to say nothing of the Turkish Straits). The few acquisitions of the Soviet Empire actually beneficial for the Russians, such as Kaliningrad, turned out to be this way almost by pure happenstance.

As part of a package deal involving these gains, the Russians got a bunch of freeloaders that had to be schooled in the ways of Communism and kept in line at gunpoint (East Germany, Hungary, Czechoslovakia). And they had to be fed, fed, and fed once again. Exhausting the Russians under the burden of hangers-on in an incomprehensible Communist experiment is hardly a solid basis for greatness.

If we calculate the war losses of our nation and our more than modest gains, our victory was indeed Pyrrhic – as great as it was unprofitable. If it was indeed a historical comeback, it remedied not the historical faults of Tsarist Russia but those of Stalin's mentor Lenin, who had wrecked historical Russia both morally and territorially.

Let's give Stalin his due. He knew very well that he had started the war and had been rubbish at managing it. The Russians had every reason to give him the boot. He explicitly mentioned this in the Victory Toast: "A different people could have said to the Government: "You have failed to justify our expectations. Go away. We shall install another government which will conclude peace with Germany and assure us a quiet life."

However, Stalin also considered the Russians' understanding that "running away" from a world war, failing to complete it for a second time would be tantamount to ending our history as a great nation. This was evident to both people of intelligence and the national instinct of the masses. Even such a fervent anti-Communist as Ivan Ilyin wrote that a desertion similar to the one of 1917 was impossible, that one had to fight on and win. Stalin harnessed this resource of Russian prudence and patience to reap the laurels of victory. However, he failed to repay most of his "debts" to the Russians.

The war was barely over, but Marxist historians wasted no time in trampling all over the academic defenders of Russian Imperial legacy led by Academician Tarle . By Stalin's and Zhdanov's decree, the term "Russian nation-state" was almost completely purged from the historical idiom. Orthodox hierarchs were still needed for reasons of international diplomatic representation, but the persecution of the Church would make a comeback, including the closure of churches (bear in mind that most of the churches "opened under Stalin" were churches that reopened by themselves under German occupation, and churches reopened in Stalin-held territories were a drop in the ocean). Barely four years after the victory, state security boss Viktor Abakumov would torture those few Soviet apparatchiks who dared to have but a smidgen of Russian identity. Stalin would destroy his incredibly talented assistant Nikolay Voznesenskiy, ruining all chances of the USSR being led by an intellectually developed Russian person. In the USSR, a prison of the Russian people designed by Lenin and built by Stalin, they briefly opened a fresh-air shutter and then slammed it shut.

We, Russians, cannot elevate this man to the rank of the greatest genius in history while keeping a straight face. We cannot sell our memory – mutilated national livelihood, demolished churches, massacred priests and murdered scientists, engineers, and poets, our forefathers exiled to Siberia for refusing to give their last horse to Red activists – for a minute of Stalin's "Victory Toast".

Yes, we should be fair in our historical judgement and shouldn't defame Stalin with the fantasies of the "children of the Arbat"[4]. But we also should, with even greater force and rage, be fair in the opposite respect: never cutting Stalin any slack for his horrifying sins, mistakes, cruelties, and injustices, never forgetting just how many eggs he broke to make his omelet.

***

[1] Alexander I is widely accepted to have been complicit in the palace coup that led to the death of his father Paul I.

[2] For instance, in the so-called Chapter X of Eugene Onegin Pushkin described Alexander I as "a feeble and conniving ruler, a bald fop, the enemy of all work, crowned with glory by happenstance".

[3] Legend has it that Alexander I, remorseful of his past misdeeds and faced with a profound religious crisis, feigned his own death in 1825 and fled to Siberia, where he lived as a starets (mystic hermit) under the name of Feodor Kuzmich (died 1864). The Orthodox Church officially canonized Feodor Kuzmich as a saint in 1984 but rejects his identification with the Emperor.

[4] Reference to Anatoly Rybakov's 1987 novel Children of the Arbat (referring to a central Moscow street populated by high-ranking "Old Bolsheviks" after the revolution), a hallmark of Perestroika anti-Stalinism, where Stalin was portrayed as a one-dimensionally diabolical and sadistic figure.


melanf , June 8, 2018 at 10:26 am GMT

Boring and stupid propaganda, where the right reasons drown in lies and manipulation
Mikhail , Website June 8, 2018 at 10:57 am GMT

38% of Russian citizens polled by Levada Center put Joseph Stalin at #1 among the greatest heroes of Russian and world history. He is followed by Putin, Pushkin, Lenin, Peter I, Gagarin, Leo Tolstoy, Georgy Zhukov, Catherine II, Lermontov, Lomonosov, Mendeleev, and even Brezhnev and Gorbachev. The only non-Russians who made it to the top are Napoleon, Newton, and Einstein.

Well well well This is an obvious disgrace. If trustworthy, it reveals than the average Russian doesn't have the vaguest idea about the course of Russian and world history and the true importance of historical figures.

How trustworthy is it? Volgograd hasn't been renamed Stalingrad. The still popular in Russia Putin has spoken out against Stalin era oppression. By and large, the May 9 Victory Day honors the Russian people, without emphasizing Stalin.

A Moldovan Republic was merged from Bessarabia and Transnistria, which is now on its way to fusing with Romania and dragging the Transnistrian Russians with it.

Any polling support of this? At last glance, Moldovan support for becoming a part of Romania is closer to 15% than 33%. Either way, there's no majority. In addition, the Gagauz have a legit basis to break from Moldova, were it to merge with Romania. Never mind trying to get Pridnestrovie ( Transnistria ) to go along with such a move.

Pridnestrovie is ethnically pretty evenly distributed among Russiasn, Ukrainians and Moldovans, while having a pro-Russian outlook.

Upon further review, I came across this reference to a poll on Moldovan support for becoming a part of Romania:

https://sputniknews.com/europe/201803141062503935-moldova-romania-nato-unification-poll/

Still a clear minority, with a noticeably strong opposition in Gagauzia (under the control of Moldova) and the disputed territory of Pridnestrovie (which has essentially been separate from Moldova since the Soviet breakup).

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 3:07 pm GMT

Stalin's great contribution to industrialization consisted in employing slave labor not in a Bronze Age or plantation economy, but in an economy of the Industrial Age Stalin surpassed the kings of Egypt because the Pharaohs used slave labor to build the Pyramids only in Soviet textbooks. In reality, the work teams of peasants that took part in those colossal construction projects were well remunerated and had decent working conditions by Ancient Egyptian standards

Really? ' Slave labor ' was never used to build Industry? This is just silly, and borders on its own nihilism. From pre-Victorian Britain to US company towns and China's recent out-sourcing paradise, the quasi-slave methods have always been used to build industry. There was nothing all that extra-ordinary about 1930′s Soviet Union, other than sheer size. That's how stuff gets built.

And the belated, romantic look at the builders of the Pyramids is neither here, nor there. We don't know, but I suspect the day to day conditions were not that great and probably approximated what peasants building endless dams in Soviet Union experienced.

Stalin was a Bolshevik and Bolshevism was a revenge, not an economic ideology.

Stalin's mind was corrupted by Bolshevism, a belief that applying enough pressure is all it takes to achieve a result

True, but why is there no mention of why tens of millions were ready for the revenge on the system? The life before Bolsheviks wasn't that great and WWI bloody mess was the last straw; the Bolshie nihilism came out of enormous suffering.

I often hear that it was 'about to get better', 'look at European welfare states' or New Deal. I wouldn't be so sure. After hundreds of years of not caring why would the elites voluntarily change the systems to be more broadly-based and spread the wealth? What makes people think that the 20th century enormous egalitarian progress was about to happen without the threat of Bolshevism, socialism of all kinds, Maoism, even fascism in its more populist forms?

We can see that right after the 'revenge' systems collapsed in the late 20th century, the elites immediately went back to restoring the wonderful neo-liberal systems from the early 20th century. There is no fear any more, so why not? Why not have it all? We are living in a transition era before the real consequences hit again. Beginnings are often fun, the neo-liberalism is a pyramid system with its asset privatisation and appreciation, there are lost of winners in the first few decades. But we are heading towards the same paralysis that spawned Bolshevism and other basically revenge philosophies. I would worry about that a lot more than about 'Lithuania' blocking the Augustow pass to Kaliningrad (Russia has planes and ships, don't they?).

songbird , June 8, 2018 at 3:10 pm GMT
@Mitleser

I wasn't even aware that Stalin had any connection to that idea. The way I had heard it, it was Beria who was favorable to German re-unification – but Khrushchev won the power struggle.

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 3:37 pm GMT
@AP

You are really this clueless?

That means nothing, do you have a point? Would you like to be an English coal-miner in the early 19th century? Or a peasant on Polish latifundias in Galicia? Or work 12 hours a day for Foxconn in Shenzhen today?

Tens of millions out of hundreds of millions isn't much.

Ok, I can go with hundreds of millions seeking revenge on the system towards the end of WWI. They were clearly either a majority or close to it.

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 3:50 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Russia had no choice but to fight to the end in WWII. Win or lose. If they lost they would be largely gone today, physically gone. And so would Poles, Czechs, Ukrainians and a few other ethnic groups.

Surviving is not an ' epic failure ', it is better that the alternative. The post-WWII settlement was about the best Russia could had done, small adjustments here and there, but they basically got it right. The issue was that they didn't know how to disengage and withdraw. By 1960′s they should had let go. On their own terms. And that wasn't Stalin's fault, but his successors.

"win back lost three provinces of Greater Romania"

That is tricky because one cannot really define Greater Romania or most other states in that region. There are no natural borders, the population was mixed. E.g. who does Silesia 'naturally' belong to? The shift of Poland westward was quite unnatural, but probably the best of all available options. I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative? You couldn't reunite 5-10 million Ukrainians with Poland. And they were not viable as a separate state at that time.

Mitleser , June 8, 2018 at 4:10 pm GMT
@Beckow

I agree that adding Galicia to Ukraine was a disaster, but what was an alternative?

Separate SSRs.

Gerard2 , June 8, 2018 at 4:44 pm GMT
Obviously Galicia is a sparsely populated and financially irrelevant shithole in Ukraine. It's political relevance is massively overrated ( plus many have left there to go to Russia or Poland) .the big problem is American money or organisations over there, not the political power of the individuals there.

[Hide MORE]

Obviously it's to do with American money because the "nationalism" of the fuckedup fake sytate of Ukraine makes even less sense if propagated by idiots from Galicia ( so does the fantasism about the Golodomor, for a region never touched by it)
The Soros/State Department for the orange revolution and other elections either side of it then criminally exaggeratd the number of people living there, and then under-exaggerated massively the amount of people in the most populous areas of Ukraine (Novorossiya 5 out of 7) hence why we had all these retarded lies about "120% turnout in Donetsk)

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 6:20 pm GMT
@TP

I am not familiar with Herr Rudel, but let me try to explain:

Keeping Silesia as part of Germany after WWII was untenable – most Germans were expelled, or about to be driven out. Poles were very, very angry, and the resulting geography would threaten both shrunken Poland (Galicia was gone) and Czechoslovakia. Silesia reaches out quite far eastward.

Making it a part of East Germany would make E Germany too big for the Western allies. That could be reshuffled, but went against 'let's keep divided Germany as small as possible' attitude at Potsdam.

The option of having an independent Silesia, with 'Silesian' ethnicity (it does exist), was economically not viable: land-locked, surrounded, destroyed.

So what would be a better option than (re-)uniting it with Poland and allowing millions of Poles from the Galician east to move there? It has been relatively stable.

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 6:26 pm GMT
@AP

You should cut it out, you are being irrelevant. I am talking 'industrialisation', that has happened in different countries at different times. I can find 'company towns' in US (Colorado mines ) that were brutally exploitative. And you can find huge relatively nice areas of Russia's industrialisation. Picking up the worst examples in one, and the best in another is not serious.

The 5-year old miners in England in 1840′s were not better off than most peasants in Russia sent to build a big dam. It was all sh..t, thus the revenge I mentioned today check out some working conditions in Asia, is Stalin responsible for that?

Marcus , June 8, 2018 at 6:30 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

So what? The Ukrainization had already wrought tremendous changes by 1932 when it was scaled back. And it seems obvious that Galicians would shift their attention east as they sought to break free of Poland and weren't powerful enough to stand on their own.

John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan , June 8, 2018 at 6:38 pm GMT
@Beckow

If your argument is that the "average" Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse than the "average" experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain, then you are truly a comical, damned fool.

The whole point of what made the Soviet Union so bad was that the average was nasty, poor, and brutal beyond any other country in modern history.

For example. Digging a canal is always hard work. When the Erie Canal was built in New York State in the early 1800s, somewhere between 500 and 1,000 workers died during the process – virtually all of them during a malaria epidemic when working in a swampy area. A small pox epidemic is said to have killed about 1,200 Chinese coolies building the Transcontinental Railroad in America, and a few more may have died due to Indian attacks in the Nevada wilderness.

By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!). So around a hundred years after less than a thousand Americans died on a big canal project, Stalin and his minions managed to exceed their death total by several tens of thousands. Why is this? With all of the technology developed by the 20th century, it still takes many more thousands of deaths to accomplish a big task? Couldn't great Comrade Stalin – friend of Russian people – do better than those awful western capitalist bosses?

Perhaps because capitalists in Britain and America actually fed their employees? Whereas Stalinist laborers could not eat?

On the other hand, sometimes Stalin could be quite, uh, paternalistic towards his beloved industrial slaves. For example, one P.I. Shcherbakov reports the following story from the building of the Moscow-Volga Canal: "On July, 4, 1934, Joseph Stalin himself had visited the construction site. Observing the foundation pit, he noticed that the inmates were working barefoot. Even if it was in summer, the weather was not very warm. Stalin immediately interrogated his retinue – the directors of the project – why the workers have no footwear. They stalled, saying that they had to bring too many workers on the site, and that the footwear was on the way. The Leader ordered abruptly the footwear to be delivered within two hours, and several men in charge for the provision to be shot. They were shot right away near the ditch."

Thorfinnsson , June 8, 2018 at 7:22 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Had Germany won WW1 (not going into WW2), it most certainly would have rearranged borders further to its liking. Reasonable failure.

Bethmann-Hollweg put forth Germany's demands with the Septemberprogramm .

They were:

France should cede some northern territory, such as the iron-ore mines at Briey and a coastal strip running from Dunkirk to Boulogne-sur-Mer, to Belgium or Germany.

France should pay a war indemnity of 10 billion German Marks, with further payments to cover veterans' funds and to pay off all of Germany's existing national debt. This would prevent French rearmament, make the French economy dependent on Germany, and end trade between France and the British Empire.

France will partially disarm by demolishing its northern forts.

Belgium should be annexed to Germany or, preferably, become a "vassal state", which should cede eastern parts and possibly Antwerp to Germany and give Germany military and naval bases.

Luxembourg should become a member state of the German Empire.

Buffer states would be created in territory carved out of the western Russian Empire, such as Poland, which would remain under German sovereignty "for all time".

Germany would create a Mitteleuropa economic association, ostensibly egalitarian but actually dominated by Germany. Members would include the new buffer states.

The German colonial empire would be expanded. The German possessions in Africa would be enlarged into a contiguous German colony across central Africa (Mittelafrika) at the expense of the French and Belgian colonies. Presumably to leave open future negotiations with Britain, no British colonies were to be taken, but Britain's "intolerable hegemony" in world affairs was to end.

The Netherlands should be brought into a closer relationship to Germany while avoiding any appearance of coercion.

Sounds a lot like the European Union.

Noteworthy that the German reparations' demand is about thirteen times smaller than Versailles imposed on the Germans (granted, the war was only a month old at the time). Land over money apparently.

Not listed here, but the Germans also intended to continue their Drang nach Osten by settling veterans in the east. Nothing like Generalplan Ost of course.

After the collapse of Russia, Germany started realizing some of these aims by setting up a network of puppet states in Eastern Europe ruled by German princes.

melanf , June 8, 2018 at 7:31 pm GMT
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

By contrast, death estimates for the Moscow-Volga canal alone range from as low as 30,000 (!) to around a million (!).

Well, a million is just nonsense. It's possible that 30,000 is also nonsense. In addition to the Erie canal there are unfortunately other examples

"A cruel tax and trade-usurious exploitation of the peasantry (in India) had caused widespread hunger . If 1825-1850. the famine twice struck the country and claimed 0.4 million human lives, in 1850-1875 famine killed 5 million, in 1875-1900. -- 26 million."
(ИСТОРИЯ ВОСТОКА IV Восток в новое время (конец XVIII -- начало XX в.) Книга 2)

The industrialization of Western Europe was accompanied by the murder (direct or indirect) of tens, maybe hundreds of millions of people. And America was part of the same system (the transatlantic slave trade was measured in numbers with six zeros)

Dmitry , June 8, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT
@melanf

It's also not only in India, but industrialization in the UK was not following very 'ethical labour' inside the UK itself.

Revealed: Industrial Revolution was powered by child slaves

Child labour was the crucial ingredient which allowed Britain's Industrial Revolution to succeed, new research by a leading economic historian has concluded.

After carrying out one of the most detailed statistical analyses of the period, Oxford's Professor Jane Humphries found that child labour was much more common and economically important than previously realised. Her estimates suggest that, by the early 19th century, England had more than a million child workers (including around 350,000 seven- to 10-year-olds) – accounting for 15 per cent of the total labour force. The work is likely to transform the academic world's understanding of that crucial period of British history which was the launch-pad of the nation's economic and imperial power

Her work has revealed that during most of the 18th century only around 35 per cent of ten year old working-class boys were in the labour force while the figure for 1791-1820 (when large scale industrialisation started) was 55 per cent, rising to 60 per cent for the period of 1821-1850.

The number of eight-year-old working-class boys at work also rose substantially in that period – with around a third of them being part of the work force between 1791 and 1850 compared to less than 20 per cent before 1791.

https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/revealed-industrial-revolution-was-powered-by-child-slaves-2041227.html

melanf , June 8, 2018 at 8:10 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

So the much more industrially developed USSR killed about as high a percentage of its own people in famines as foreign colonizers killed Indians.

" We are 50-100 years behind the advanced countries. We must bridge that gap in ten years. Otherwise we will be destroyed " Stalin February 4, 1931

1931+10=1941

The British oligarchy (which killed many more people in British Empire) has no such excuse.

Thorfinnsson , June 8, 2018 at 8:15 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

There's no shortage of Russian heroes to choose from.

Seems like the state and its propaganda apparatus could simply emphasize other Russian heroes.

Best policy to Stalin is probably benign neglect. People don't respond well to having their idols destroyed, even if the idol is false.

And isn't this what Putin is doing anyway?

melanf , June 8, 2018 at 8:33 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

Best policy to Stalin is probably benign neglect.

For this purpose it is necessary to exterminate as rats the Russian liberal intelligentsia. Until this is done – Stalin will be a hero.

Mikhail , Website June 8, 2018 at 8:40 pm GMT
@AP

(there was basically zero support for Russian nationalists of course, with no substantial number of Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine joining the Whites)

You're big on giving personal anecdotes. I've heard from folks knowing the Whites in Ukraine, that Ukrainian was spoken among those with Russian Empire roots (not Galician) fighting on the side of the Whites. That recollection is quite believable given the actual circumstances.

Petliura's support was limited and his forces were unable to successfully defeat the Whites. Petliura's weakness explains his willingness to become Pilsudski's puppet in a move that saw Petliura recognizing all of Galicia going to Poland. In turn, the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Russian Whites.

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 8:45 pm GMT
@John Burns, Gettysburg Partisan

If your argument is that the "average" Stalinist experience for the working person was not any worse than the "average" experience in an industralizing country like America or Britain

You provide a classical straw man diversion, so common among 'educated' in the West. No, my argument is that industrialization, then and now, in 19th century or in the 1930′s, is often a painful, violent, unpleasant process. I specifically mentioned China's today outsourced factories where people work 12 hours, jump from roofs, and live pretty close to a slave life. That was very common in 19th century England where 5-year olds were dropped to 'mine for coal'.

Your method is predictably faulty: pick a worst examples, worst place, worst time (1930′s) in Russia, exaggerate or quote ' some people say that maybe a 1 million died.. ' and compare it to heavily ' explained ' case in Britain or US, with allusions to 'malaria', etc.. and that gives you a self-satisfied feeling that, of course, the sh..t in Britain-US doesn't stink, and never did. Forget slavery, Victorian child labor, koolies, forget all of that and just focus razor-sharp on that 'Volga-canal'.

And you are surprised nobody takes you seriously? Fighting straw men is the true fools's errand

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 8:52 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

It was a disaster because it created a dysfunctional Ukraine with populations quite different and attitudes that are hard to reconcile. But it took a few generations, in 1945 I still think it was the best among the available bad options.

If you ask me to start from scratch (that was not possible in 1945 with all the emotions), I would say that Galicia existence as a province of a larger 'Habsburg-lite' country might had worked the best. It would fit the pro-Western orientation of Galicians, keep them in 'Europe', and allow the east to rationally develop on its own. That was not an option in 1945, so we got the mess that we have today. It will get much worse before this is settled.

Mikhail , Website June 8, 2018 at 8:52 pm GMT
@Felix Keverich

Here is a problem I see with what you are doing (this applies to Kholmogorov as well): you are tearing down an idol without offering anything in its place. Stalin for Russians is more than a war-time leader, he is a religious figure, a moustached Russian Jesus. Ukrainians, who reject Stalin are expected to worship Stepan Bandera, but what will Russians believe in? People in this part of the world have a need for some idols in their lifes.

Russians and Ukrainians have better alternatives than Stalin and Bandera to look to with pride.

Anatoly Karlin , Website June 8, 2018 at 8:58 pm GMT
@melanf

Why should the British oligarchy care about the plight of Indians?

Whom should it provide those excuses to, anyway?

It would only be comparable if the "British oligarchy" had starved a couple of million Englishmen to death (the English being the state-making people of Britain). However, as I recall, the last famine affecting ENGLAND occurred prior to the Black Death (!).

Mikhail , Website June 8, 2018 at 8:58 pm GMT
@Beckow

Stalin's heavy handedness in Galicia didn't help things from a Soviet and to a certain degree Russian viewpoint.

The Galician Ukrainians were generally not happy with being ruled by Poland. Having Russian speaking Soviets (including some Ukrainians) being brutal following Molotov-Ribbentrop and before the Nazi attack on the USSR, nurtured a convoluted image among those with a pro-Bandera/Captive Nations Committee sentiment.

Mr. Hack , June 8, 2018 at 9:04 pm GMT
@Beckow

But Galicians have by and large been content to develop within a Ukrainian state. They often refer to themselves as the 'Piedmont of Ukraine' and relish their role of being in the vanguard of Ukraine's national revival. In fact, I know of no Galician of any stature that has advocated Galicia apart from the rest of Ukraine – the Western Ukrainian Republic was an anomaly that lasted for a short time and was only to be a temporary solution for Ukraine's larger development.

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 9:08 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

To provide context doesn't men defending something. Isolated thoughts often become just empty sloganeering. I have seen an estimate by an Indian historian that claimed that British Empire caused the death of 200 million people. From India to Africa, from America to Ireland.

Probably true, or maybe exaggerated, maybe it was only 100 million. People die for all kinds of reasons. French and Spanish (even Italians) can also be counted on causing millions and millions to die. The two objections that I hear is that it was long time ago and that it was 'not their own people'. Both are partially true, but not really relevant – Masais were being killed by Britain in 1950′s and Irish are kind of part of the family.

Context matters, but I disagree with 'hero Stalin' arguments – I generally dislike heroes of all kinds. And Stalin was a twerp, murderer and in many ways a failure. To defend him out of spite is silly. Let history take care of what happened. (I am also puzzled by Pushkin at #3, what gives? he was shot because he was inept in social situations, a hero? I suspect low level autism )

Dmitry , June 8, 2018 at 9:10 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

The Great Famine (Irish: an Gorta Mór, [anˠ ˈgɔɾˠt̪ˠa mˠoːɾˠ]) or the Great Hunger was a period of mass starvation, disease, and emigration in Ireland between 1845 and 1849.[1] It is sometimes referred to, mostly outside Ireland, as the Irish Potato Famine, because about two-fifths of the population was solely reliant on this cheap crop for a number of historical reasons.[2][3] During the famine, about one million people died and a million more emigrated from Ireland,[4] causing the island's population to fall by between 20% and 25%.[5]

Since the Acts of Union in January 1801, Ireland had been part of the United Kingdom. Executive power lay in the hands of the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland and Chief Secretary for Ireland, who were appointed by the British government. Ireland sent 105 members of parliament to the House of Commons of the United Kingdom, and Irish representative peers elected 28 of their own number to sit for life in the House of Lords. Between 1832 and 1859, 70% of Irish representatives were landowners or the sons of landowners.[8]

Records show that Irish lands exported food even during the worst years of the Famine. When Ireland had experienced a famine in 1782–83, ports were closed to keep Irish-grown food in Ireland to feed the Irish. Local food prices promptly dropped. Merchants lobbied against the export ban, but government in the 1780s overrode their protests.[79] No such export ban happened in the 1840s.[80]

Throughout the entire period of the Famine, Ireland was exporting enormous quantities of food.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Famine_(Ireland)

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 9:15 pm GMT
@Mikhail

Stalin's heavy handedness in Galicia didn't help

Sure, it didn't help. Also Hitler's, Bandera's, Polish, and even Habsburg heavy handedness didn't help. Look around, most of history are stupid heavy-handed over-reaching acts

Beckow , June 8, 2018 at 9:21 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Ok, but would you agree that Ukraine has had a few contradicting tendencies? Galicians are 10-15% of Ukraine and are totally Western-oriented. Donbass is not, no matter how you spin it. And Odessa, Kiev or Kharkov are also not quite in the ' West-is-best, and there can be nothing else ' camp. Thus today's difficulties in Ukraine.

The economic integration of the eastern 2/3 of Ukraine with Russia is real and hard to change without major living standards disruption. That says that a compromise, or some degree of decentralisation are required. Galicians and their allies don't want a compromise – they want it all. It will not work. It it will cause a lot of tears and regrets.

melanf , June 8, 2018 at 9:22 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Why should the British oligarchy care about the plight of Indians?
Whom should it provide those excuses to, anyway?
It would only be comparable if the "British oligarchy" had starved a couple of million Englishmen to death. However, as I recall, the last famine affected BRITAIN occurred prior to the Black Death (!).

This is a joke? The English common people of the times of James Watt, worked fifteen hours a day for a bowl of soup for the family. Children were chained to carts to carry coal and ore through narrow passages in the mines. Throughout England, concentration camps (work houses) were established. A little earlier White British were traded as cattle-raids were carried out in port cities to replenish the number of slaves on sugar cane plantations. But white slaves in the tropical climate died very quickly, so they were replaced by Negroes. British slave owners сonducted (as far as I know) even breeding work: white female slaves crossed with black slaves , to obtain the optimal breed.
Grigory Potemkin was going to buy several tens of thousands of Englishmen for the settlement of the Crimea and Novorossiya. Count Vorontsov (Russian Ambassador to England) managed to destroy this deal, otherwise in the Crimea would speak English.

In England there was no short-term mass famine (similar to the famine in Ireland in 1848-49) but monstrous living conditions killed the British monotonously and daily.

Marcus , June 8, 2018 at 9:23 pm GMT
@melanf

What a dumb comment. Most Russians have favorable opinions of Stalin, they are all madmen?

Cyrano , June 8, 2018 at 9:46 pm GMT
If my grandma had different genitalia, I would have called her a grandpa. I would have also grown up a very confused kid: Why do I of all kids have a transgendered grandma and is this a sign of the things to come?

Anyhow, my favorite theory about history is this: The most optimal history, with the best case scenario circumstances is the one that already happened. There is only one history and we can't improve on it based on our superior knowledge now.

Sure Russia could have benefited from having a less homicidal maniac as a leader, but you can't improve some parts of the equations that you don't like, without effecting the rest. Thank God that Russia was communist in WW2 and that Hitler used that as an excuse as to why he hated the Slavs – because of communism – yeah right.

Russia is not communist since 1991, why do they still hate them? Russia will be hated by the west no matter what kind of political system they have. It's called jealousy. By having communism it provided Hitler for an excuse to declare that to be the primary reason why the Russians have to be annihilated.

If the political system in Russia in WW2 was "democracy" – that might have lulled them into believing that when the going got tough, a "deal" could have been made with the Nazis (even Stalin tried to sue for peace with Hitler), or the west or whomever they might have ended up fighting in the revised version of history of WW2. By not having those delusional options that they – the Russians as a democracy can make a deal with the west which will save them – they might have avoided committing a national suicide.

Dmitry , June 8, 2018 at 9:56 pm GMT
@melanf

In England there was no short-term mass famine (similar to the famine in Ireland in 1848-49) but monstrous living conditions killed the British monotonously and daily.

England and Ireland were the same country (under the union – the United Kingdom), ruled from London – until 1922. (Part of Ireland – Northern Ireland – is still with the United Kingdom).

So there was a mass famine, in which 25% of the population fell in one republic of the United Kingdom, under the rule of London.

AP , June 8, 2018 at 10:04 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Couple this with your observation that there was virtually no support for Russian nationalism in Ukraine, and what you have is a large area where in fact it appears that the Ukrainian national idea was quite popular.

In central Ukraine the Ukrainian idea was popular. An overwhelming majority of the people voted for Ukrainian parties, and they clearly had a Ukrainian self-identity. But unlike Galicians, or Poles, or Finns, they were less likely to fight and die for their national idea in 1917-1920. To be sure, this spirit was not absent – 100,000 volunteers isn't nothing. But it wasn't much either.

To put it in perspective – the two Donbas oblasts had 6.5 million people in 2013, compared to 27 or so million ethnic Ukrainians in the Russian-ruled parts of Ukraine. So about 1/4 the population. Donbas militias have about 40,000 troops. That would be equivalent to 160,000 troops in 1917 Ukraine. Now, there are numerous caveats – Russia lavishly supplies the Donbas militias, Ukrainian ones were on their own, and there are some pro-Kiev volunteers from Donbas whereas there were virtually no pro-Russian ones among Russian Empire Russians.

Of course, to repeat myself, there was basically zero sentiment among these people to fight for Russia. There were some Kadets from among ethnic Russians in Kiev but no pro-White military units of Ukrainians/Little Russians from Russian-ruled Ukraine. Even Makhno, already losing, murdered Wrangel's emissary's rather than join forces with him.

Dmitry , June 8, 2018 at 10:16 pm GMT
@melanf

Children were chained to carts to carry coal and ore through narrow passages in the mines.

At 2:10 in the video:

AP , June 8, 2018 at 10:25 pm GMT
@Mikhail

I've heard from folks knowing the Whites in Ukraine, that Ukrainian was spoken among those with Russian Empire roots (not Galician) fighting on the side of the Whites.

Name any military units from Russian Ukraine who fought on the side of the Whites. There were not. Zero. Some Ukrainian-speaking Cossacks from the Kuban did, but Kuban isn't in Ukraine.

the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse came under the command of the Russian Whites.

It's telling that only the Galicians (briefly) placed themselves under White command but no ethnic Ukrainian forces from Russian Ukraine ever did. Galicians did it after they became stateless (Petlura signed Galicia over to Poland in exchange for help against the Soviets) during a typhoid epidemic and received much-needed medicine from the Entente that the Whites had access to. I don't think they ever fought a battle for the Whites, although I may be mistaken on that point. The Whites disintegrated before the Galicians could get healthy.

Under similar circumstances some Galicians ended up fighting in the Red Army against Poland. One of the Red Galician commanders, Alfred Bizanz (an ethnic German), eventually made his way west and 20 years later become a commander of the Galician SS Division.

Mr. XYZ , June 8, 2018 at 10:36 pm GMT
: Out of curiosity–had Ukraine been smaller (no Galicia, Volhynia, Subcarpathian Ruthenia, Bessarabia, and northern Bukovina–for instance, had Hitler never become to power in Germany and there would have thus been no German-Soviet partition of Poland), and had Ukraine would have joined the Eurasian Economic Union after the collapse of the Soviet Union (if it would have still occurred in this scenario, that is), what do you think that the long(er)-term future of the Eurasian Economic Union would have looked like in this scenario?

Also, as a side note, it's interesting that, with the exception of Yekaterinoslav Guberniya, Ukrainian parties don't appear to have done very well in "Novorossiya" in the 1917 elections. Indeed, they failed to win in the Kharkiv Guberniya, in the Taurida Guberniya, and in the Kherson Guberniya.

In turn, this makes me wonder–had an independent Ukrainian state limited to central and western Ukraine been created, how viable would it have been? After all, this state would have been landlocked (I can't see Russia agreeing to give up Yekaterinoslav Guberniya considering that it would cut off the Taurida Guberniya, the Kherson Guberniya, and the Bessarabian Guberniya from the rest of Russia) and would have thus had to rely on Russia, Poland, or Romania for sea access.

Finally, off-topic, but as a side question–why exactly were Ukrainians outside of Galicia unwilling to fight en masse for the Ukrainian national cause in 1917-1920?

Thorfinnsson , June 8, 2018 at 10:39 pm GMT
@Cyrano

Sure Russia could have benefited from having a less homicidal maniac as a leader, but you can't improve some parts of the equations that you don't like, without effecting the rest. Thank God that Russia was communist in WW2 and that Hitler used that as an excuse as to why he hated the Slavs – because of communism – yeah right.

Russia is not communist since 1991, why do they still hate them? Russia will be hated by the west no matter what kind of political system they have. It's called jealousy. By having communism it provided Hitler for an excuse to declare that to be the primary reason why the Russians have to be annihilated.

Read Mein Kampf . The H-man didn't use communism as an "excuse". He openly planned to eliminate Russians because they stood in the way of his dream of a continental German Empire, and he considered slavs to be racially inferior (a view he reneged on at the end of his life for obvious reasons).

The idea that the West is "naturally" hostile to Russia is completely bogus. The American Empire has been mostly hostile to Russia since 1945, and yes for America communism was mostly (though not completely) an excuse. The "wise men" who formulated the doctrine of Containment admitted as much.

Prior to 1945 Russia was part of the normal European state system. Depending on the state of the times Russia could be friendly, isolated, allied, at war, etc. with any number of European states. Where was the implacable Western hatred of Russia exactly?

Germany fought two wars with Russia in the 20th century, but in the 19th century it was a German statesman (vom Stein) who convinced Tsar Alexander to join with Prussia in forming the Sixth Coalition to finally beat Napoleon. Only the year before one out of three soldiers in Napoleon's Grand Army had in fact been German!

Likewise Napoleon invaded Russia, but a century later France was Russia's greatest ally.

Mikhail , Website June 8, 2018 at 11:44 pm GMT
@AP

Awhile back, I had earlier presented those in the officer ranks of the White Russians with ties to Ukraine. You pooh poohed that by noting their ties to Russia proper (for lack of a better term) – which BTW was part of the same entity as much of what's now known as Ukraine.

That the White leadership was top heavy with folks from outside Ukraine doesn't mean that there wasn't a noticeable degree of rank and file White participation among people from the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR – including individuals who'd qualify as being ethnic Ukrainian. Hence the previously noted recollection of Ukrainian being spoken among the Whites. I also know someone whose family joined the Whites after serving under Skoropadsky. That person's family has direct roots to Ukraine and has what's considered a typical Ukrainian surname. He has played a lead role in patriotic Russian anti-Communist emigre circles. Know some others with a similar background as well.

The Whites started their anti-Bolshevik opposition outside the territory of what became modern day Ukraine. The Russian Civil War era elections in Kiev didn't include a large segment of the overall population of what became the Ukrainian SSR and is therefore not so conclusive in determining public opinion at the time there. Hence, it's within reason to say (as has been previously stated by others) that a good number of folks on the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR weren't so motivated to support any of the lead Russian Civil War era combatants.

Meantime, it's clear that Petliura lacked support on the territory he sought to represent. He was militarily no match for either the Whites or Reds. The latter two had support within what became the Ukrainian SSR. Despite their differences, the Whites and Reds each supported some form of Russo-Ukrainian togetherness which brings to mind Skoropadsky's edict for an All-Russian Federation , inclusive of Russia and Ukraine:

https://www.eurasiareview.com/22052011-pavlo-skoropadsky-and-the-course-of-russian-ukrainian-relations-analysis/

Due to the dominating German presence, Skoropadsky and the Whites had problems connecting. In addition, the Germans restricted the amount of weapons to Skoropadsky's forces – which was to greatly assist those who overthrew Skoropadsky as WW I came to an end.

On another matter you recently brought up, Makhno fought Petliura's forces. Makhno, was arguably more of an anarchist than a Ukrainian nationalist.

Beckow , June 9, 2018 at 12:31 am GMT
@Thorfinnsson

The idea that the West is "naturally" hostile to Russia is completely bogus

Let's drop the 'naturally' qualifier, since we wouldn't agree on how to define it. That leaves a question: has West been hostile to Russia? Yes, in the last 10-15 years, no sane person could deny it. Maybe there are reasons for it, but the hostility is undeniable – and it covers Brits, Americans, French, German, Spanish, and even Italians. Dutch, Swedes and Danish have also been hostile.

West claims that they would not be hostile if Russia ' would change its ways '. Interesting, by that standard we could all be friends. I always tell people ' if you do 100% what I want, and agree with me 100%, I will be your best friend' . To ask others to change is to admit that you dislike them as they are, thus logically, you simply dislike them.

The second weasel excuse is that West likes Russian people, just dislikes their government (for some strange reason always personalised as 'Putin'). We hear this less and less because it is so absurd – Russians have chosen the government, they agree with most main policies. Let's call spade a spade: West doesn't like Russia as it is.

How long has this been going on before 2000? Putting aside the communist era, one can find very strong anti-Russian sentiments in all main Western countries at least since late 18th century, with Britain being the outstanding hater. There were occasional opportunistic thaws when some country needed an ally, or needed something, but in general West was always quite hostile towards Russia. It is too big, it is Orthodox, it has its own vibe. From Napoleon, to Crimean War (West invaded to side with Ottoman Moslems to keep Russia from gaining influence in the Balkans), to Hitler's coalition

European Christian civilization will not prosper divided. West gleefully destroyed and abandoned Byzantium 500 years ago. They are making the same mistake today.

David In TN , June 9, 2018 at 1:35 am GMT
@Beckow

Herr Rudel was the "Stuka Pilot," the most highly decorated WW II German.

Mitchell Porter , June 9, 2018 at 2:28 am GMT
Maybe no-one here knows or cares, but I would be interested to know about the impact of the war with Germany on Marxist-Leninist ideology in Russia. It seems like the original Marxist conception was that the workers' revolution would just happen and spread until it was universal.

Then fascism was supposed to be a last-ditch defense of the system by the capitalists. So after an enormous war in which fascism was actually defeated – did they think that now the tide had turned? And with the disintegration of the European maritime empires, and with many of the newly independent countries turning towards socialism, an optimistic attitude (towards the eventual global victory of socialism) must have been possible for many decades Maybe I should read something by Suslov, I've heard that he was the ideological chief in the Brezhnev era.

AP , June 9, 2018 at 2:48 am GMT
@Mikhail

I asked a specific question:

Name the ethnic Ukrainian units or military formations from Russian ruled Ukraine that fought on the side of the Whites in 1917-1920.

You failed to do so.

Because there were none.

There was no widescale or even smallscale support for Russia among ethnic Ukrainians in Russian-ruled Ukraine. Only, perhaps, some individuals out of the millions. But you failed to provide even names of those so it must have been a small number indeed.

Saying you know someone or heard of someone doesn't count. Meanwhile, around 100,000 ethnic Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine did fight for various Ukrainian nationalist leaders from Russian-ruled Ukraine, such as Symon Petliura, or Danylo Zeleny (30,000 troops at peak). Not much from a territory of 27 million people, but more than the virtually zero who took up arms for Russia.

AP , June 9, 2018 at 3:01 am GMT
@Marcus

Makhno's wife was a Ukrainian-language teacher. His forces were basically neutral towards those of the Ukrainian nationalist Petliura while being bitterly opposed to the Whites; Makhno contributed to Denikin's defeat, and even when he was about to be defeated by the Bolsheviks he killed Wrangel's envoys rather than cooperate with the Whites.

Hyperborean , June 9, 2018 at 3:46 am GMT
@Beckow

(I am also puzzled by Pushkin at #3, what gives? he was shot because he was inept in social situations, a hero? I suspect low level autism )

Levada doesn't explicitly say 'heroes', just 'great personalities', so Pushkin would be considered due to his cultural contributions.

The polls are often based on the public's knowledge of historical figures, their perception of who is good and current societal moods (which is why Putin is a joint second place).

Interestingly, it appears Stalin had his own role in making Pushkin a great figure: https://www.rbth.com/arts/literature/2017/02/14/pushkin-soviet-god_701618

melanf , June 9, 2018 at 3:46 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Much as I love the idea of enslaving the English, all of this is something out of a parallel universe.

Oh really?

" Both in England and in France used all means in order to gain the right immigrants (slaves) In Bristol simply abducted men, women and children Under Cromwell held mass sending Scottish and Irish prisoners. From 1717 to 1779 Britain sent to the colonies 50 thousand exiles (as slaves), and in 1732 the humane Evangelist John Ogtrop founded a new colony in Georgia wanting to gather many prisoners for debt

Consequently, there was widespread and long-lasting white slavery it disappeared for economic reasons, not for racial ones ."

Fernand Braudel. -- Civilisation matérielle, économie et capitalisme, XVe-XVIIIe siècle

There are many similar examples in this book. Here's another (not going to translate into English, as I don't have time):

" Задержанного бродягу пороли плетьми "прикованного палачом к задку телеги". Ему выбривали голову, его клеймили каленым железом; в случае рецидива его грозили повесить без суда и следствия или отправить на галеры – и запросто отправляли В 1547 г. английский парламент постановил, что бродяги будут не более не менее обращаться в рабство (эта мера была два года спустя отменена, так как не удалось решить вопрос с использованием этих рабов) идея витала в воздухе. Ожье Бузбек (представитель испанского короля при турецком султане) полагал что "ежели бы рабство применялось справедливо или мягче, как того требуют римские законы, не было бы необходимости вешать и карать всех тех, кои ничего не имея ничего кроме свободы и жизни становится преступником от нужды". И в конечном счете это решение возобладает в 17 веке ибо разве заключение в тюрьму и на каторжные работы это разве не рабство? Повсюду бродяг сажают под замок: в Италии в приюты для бедных, в Англии в работные дома (workhouse), в Женеве в исправительную тюрьму (Discipline), в Германии в исправительные дома (Zuhthauser), в Париже – в смирительные дома (maison de forse): в Гранд Опиталь созданный ради заключения там бедняков в 1662, в Бастилию, Венсенский замок, Сен-Лазар, Бисетр, Шарнтон, Мадлен, Сен-Пелажи. На помощь властям приходили также болезни и смерть И однако же ни неутомимая труженица-смерть, ни свирепые тюрьмы не искоренили зло Не взирая на экономический подьем, пауперизм усилился в 18 веке из за демографического роста Тысячи крестьян оказались выброшенными на дороги – наподобие того, как задолго до этого времени происходило в Англии с началом огораживаний. В 18 веке эта человеческая грязь от которой никому не удавалось избавится поглощала все: вдов, сирот, калек, беглых подмастерьев, священников без церковных доходов, стариков, погорельцев, жертв войн, обрюхаченных служанок, девиц матерей ото всюду прогоняемых и детей посылаемых за хлебом или на воровство Порядочные люди старались не думать о этих "подонках общества, отбросах городов, биче республик, материале для виселиц. Их столько и повсюду, что было бы довольно трудно их счесть, а годны они лишь на то, чтобы отправить их на галеры или повесить, чтобы служили примером "

melanf , June 9, 2018 at 3:55 am GMT
@melanf

And there are more radical statements

White Cargo is the forgotten story of the thousands of Britons who lived and died in bondage in Britain's American colonies.
In the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, more than 300,000 white people were shipped to America as slaves. Urchins were swept up from London's streets to labor in the tobacco fields, where life expectancy was no more than two years. Brothels were raided to provide "breeders" for Virginia. Hopeful migrants were duped into signing as indentured servants, unaware they would become personal property who could be bought, sold, and even gambled away. Transported convicts were paraded for sale like livestock.
Drawing on letters crying for help, diaries, and court and government archives, Don Jordan and Michael Walsh demonstrate that the brutalities usually associated with black slavery alone were perpetrated on whites throughout British rule. The trade ended with American independence, but the British still tried to sell convicts in their former colonies, which prompted one of the most audacious plots in Anglo-American history.
This is a saga of exploration and cruelty spanning 170 years that has been submerged under the overwhelming memory of black slavery. White Cargo brings the brutal, uncomfortable story to the surface
.

However, I did not read this book, perhaps the author of a falsifier like Solzhenitsyn. But the story about the failed purchase of two-legged cattle ("free" British) for the settlement of the Crimea – true. And this is the end of the 18th century.

Mikhail , Website June 9, 2018 at 4:32 am GMT
@AP

Your personal anecdotes haven't been shown to be more legit than the ones I've provided. Militarily, Petliura's forces did nothing of significance against the Whites and Reds for the reasons I mentioned. You fail to grasp the fact that people on what became Ukrainian territory fought on the White side. Such folks were typically never with Petliura – which is understandable given how many never supported him.

There's some difference on the actual number of Petliura's forces. Lehovich notes that just prior to Petliura's break with the Galician Ukrainians, he commanded a force of 35,000, of which 20,000 were Galician.

Hyperborean , June 9, 2018 at 4:33 am GMT
@iffen

People from the western-most part of the Ukraine, often noted for having a very strong Ukrainian national consciousness.

Mikhail , Website June 9, 2018 at 4:35 am GMT
@AP

Makhno fought against Petliura's forces. In exile, he associated with Russian anarchists.

Mikhail , Website June 9, 2018 at 4:56 am GMT
@AP

Wikipedia and other sources make note that Makhno fought Petliura's forces.

Upon Petliura's break with the Galician Ukrainian Army, the Whites severely beat his forces in the areas of Uman, Gaisin and Birsula. Thereafter, Petliura's forces retreated behind Polish lines.

Mikhail , Website June 9, 2018 at 5:39 am GMT
@AP

You're irrelevantly boorish, with an autistic trait by not acknowledging the obvious about folks ethnically akin to the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR, who fought on the White side, without having previously been associated with Petliura, who lacked a good deal of popular support.

Their looting aside, what great battles did Zeleny's forces win? In comparison, Makhno had military significance in a way that Petliura and Zeleny didn't. Onc e again noting that Makhno was more of an anarchist than Ukrainian nationalist. The academically written works on the Russian Civil War give little comparative mention to Zeleny.

Mikhail , Website June 9, 2018 at 5:48 am GMT
@AP

Makhno lumped Denikin and Petliura together as negative forces to what he preferred.

https://www.marxists.org/reference/archive/makhno-nestor/works/1928/12/national-question.htm

From Wiki:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nestor_Makhno

Makhno fought all factions which sought to impose any external authority over southern Ukraine, battling in succession the Ukrainian Nationalists, the Imperial German and Austro-German occupation, the Hetmanate Republic, the Russian White Army, the Russian Red Army, and other smaller forces led by Ukrainian otamans.

Denikin was militarily stronger than Petliura. That aspect motivated Makhno to concentrate more of his efforts against Denikin than Petliura.

Mikhail , Website June 9, 2018 at 5:52 am GMT
@AP

An autistic trait is the inability to not grasp a valid point that conflicts with a rehashed mantra. You've exhibited such much unlike myself.

Once again noting that folks ethnically akin to what became the former Ukrainian SSR fought on the White side, without having necessarily been associated with Petliura's forces or any other committed to a complete Ukrainian separatism from Russia – thereby explaining the accounts of Ukrainian being spoken among some Whites. Quite believable given Petliura's limited popularity.

Dmitry , June 9, 2018 at 5:55 am GMT
@AP

Fernand Braudel is not a bad/unreliable source – an academic historian from France.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fernand_Braudel

Mikhail , Website June 9, 2018 at 5:58 am GMT
@AP

Your point being what? Makhno clearly didn't support Petliura, with yourself saying that some skirmishes between the two might've been evident.

Dmitry , June 9, 2018 at 6:11 am GMT
@AP

The British government sent British children as slaves (for "hard labour") in their empire into the 1960s.

https://www.theguardian.com/society/2010/feb/24/child-migrant-programme-slavery

https://www.google.ru/search?newwindow=1&ei=UXAbW9WGLMLMwAKPqavIBQ&q=%22betrayed+children+sold+into+slavery+-+the+Australian%22&oq=%22betrayed+children+sold+into+slavery+-+the+Australian%22&gs_l=psy-ab.3 19052.32821.0.33000.60.55.4.0.0.0.328.7411.0j34j8j2.44.0&#8230 ;.0 1c.1.64.psy-ab..13.17.2257 0j0i67k1j0i10k1j0i22i30k1j33i160k1j0i22i10i30k1j0i8i13i30k1j0i13i30k1.0.XAL40lUpC78

Anatoly Karlin , Website June 9, 2018 at 6:28 am GMT
@Pseudonymic Handle

So, the russians invaded, looted and destroyed our countries and kept us imprisoned by force for 50 years in their dystopia and now they call us freeloaders that needed to be fed?

The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return. The RSFSR was likewise one of only two net donors to the USSR. Moreover, in 1946-47, "conquered" East Germans were literally fed at the expense of starving Russians .

Consequently, Kholmogorov is perfectly correct.

So your real objection is "tone" or similar crap. This makes you the East European edition of an SJW.

Anatoly Karlin , Website June 9, 2018 at 6:39 am GMT
@melanf

Standard in the 18th century:

* Indentured servants – People *willingly* signed a contract to work for x number of years (as I recall, 3-5 was standard) in return for the Trans-Atlantic ticket. Well, labor laws were harsh then, no doubt about that.

* Press-ganging into the Royal Navy – Perhaps closer to "white slavery", but then again, you could look at it as a sort of roughhouse conscription. And they got paid once in service.

All of the rest was either (1) not slavery, or (2) much have been small-scale and untypical.

Anatoly Karlin , Website June 9, 2018 at 6:56 am GMT
@Dmitry

First off, we're talking about a replacement religion for the bozos who march around with Stalin icons.

But I'll defend them anyway.

First image has a powerful aesthetic that evokes the techpriests of the Adeptus Mechanicus in the Imperium of Man. Praise be to the Omnissiah!

This is also in line with Kholmogorov's vision of Atomic Orthodoxy , whereby our permanent nuclear stalemate leads to the primacy of ideological struggle. Psykers awake!

Second image is the book cover to a sci-fi novel by Alexander Zorich, which is a collective pen-name for a male and female writer from Kharkov. Their series takes place in the 27th century where Russia and Ukraine are united, and constitute a space empire.

DFH , June 9, 2018 at 7:14 am GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Press-ganging was doubtless unpleasant for those experiencing it, but was minor compared to the full-scale conscription present in every other European state.

Sending rebels and other criminals to America was obviously much more humane than the alternative of execution or mutilation. Georgia was actually founded by philanthropists to try and reform criminals, but failed like most such projects. There was of course nothing unique about this, the French attempt to try and populate Louisiana with prostitutes, among other criminals, is well-known.

Once again a double standard is applied to Britain.

Mikhail , Website June 9, 2018 at 9:40 am GMT
@AP

You completely flopped in trying to disprove the historically obvious:

- Petliura had limited support on the territory which became the Ukrainian SSR
- that resulted in his willingness to become Pilsudski's puppet.

If his vision was so popular, the Whites and Reds would've had a difficult time with him, which wasn't the case – partly on account of the Reds and Whites each finding support on the territory that became the Ukrainian SSR. As noted earlier, there was also the matter of many on the territory of what became the Ukrainian SSR, not being so supportive of any of the armed groups.

anonymous coward , June 9, 2018 at 10:57 am GMT
@iffen

What's a Galician?

Galicia is the North-Western part of the modern Ukrainian state. It was always part of Poland throughout history. They're distantly related to people in Ukraine proper, and were annexed to the Ukrainian SSR by Stalin in 1939.

They're the political and cultural driver behind a 'Western' orientation for Ukraine. Which is not surprising: they're just wanting to rejoin a historical greater Poland.

Which will happen sooner or later, one way or the other. Outright annexation is probably unfeasible today, so Poland as a 'plan B' is right now in the process of giving Galicians Polish citizenship.

melanf , June 9, 2018 at 12:34 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

These people (in very many cases) were not volunteers (read the quote carefully). Temporary slavery (7 years) on sugar cane plantations (where white people have been dying for 2 years) is an evil joke. There was (along with temporary) and permanent white slavery. And if you like the British Empire slavery, I have absolutely no idea what you're up against Stalin. Stalin's concentration camps were no worse than the British plantations. And of course, in both cases, the victims were "criminals".

German_reader , June 9, 2018 at 1:04 pm GMT
@DFH

Once again a double standard is applied to Britain.

I don't think that's the motivation in this case, it's rather an attempt to claim that whites were subject to slavery just as blacks (which isn't true, indentured servitude was limited in time). Part of the debate who's had it worse in American history, blacks or "white trash".

Thorfinnsson , June 9, 2018 at 1:07 pm GMT
@Dmitry

In reality, many were children of single mothers who had been forced to give them up for adoption in an era when their solitary status constituted a grave social stigma.

An excellent program that should immediately be revived, in other words.

Single mothers are parasites and a plague on society.

If a single mother is unable or refuses to marry prior to giving birth to her child, by law the child should be immediately confiscated from her and placed for adoption (alternatively, raised by the state as a janissary).

No abortion unless the child is mixed race or genetically unfit, as we want to inflict maximal emotional trauma on these whores rather than provide them with an easy way out.

German_reader , June 9, 2018 at 1:16 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return.

Even if that's true, the "freeloader" accusation is still grotesque, since those countries would have been economically much better off and enjoyed a higher standard of living outside the Soviet orbit. At the very least, it would be nice to acknowledge that the Soviet system was bad for everyone involved and Russians hardly its only victims.
Kholmogorov really comes across as incredibly autistic on these matters. Ok, he's writing for a Russian audience which likes that kind of narrative, I get that. But hard to see what's the point then of translating him into English, unless one wants to confirm the worst suspicions about Russian nationalists.

melanf , June 9, 2018 at 1:38 pm GMT
@German_reader

Kholmogorov really comes across as incredibly autistic on these matters. Ok, he's writing for a Russian audience which likes that kind of narrative, I get that. But hard to see what's the point then of translating him into English, unless one wants to confirm the worst suspicions about Russian nationalists.

Absolutely correct. But Kholmogorov is a very marginal figure in Russia.

Beckow , June 9, 2018 at 1:51 pm GMT
@Hyperborean

Levada doesn't explicitly say 'heroes', just 'great personalities', so Pushkin would be considered due to his cultural contributions

That clarifies it. But if you ask people about 'greatness', their answers are based on notoriety for some, admiration for others, sympathy, etc. I recently saw Pushkin on a list of African contributors to civilisation due to his partial Abyssinian ancestry. His story has always puzzled me.

Thorfinnsson , June 9, 2018 at 1:58 pm GMT
@German_reader

You're German . Other than some unhinged HIAG fanatics (are any left?), without exception even German nationalists are so traumatized by WW2 and the postwar denazification that none of you dare to assert yourselves. I see it as increasingly likely that we'll be forced to liberate you. Though perhaps you'll yet find your Stresemann.

Russians, and many other nationalities, aren't like that.

That said I'll agree that Russian nationalists in general (not just Kholmogorov) could use a better tone on certain subjects. They're particularly unhinged about the Baltic states, even people of mild temperament like Dmitri.

The loser countries between Germany and Russia of course object to this assertiveness. Boo-hoo. Try not being losers instead. The Poles to their credit do try.

Beckow , June 9, 2018 at 2:13 pm GMT

there were zero military units and virtually no Ukrainians from Russian-ruled Ukraine fighting for the Whites.

I am not sure people put that much thought into it. If they did, the Whites were socially very unsympathetic for most people. The uniforms, rituals, pomposity. A friend of mine is a descendant of a White Russian officer, he says he wouldn't fight with the Whites either, too snotty and you had to polish your boots.

Out of curiosity, how many people in Ukraine fought for the Reds? Since they won, there had to be a few. Or were they mostly Latvian riflemen with angry lapsed Jews as officers?

Mr. Hack , June 9, 2018 at 2:18 pm GMT
@German_reader

It's got to be his strong Christian Orthodox message. Don't forget, Kholmogorov stated that:

Petro Poroshenko owes an enormous debt to Stalin, who enabled the Ukrainization of Ukrainizers.

Don't forget, in the Russian nationalist parallel universe (for internal consumption only! Stalin was the father of the Ukrainian nation. I can't wait to get my hands on Karlin's magnum opus 'Putler, the Dark Lord of the Kremlin', where it will finally be revealed to whom exactly Putler owes his fortunes to. Is it just a coincidence that both Putler and Porkoshenko were implicated in the 'Panama papers' scandal, where both civic patriots, in their own right, were implicated in international money laundering projects? Seems like its been all quieted down since when it first surfaced in 2015?

German_reader , June 9, 2018 at 2:22 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

I see it as increasingly likely that we'll be forced to liberate you

No thanks, Americans "liberating" us is one of the main reasons for the mess we're in (interesting though that even Trump supporters have this messianic impulse to tell other peoples what to do, that seems to be an unchanging constant of the American character).
Look, I get how those "might is right" power fantasies are great fun on internet message boards, but they're not a sound basis for constructive and mutually beneficial European-Russian relations which is still what I want. It's not my business to tell Russians how to run their country or how to deal with their history, but I just don't see how a vision as one-sided as Kholmogorov's will do much good. I'm all for nationalism in the sense of rejecting mass immigration, multiculturalism etc., but do I want a return to pre-1914 nationalisms with all their national antagonisms? Given how it ended last time, certainly not.

Beckow , June 9, 2018 at 2:29 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

Russians have the same problem that Germans had: they are visibly impatient with smaller nationalities. Americans are like that too. It eventually backfires.

loser countries between Germany and Russia of course object to this assertiveness

You miss the longer historical picture if you dismiss us as 'loser countries'. In the last 100 years, by any standard, the big winners have been the smaller countries between Germany and Russia (or West and Russia). Politically, demographically, economically they have prospered beyond anything one would guess in 1900. This includes the endlessly demonised post-WWII period. They also probably have a better future than their western and southern neighbours. All we need is peace and well managed borders, and for the Western meddlers to mind their business.

Mr. Hack , June 9, 2018 at 2:30 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

Why do the German people continue to elect politicians and political parties that encourage the immigration patterns of third world refugees? Or are the results different than in France, where its plainly obvious that the country is descending into the sewers? (for some reason, one doesn't expect more from the French).

inertial , June 9, 2018 at 3:13 pm GMT
@German_reader

Even if that's true, the "freeloader" accusation is still grotesque, since those countries would have been economically much better off and enjoyed a higher standard of living outside the Soviet orbit.

You have to realize that Kholmogorov argues here with Stalinists . What kind of argument is likely to get through to them? Certainly not any of the regular anti-Stalin bromides that have currency in the West.

This whole thing is so out of context, I don't know why it was translated in the first place.

inertial , June 9, 2018 at 3:31 pm GMT
@Beckow

Russians have the same problem that Germans had: they are visibly impatient with smaller nationalities. Americans are like that too. It eventually backfires.

Actually, Russians are generally not like that. Or at least they weren't in the past. What you are seeing is a natural reaction to the messages the Russians were getting from the Eastern Europe in the past 30 years.

Mr. Hack , June 9, 2018 at 3:33 pm GMT
@inertial

This whole thing is so out of context, I don't know why it was translated in the first place.

What context? Although I find most of Kholmogorov's ideas to be infantile and unbelievable, I applaud Karlin for bringing it up here, outside of the ghetto that it was intended for. It's good to see just what sorts of idiotic ideas and concerns are circulating today in the parallel universe of the Russian nationalists. Keep doing it Anatoly!

German_reader , June 9, 2018 at 3:36 pm GMT
@inertial

You have to realize that Kholmogorov argues here with Stalinists. What kind of argument is likely to get through to them?

Complaining that Russians didn't get enough out of WW2 in territorial annexations is a really weird argument imo (Kholmogorov even complains about the loss of Russian influence in Manchuria does anybody in Russia care about this?).

The part about collectivization and industrialization is more relevant imo given the damage Stalinist methods caused to Russia itself (I know many Russian commenters here will disagree about that, and I'm not going to argue with them since that's an internal Russian debate as far as I'm concerned).

Thorfinnsson , June 9, 2018 at 4:11 pm GMT
@German_reader

What's weird about it? What the hell is the point of conquering Berlin and not getting anything out of it other than Konigsberg? The Russians might as well have made a separate peace after 1943.

Instead they quite literally wasted millions more men in order to impose communism in Eastern Europe, and proceeded even to impose yet another famine on their own people in order to shore up the ridiculous East German regime. If the Germans had won instead you can bet your country would've gotten something out of it.

for-the-record , June 9, 2018 at 4:36 pm GMT
@Dmitry

That's interesting, thanks. Haven't had time to read it yet but here is an article by the author cited above (Jane Humphries), from the Economic History Review , on the same subject, based on her book

http://pseweb.eu/ydepot/semin/texte1112/JAN2012CHI.pdf

German_reader , June 9, 2018 at 4:41 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

What the hell is the point of conquering Berlin and not getting anything out of it other than Konigsberg?

Well, what exactly should Russia have annexed then? And what would have been done to the non-Russian population already in place there? Forced population transfers like in East Prussia or former East Poland? If they had been left in place, that would obviously conflict with Russian nationalism in the narrow sense and be more in the tradition of multiethnic imperialism.

AP , June 9, 2018 at 4:48 pm GMT
@Beckow

Out of curiosity, how many people in Ukraine fought for the Reds? Since they won, there had to be a few. Or were they mostly Latvian riflemen with angry lapsed Jews as officers?

The Reds had a lot of ethnic Russian troops from cities like Kharkiv. There were a few ethnic Ukrainians fighting for the Reds (perhaps the most significant was Semyon Timoshenko, from Odessa region) but mostly it was a matter of anarchists or nationalists making temporary alliances with the Reds and placing themselves under Red command in order to keep the Whites out. Even some of the Galicians temporarily joined the Reds, in order to fight against Poland:

http://www.encyclopediaofukraine.com/display.asp?linkpath=pages%5CR%5CE%5CRedUkrainianGalicianArmy.htm

One of the commanders of these Red Galicians would later be a commander in the 14th Waffen SS Divison Galicia.

Thorfinnsson , June 9, 2018 at 5:02 pm GMT
@German_reader

Kholmogorov apparently thinks the Tsarist WW1 war aims were good.

I'm not Russian, and I suggest that Karlin propose his own hypothetical war aims.

Had I been in Stalin's shoes, I would've concluded a separate peace with Germany as soon as practical. Russia is not a country which needs more territory, resources, and population. The blood letting from 1943-1945 were not worth anything which could have been obtained.

Essential aims would have been independent and neutral Central European buffer states, resumption of German-Russian trade, and German technological assistance.

If you want me to discuss "maximalist" objectives, I would've annexed everything up to the Elbe. Cities would be depopulated of unreliable nationalities and overtime replaced with East Slavs and other reliable groups. Peasants, farmers, etc. would continue to work their lands but for Russian barons. No peasant would be admitted to a city unless with Russian fluency and sincere profession of the Orthodox faith. Catholic and Protestant Churchs would be turned into Orthodox churchs. German technicians, scientists, machinists, and other skilled technical workers would be employed in Russian service under good conditions.

reiner Tor , June 9, 2018 at 5:12 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

Stalin couldn't really have concluded a separate peace with Hitler in 1943 (or anytime later).

1) The Western powers might've made a peace with Hitler themselves after this. Then Hitler would've destroyed the USSR, and Stalin would've made a fool of himself.
2) Hitler might've won the war in the West, and then turned once more on the USSR. You know the story from here on.
3) The Western allies might've defeated Hitler anyway, but would've been way more hostile to the USSR (which then would immediately be seen as a treacherous power willing to prop up Hitler despite having been attacked by him), the USSR would've received way less assistance from them (the bulk of it came 1943-45), would've been unable to steal the nuclear secrets (the Britons wouldn't have sold the designs of their jet engine, by the way), and so would've been much weaker relative to the victorious and way more hostile West.

As a bonus point, how would you sell the separate peace to your own population, which by that point in time properly hated the Germans, and with good reasons?

German_reader , June 9, 2018 at 5:15 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

I'm not Russian, and I suggest that Karlin propose his own hypothetical war aims.

That would indeed be interesting, and I'd also like to see specific statements about how one should have dealt with non-Russian populations in those areas.
In general, I find AK's stance on those issues somewhat contradictory. To me it seems like he's clearly a Russian ethnic nationalist. But then he lauds the multiethnic Tsarist empire with all its troublesome national minorities, and makes insinuations about lost chances for territorial annexations (as if Russia weren't a huge country even today) that would have brought even more non-Russians into that empire.

Thorfinnsson , June 9, 2018 at 5:17 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

This basically comes down to the thesis that Hitler was demonic and would return to finish off the USSR no matter what.

I'm highly skeptical of this thesis.

The Western allies had proven already in 1940 that they were completely unwilling to negotiate with Hitler. Granted, who knows what the reaction to a separate peace would have been.

Simpleguest , June 9, 2018 at 5:22 pm GMT
There is one simple criteria when truing to evaluate a ruler or a statesman. Just compare the country before and after him/her. In this sense Stalin is as great as Peter the Great, just not in name. No amount of "what if", "alternative history" or "cost and effect" analysis can change that.

Of the topic (or precisely on the topic) both Russian Empire and more recently Soviet Union collapsed, and there must have been a perfectly mundane reasons for that.
It's a duty of current generations to learn the good and bad from both, avoid pitfalls and continue forward. There was plenty that the empire left to the SU that it could build upon, just as there is quite a bit of legacy left by the Soviet Union that modern RF can rely on.

But, as someone here already mentioned here, and I agree, that is what Putin has been doing.

Marcus , June 9, 2018 at 5:23 pm GMT
@AP

I agree the Makhnovists fought mainly against the Whites, who were the biggest threat for them, but neutrality and occassional collaboration with the Petliurists was purely tactical.

Thorfinnsson , June 9, 2018 at 5:24 pm GMT
@German_reader

This isn't as big of a deal as you're making it out to be. The trouble is that people like us have created a mental anchor by settling on the term "nationalism".

A Russian ethnic nation-state is not necessarily more desirable than a Russian-dominated multiethnic empire, nor vice-a-versa. It depends on the particular circumstances and conditions.

Or to move over to your country, would a federal Europe be a bad thing if it was led by people with ideas more like yours or the Magyar Miracle rather than Jean Claude Juncker?

Steve Sailer likes to harp on the Sapir-Whorf hypothesis and points out that because "continentalism" isn't a political concept no one ever thinks of this. Hence the patriotic resistance in Europe gets itself into traps like Marine Le Pen campaigning for the abolition of the Euro.

for-the-record , June 9, 2018 at 5:28 pm GMT
@AP

Authors are filmmakers or something. Actual historians were not impressed. Sorry, you believe nonsense.

I'm afraid in this case your sense of nonsense is misplaced. I read the book a couple of years ago, and while it had its flaws I found it pretty convincing.

The fact that "actual historians" don't like it says nothing, since it is obviously an anti-PC book that could not possibly be embraced by the guardians of our past. However, before the "conventional wisdom" had coalesced to relegate it to the rubbish bin, an early review in the New York Times was far more favorable:

"White Cargo" is meticulously sourced and footnoted -- which is wise, given its contentious material -- but it is never dry or academic. Quotations from 17th- and 18th-century letters, diaries and newspapers lend authenticity as well as color. Excerpts from wills, stating how white servants should be passed down along with livestock and furniture, say more than any textbook explanation could. The authors are not only historians, but also natural storytellers with a fine sense of drama and character.

Despite the heaviness of the subject matter, their playful way with words and love of literary allusion come through. There are kidnapping victims of the kind written about in Daniel Defoe's "Colonel Jack," and a tumultuous ocean voyage that may have inspired Shakespeare's writing of "The Tempest."

What little discussion there is about this forgotten bit of American history is sometimes linked to those with ulterior political motives, usually interested in delegitimizing current-day discourse about race or the teaching of black history. "White Cargo," which was first published in Britain last year, has a refreshing sense of distance and neutrality. The authors take care to quote African-American sources and clearly state that they have no wish to play down the horrors of the much larger black slave trade that followed.

If anything, Jordan and Walsh offer an explanation of how the structures of slavery -- black or white -- were entwined in the roots of American society. They refrain from drawing links to today, except to remind readers that there are probably tens of millions of Americans who are descended from white slaves without even knowing it.

https://www.nytimes.com/2008/04/27/books/review/Lau-t.html

By the way, one of the authors that you so belittle last year published a very well-received book entitled The King's City: London under Charles II: A city that transformed a nation – and created modern Britain -- the third volume in his trilogy about Charles II (the first two written jointly in collaboration with the second author of White Cargo ).

reiner Tor , June 9, 2018 at 5:29 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

Hitler was demonic and would return to finish off the USSR no matter what

Not demonic, just driven by an ideology. He believed in his own mission to create the great Thousand Year Reich up to the Ural (and beyond, actually), and would've thought such a stroke of luck as a sign from Providence that he needs to press ahead with his plans. In any event, Hitler was unwilling to even seriously negotiate with Stalin, because he also didn't (and couldn't) trust Stalin, a man he'd already betrayed before. So the issue was mutual. Hitler was (must've been) afraid that Stalin would stab him in the back later. While Stalin was (must've been) afraid that Hitler would stab him in the back later, as he'd already done once.

But what did exactly the US or the UK gotten out of their victory? The US got some satellite states (just as the USSR), but because it was richer to begin with and didn't have an insane economic system, it could at least keep them after 1990. But those satellites were actually still unreliable from a US viewpoint. It's questionable if they will keep them another seven decades, I highly doubt it. In the meantime they opened up their borders to prove the world that they are not racists. They also opened up their markets to Japan and Germany and South Korea etc. to prop those countries up.

It seems to me that long term, the US got just as little from its victory as Russia. It might actually be totally destroyed ethnically, while Russia at least plausibly could stay Russian long term. If you compare ethnically Russian areas 1939 and 2018, they are almost the same. But ethnically white American areas 1939 vs. 2018, and it seems like the Americans were even bigger losers.

Thorfinnsson , June 9, 2018 at 5:40 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

People change their beliefs. Hitler for instance no longer consider slavs to be inferior at the end of his life. Supposing you're correct then we have my maximalist vision of a Russian Empire reaching the Elbe, ideally with a port on the North Sea as well if the army could've gotten there in time (plausible with a different offensive strategy in 1944-45).

But what did exactly the US or the UK gotten out of their victory? The US got some satellite states (just as the USSR), but because it was richer to begin with and didn't have an insane economic system, it could at least keep them after 1990. But those satellites were actually still unreliable from a US viewpoint. It's questionable if they will keep them another seven decades, I highly doubt it. In the meantime they opened up their borders to prove the world that they are not racists. They also opened up their markets to Japan and Germany and South Korea etc. to prop those countries up.

It seems to me that long term, the US got just as little from its victory as Russia. It might actually be totally destroyed ethnically, while Russia at least plausibly could stay Russian long term. If you compare ethnically Russian areas 1939 and 2018, they are almost the same. But ethnically white American areas 1939 vs. 2018, and it seems like the Americans were even bigger losers.

I have complained bitterly about this before. American foreign policy took a permanently fatal wrong turn with the election of Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

Previously American foreign policy had oscillated between isolationism and expansionism, but always with a clear pursuit of American self-interest. This was firmly established already in the 1790s, when George Washington flatly rejected airheaded nonsense about aiding revolutionary France b/c muh liberty.

After FDR American foreign policy pursued idealistic, errant nonsense. The only significant departures from that have been Nixon and Trump.

This started when FDR placed sanctions on Italy for the "crime" of invading Ethiopia. Willingly giving up commercial exports during the Great Depression.

The outrages continued with FDR's refusal to punish Mexico from expropriating American oil interests in 1938.

Our fate was sealed with the adoption of the Atlantic Charter (airheaded rubbish) and the passing of the Lend-Lease Program, where we gave weapons to countries fighting the Axis in exchange for nothing (other than a 99 year lease of some British bases). Why not instead demand Bermuda and the British West Indies?

The appropriate strategy in dealing with the Axis would've been either hemispheric defense (as proposed by the American First Committee) or joining them to dismember the British Empire.

for-the-record , June 9, 2018 at 5:40 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

I'm surprised you have such a PC view of American history. As multiple sources make clear, the information presented in White Cargo is correct -- large numbers of (white) people were effectively involuntarily "enslaved" in colonial America, in conditions that were no better (and often worse) than enslaved Africans.

Where do you think the word kidnap comes from?

Dmitry , June 9, 2018 at 5:44 pm GMT
@Yevardian

Surely his views and outlook are a little distinctive, in every country, not just Russia (or America). But it doesn't make them less entertaining/interesting/funny, etc.

From the perspective of a blog, if the viewpoint of the blogger is more frequently found in the public , then they would be easier to find, less rare – and there would be less reason for audience to visit the blog. If all the blogger's views are 'typical' – then why would anyone visit the blog? They could read the main news sites and encounter the identical content.

More generally, the more thinking or thoughtful people, will usually have more unusual and unpredictable combinations of views, which cannot be categorized into simple groups.

If you encounter that your views can 'map' predictably onto any political movement, common ideology, or political party in your country -then you need to question your views (and the influence of conformism in the predictability).

Beckow , June 9, 2018 at 5:47 pm GMT
@AP

Thanks. How does an anarchist-nationalist temporarily allied with the Reds look like in person? I am always amused by the ability of certain eastern European types to push the boundary of coherent thought. There is too much of something there, or maybe something missing. Many just want a gun to take a revenge on the crappy world.

It is not different today: there are Pan-Slavic nationalists who hate anything Russian (or even Polish), are fanatically pro-Western, loudly admire Israel and more quietly the Nazis, their economic policy is quasi-communist and social views are to the right of a 19th century pope. Quite a mess.

Mr. Hack , June 9, 2018 at 5:54 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

Cities would be depopulated of unreliable nationalities and overtime replaced with East Slavs and other reliable groups

I'm curious, just how exactly you envision the 'depopulation' of the indigenous nationalities to have taken place? Do you feel that a rather war weary Russia was really in any position to follow through on any such violent and crazy proposals? As far as 'reliable East Slav groups' we can see today how that ha turned out in Ukraine. As many others here have pointed out, did Russia really need extra territories? I can't figure out what motivates such malicious and incoherent ideas? Me thinks that Thorfinnsson should stick to the calculation of P/E ratios and not to international relations?

AP , June 9, 2018 at 5:56 pm GMT
@Beckow

Both Reds and anarchists were opposed to the landlords and capitalists, so they had common cause against the Whites and could cooperate against them in order to prevent White victory. Similarly, both Reds and non-Russian nationalists were opposed to the Whites who were Russian nationalists. In the Galicians' case, it was opposition to the Poles who had just conquered their country.

In reality cooperation between Reds and nationalists wasn't as substantial as between anarchists and Reds.

It wasn't the product of ideological twisting, it was simply a matter of – we hate them more than each other, so let's cooperate against them, for now.

Beckow , June 9, 2018 at 5:57 pm GMT
@inertial

natural reaction to the messages the Russians were getting from the Eastern Europe in the past 30 years

Possibly, although I would say that messages have been mixed. I have argued with my comprador friends that full devotion to the Atlanticist West limits one's options, that it is the worst game strategy, and that burning bridges is a often a bad idea. But rationality is in short supply when salmon buffets call and that umpteenth trip to a DC 3- star hotel for 'training' is dangled in front of them.

To be fair, Russians for most of the last 25 years were not that different, and would probably do it again. Human weakness has few boundaries.

ussr andy , June 9, 2018 at 6:00 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

OT [MORE]

http://www.unz.com/akarlin/the-rights-human-capital-problem/#comment-2353265

what exactly was the wrong way you were doing it? gradually turning the temp down then plateauing at ~20° when it becomes uncomfortable?

Beckow , June 9, 2018 at 6:07 pm GMT
@AP

1930s was typical and peak Stalinism

No, it was the peak, but it was not typical. 'Typical' is defined as 'faithfully representing'. 1930′s were an extreme, the 1917-1991 period as a whole was very different. So yes, you are cherry-picking. How about them 5-year olds in the British mines? Ok, with that?

Thorfinnsson , June 9, 2018 at 6:13 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

The war-weary Russian population would have been in need of vast reconstruction. And also the non-Russian populations of Europe. The workers of these conquered cities would've been very useful for that.

Depopulation isn't a euphemism here for execution or even necessarily deportations. Unlike Hitler and his gang I don't have fantasies of wiping people out.

Look instead at something like, say, the history of England and the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms. The preceding Brittonic and Romano-British populations weren't eliminated at all. The ruling classes were replaced, the cities transformed, and overtime the countryside itself.

If Canute the Great had established a real dynasty then today there wouldn't even be an England, but not because demonic vikings had some demented plot to butcher every Englishman.

As far as I can tell Ukrainians were generally reliable in Tsarist and Soviet times.

And no, Russia didn't need extra territory. I said that myself. But I figured German_reader was curious about a maximalist proposal.

ussr andy , June 9, 2018 at 6:14 pm GMT
@ussr andy

on topic, Stalin kinda sucked, what with the random arrests, the Doctors' Affair, the random arrests, but with all the degeneracy and decivilization going on – rap battles, corruption, gopniks, RSP-shki, "kowtowing to the West" – you sometimes wish he was back.

inertial , June 9, 2018 at 6:14 pm GMT
@German_reader

I am sure it sounds weird to you, but what Kholmogorov is doing here, is telling the Stalinists that even by their own criteria their hero is a failure. What they say are his greatest achievements are not so great after all, even from the Imperial Stalinist POV.

Another way Kholmogorov likes to troll Stalinists is to take a Soviet accomplishment (like going into space) and credit Nicholas II.

Beckow , June 9, 2018 at 6:16 pm GMT
@AP

we hate them more than each other

You are getting warmer, it is about unbounded hatred. Any enemy will do. Did they have flow-charts mapping out the complexity? Or does this kind of well-calculated hatred come to them intuitively?

My intuition tells me that when you mess with people repeatedly, and they end up living worse and worse, at some point the ' kill them all ' mentality takes over. It happened in Ukraine in 1917-20, in WWII and after. I hope we can avoid it from happening again. But if Ukraine lives as today in 2020-25 (lousy living standards), if there are guns everywhere, something could spark the downward spiral again.

inertial , June 9, 2018 at 6:20 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Incidentally, I consider that Kaliningrad should be remained to it proper name.

Korolevets?

hem do what they will with Poland would have been particularly amusing. However, it was not politically realistic, even for a totalitarian system such as the USSR.

Mr. Hack , June 9, 2018 at 6:51 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

The war-weary Russian population would have been in need of vast reconstruction. And also the non-Russian populations of Europe. The workers of these conquered cities would've been very useful for that.

The populations of Russia and Eastern Europe had already been depopulated severely due to the savagery of the war. The returning Soviet soldiers, including the remnant of the remaining population, had their hands full with rebuilding of what was left of their own settlements, not in a position to 'repopulate' nor rebuild Eastern Europe without the direct participation of its own indigenous populations. A prolonging of the war at the expense of millions of more lives, either resettled (to where?) or exterminated, would not have been in the cards. Besides, what makes you think that Eastern Europe would have fared any better than it did, with a new race of Russian ubermensch calling all of the shots anyway? History has shown us that they did a rather lousy job of things in their own country and in those that it did end up controlling.

Thorfinnsson , June 9, 2018 at 6:57 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

The populations of Russia and Eastern Europe had already been depopulated severely due to the savagery of the war. The returning Soviet soldiers, including the remnant of the remaining population had their hands full with rebuilding of what was left of their own settlements, not in a position to 'repopulate' nor rebuild Eastern Europe without the direct participation of its own indigenous populations.

Take the conquered women as polygamous wives. Rapid repopulation follows.

A prolonging of the war at the expense of millions of more lives, either resettled (to where?) or exterminated, would not have been in the cards.

Hence why I suggested making peace in 1943.

Besides, what makes you think that Eastern Europe would have fared any better than it did, with a new race of Russian ubermensch calling all of the shots anyway? History has shown us that they did a rather lousy job of things in their own country and in those that it did end up controlling.

Did I say it would've fared better?

My point was that the whole point of winning a war is to get something out of it. Something that everyone aside from the Axis apparently did not understand.

I suppose the French did try to get something out of it, but their demands were ignored by the real victors.

Daniel Chieh , June 9, 2018 at 7:01 pm GMT
@Dmitry

I think that you assume that things have to make a lot more sense than they have to. The Adeptus Mechanicus is honestly not a terrible response to overwhelming complexity – which is pretty likely if we ever get to the point where we have code creating code creating code.

They're dealing with machines they don't fully understand, realize that it has very real "demons" within(viruses), and the safest way to handle it has just been to keep doing whatever works. Thus the stories of prayers ending with hitting the "on" switch: the functionality is still there, it has just been couched in ritual.

At some point, the only realistic way of handling it is ritual – which is very human anyway. I've been involved in a lot of pretty high tech stuff for awhile and while its not quite religious, the tendency toward some form of ritual really does gradually take over, even if we tend to call them procedures or "best practices." There's a lot of weirdness, cultishness and bubble insanity in SV, and this isn't even considering the more fringe things like transhumanism or immortality organizations.

Thorfinnsson , June 9, 2018 at 7:01 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Seems like a possible outcome of this proposed peace is a future war against Britain and Japan at the same time. Oddly, Russia might be able to gain America as an ally in such a conflict.

And obviously, heavy reparations to turbocharge Russia's continuing postwar industrialization.

Of what nature?

Anatoly Karlin , Website June 9, 2018 at 7:07 pm GMT
@reiner Tor

Unrealistically long time horizons. The US did of course unambiguously win the war – it accounted for something like 50% of world manufacturing production by 1945. It dominated all the markets. In the late 1940s-early 1950s, if it had really wanted to, it could have conquered the entire world and/or instituted a one world government. (The Soviet nuclear deterrent was not credible until 1955 or so).

To develop Thorfinnsson's idea of a 1943 Nazi-Soviet peace further ( with the caveat that I do not consider it politically realistic even for the USSR ):

First off, I do not think the Allies would have made a separate peace with the Nazis. Public opinion there mattered more, for obvious reasons (democracy), and it's not even clear that the Russians hated the Germans more (there are accounts of German POWs being treated generously – disgracefully – well, by elderly babushkas with low national consciousness).

With the Wehrmacht having its hands untied in the East, D-Day would no longer be feasible. However, the Manhattan Project would not be going away, with the result that a campaign of democidal atomic attrition against the German population would begin from 1945.

The Nazis are not limp-wristed like the Kaiser or even Hindenburg/Ludendorff and will hold onto power as German city after city gets wiped off the Earth.

At some point, Germany will be sufficiently weak for an Allied invasion to be possible, especially considering that there would have been years to prepare for it. Obviously, at this point, the USSR could use the opportunity to scavenge. Even the East Europeans will be less of a problem at this point, having been subjected to 2-3x the degree of democide by the Nazis as they were historically. There will at a basic level be much fewer of them. And they'd hate the Germans even more.

The USSR could have used the armistice with Germany to refocus on science spending and turbocharge the nuclear program, developing it earlier and having a credible deterrent by 1950 instead of 1955. So no Operation Unthinkable in principle (IRL, the USSR in reality seriously lucked out on that score!!).

utu , June 9, 2018 at 7:21 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

The USSR exported oil, gas, and other raw materials to COMECON members and got inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return.

Moreover, in 1946-47, "conquered" East Germans were literally fed at the expense of starving Russians.

50/50= truths/myths. East Germans, Poles, Czechs, Hungarians have similar stories. They always blamed shortages on the so-called 'exports' to USSR. There were no noticeable Soviet products in stores there but plenty of Eastern Block products in Soviet Union.

inferior, overpriced manufactured goods in return

How anybody can determine what was overpriced or underpriced in the system of exchange they had? Eastern European products often were inferior with respect to the West but superior to what was being produced in the USSR. Muscovites were going crazy when shoes from Czechoslovakia or DDR were sold in few stores. Anybody lined up for Soviet products in Hungary or Poland. Perhaps for Sovetskoye Shampanskoye before the New Year's Eve

Buses and pharmaceuticals form Hungary, high-tech optical and electronics equipment from DDR, ship industry in Poland mainly functioning for USSR, more that 50% sulphuric acid used in the USSR was from Poland, CSFR motor vehicles, for example, passenger cars, trams, motorcycles , lathes, pumps , compressors. (10 min of googling).

Russian nationalist want empire but they do not know how they are going to run it. Actually they did not know in the past. They have never managed to culturally dominate people they subjugated except for some Siberian tribal people. One thing is true, the emotional prerequisite for Russians is to be loved and appreciated by the people they subjugated. When they see all the evidence to the contrary they display the spurned lover syndrome and show hurt ego how much they sacrificed for the subjugated and so on. You even detect it in Uber-rational A. Karlin. Americans have it too but to much lesser extent because they are much more secure in their beliefs. They do not have to support them by myths only. It suffices to look around and see how America is powerful and dominant. But the megalomania and some sense of missions are very similar among Russians and Americans. People from 'lesser' countries are fed up with it. Now they may sympathize with Russia in hope that counterbalancing of American power would be good but when they hear the nationalist imperial spiel like that of Kholmogorov they pause and have a second thought and may consider that beefing up Ukraine might be a very good thing after all and opening border with Mexico and turning the US into a Latin America might be a good thing after all from the point of view of small countries that want to have more sovereignty whether to create the ethno-state state or gay utopia or both.

Anatoly Karlin , Website June 9, 2018 at 7:24 pm GMT
@German_reader

1. Germany was not doing well at the start of 1917. AH and Turkey were doing catastrophically.

2. There is a difference between the degree of hurt you can expect if you sign an armistice when you're losing (applies to both Russia and Germany in 1918), and if you capitulate and/or are conquered (France in 1940 lost the bulk of its core territory, for instance).

Mikhail , Website June 9, 2018 at 7:25 pm GMT
@Beckow

Well a good enough number did fight on the White side, thereby explaining why they never lost to Petliura's forces, which were representative of a completely separatist Ukraine, until Petliura sold out to Pilsudski – in a move which saw the Galician Ukrainian Army en masse come under the command of the Whites.

German_reader , June 9, 2018 at 7:25 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

and it's not even clear that the Russians hated the Germans more (there are accounts of German POWs being treated generously – disgracefully – well, by elderly babushkas with low national consciousness)

iirc about 90% of the Germans taken prisoner by the Soviets in 1941-1943 didn't survive the war; it's also clear that German prisoners were frequently tortured and killed.
Not that I'm complaining, Germans started the war and if anything behaved worse. But you can't seriously believe that Russians felt less hatred for Germans than the British, let alone the Americans did. That's completely implausible.

Mikhail , Website June 9, 2018 at 7:29 pm GMT
@AP

There were a few ethnic Ukrainians fighting for the Reds

Another one of your gross understatements. Also keeping in mind that a number of folks from the territory of Russian Empire Ukraine could qualify as ethnic Ukrainian, but identified differently.

German_reader , June 9, 2018 at 7:30 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Why should Britain and France have supported the realization of such extreme war aims to the benefit of Russia? Their alliance with Russia was purely one of convenience, liberal opinion in the West despised Tsarism. And once the US had entered the war, the whole war was changed into a "crusade for democracy" anyway, which made such imperialist annexations even more unlikely.

Your idea of Tsarist Russia being unjustly robbed of great territorial gains is fantasy imo. The Bolshevik takeover was deplorable for many reasons, but not because Russia failed to gobble up even more land.

Dmitry , June 9, 2018 at 7:31 pm GMT
@Daniel Chieh

I think that you assume that things have to make a lot more sense than they have to. The Adeptus Mechanicus is honestly not a terrible response to overwhelming complexity – which is pretty likely if we ever get to the point where we have code creating code creating code.

They're dealing with machines they don't fully understand, realize that it has very real "demons" within(viruses), and the safest way to handle it has just been to keep doing whatever works. Thus the stories of prayers ending with hitting the "on" switch: the functionality is still there, it has just been couched in ritual.

At some point, the only realistic way of handling it is ritual – which is very human anyway. I've been involved in a lot of pretty high tech stuff for awhile and while its not quite religious, the tendency toward some form of ritual really does gradually take over, even if we tend to call them procedures or "best practices." There's a lot of weirdness, cultishness and bubble insanity in SV, and this isn't even considering the more fringe things like transhumanism or immortality organizations.

Atomic physics is a field already near theology.

The idea of future religions integrating such scientific concepts is something beautiful (and there was already something this in the Soviet Union).

There has to be some actual integration though.

You can't take current priests (low IQ, superstitious people who usually fail maths in school), and put them next to an abstract scientific concept like the word 'atom' – without making both sides look ridiculous.

It is like the arrangement most designed to turn them into an object for ridicule from educated people.

(Likewise photos of priests near to specific technology which was entirely created by Soviet trained people).

It is just like seeing the scene of primitive monkeys from the 2001 film.

Mikhail , Website June 9, 2018 at 7:32 pm GMT
@AP

When and where did he actually say such? That's something that svidos would tap dance on if actually true. As stated, should be viewed with suspicion.

Simpleguest , June 9, 2018 at 7:42 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

"It seems obvious that the ideal combination is both. And the *late* Russian Empire was in fact just that."

I agree with you that ideal combination would indeed be "both".
I am not sure that "late" Russian Empire was just that, though.
Perhaps, I am much too influenced by later Bolshevik propaganda, winners, after all, get the privilege to write the (hi)story.
But, most likely, the Russian Empire's fate is just another case of that famous "too little too late".

Russians, having the first hand experience of these, epic, failures of both the Empire and Soviet Union, have both the necessary perspective and hindsight to move on in much better future. We have to see if they have acquired the wisdom, too. Again, in this respect, and in my opinion, Putin has been doing a "hell of a job" so far.

Thorfinnsson , June 9, 2018 at 7:44 pm GMT
@German_reader

Russia was also crumbling even without the Bolsheviks. The Kerensky offensive was a catastrophe. Military discipline had completely evaporated.

Assuming the Russians had hung in long enough to participate at Versailles, I doubt they would've gained much. Britain and America would both oppose most of Russia's war aims. Certainly the idea that President Wilson and David Lloyd George would agree to transfer Constantinople to Russia is a fantasy.

Probably Russia would've gotten some more sullen Poles to administer, Galicia, and the rest of Armenia. And of course the reparations which the Germans would largely fail to pay.

Dismemberment of Germany like France and Russia wanted was never going to be tolerated by Britain or America.

German_reader , June 9, 2018 at 7:49 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Note that I posit a Cold War emerging between France/UK and Russia after the war.

Absent nuclear weapons, why exactly would that have stayed a Cold war in the 1920s/1930s and not become a hot one? Russia was seen as a potential rival to British imperial interests well before 1914 and would have been seen as an even greater threat in your scenario.

However, the great bulk of them relate to economic and political ones inherent to Communism (e.g. central planning; using your *own* population as disposable bodies

Obviously I agree about the defects of communism, but the insinuation that it would be ok to treat other populations as "disposable bodies" really irritates me what exactly would be your problem with the Nazis then, apart from the fact that they targeted Russians as a population to be disposed of? The general vibe I get from this thread is that any moral considerations would be for losers and cucks anyway.

Have to say, these insights into the views of Russian nationalists make me think it's probably better they're still fairly marginal in Russia and not looked kindly upon by the state.

Mr. Hack , June 9, 2018 at 8:33 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

The "sicko nationalist stuff bordering on fascism" is how statecraft was practiced from the Bronze Age to Bismarck.

If I understand you correctly, you're actually an American, and therefore I find it amusing that you subscribe to such 'tribal' worldviews. For all of its faults, 'American exceptionalism' which acts a an underlying motivator for American imperialism, does not include components of ethnic or national superiority (imperialism without the 'pure blood' racial component) that I think is a step in the right direction. For all of the criticism of the inclusion of different ethnicities in the make-up of American society (and I'm not a proponent of open borders, etc;), I think that a strong case can be made that one of the strengths of the vibrant, US nation, is its inclusion of all ethnicities. Although it's getting harder and harder, immigrants are still adding to the overall good of American society. US multiculturalism should not be a blueprint for all societies throughout the world, but it certainly will continue to slowly influence how many of the advanced countries of the world model their own societies. I strongly suspect that your own genetic make-up was formed through the melding of more than just your own German heritage that began over 5 centuries ago? Even Karlin's ethnic pedigree is far from 'pure' Russian, and the both of you don't seem to be any worse for the resulting cocktail?

Mr. Hack , June 9, 2018 at 8:44 pm GMT
@Mikhail

Here's the exact quotation, taken from Makhno's three volume autobiography:

One thing alone must bother me in publishing this outline, and that is that it does not come out in the Ukraine and in the Ukrainian language. The Ukrainian nation is advancing culturally step by step toward a full definition of its own individual essence and this [the memoirs, F.S.] could be important. That I cannot publish my writings in the language of my people is not my fault but that of the conditions in which I find myself.[68]

68. Makhno I, p. 6.

You owe me a pair of tap dancing shoes, Mickey!

German_reader , June 9, 2018 at 8:55 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

Russia behaving like any normal European country *one century ago* with respect to war aims – note that Germany would have created a continental empire, and here is the French version

But how many Germans or Frenchmen are still going on about this as if it were relevant today? French and German nationalists have rather different concerns now, all this talk about territorial annexations and imperialism looks like out of another universe.

The problem isn't that Russian imperial elites a century ago had extreme ambitions (which backfired horrendously on them), the problem is that one can get the impression that Kholmogorov and others like him think like that even today.

This further reinforces my suspicions that Russia should not have any sentimental illusions about Europeans, even European nationalists.

Self-fulfilling prophecy "They'll hate us anyway, so why not give them a reason?". Hardly a constructive sentiment.

DFH , June 9, 2018 at 8:59 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

The "sicko nationalist stuff bordering on fascism" is how statecraft was practiced from the Bronze Age to Bismarck.

It wasn't though. The borders of France, for example, barely changed for centuries, despite being the most powerful nation in Europe. Louis XIV's attempt to acquire just Belgium and some German cities united all of Europe against him. Of course even those conquests which were made were within the framework of multi-national empires (which often disadvantaged the dominant ethnicity, if anything), rather than Assyrian-style subjugation.
Events like the Polish Partitions were unique and regarded as horrible.
I suppose this is the American educational system at work.

Thorfinnsson , June 9, 2018 at 9:01 pm GMT
@Mr. Hack

Americans were mostly white supremacists and frequently Anglo-Saxon supremacists as well for more than three centuries.

The unforced error of admitting millions upon millions of non-Anglos from the 1840s through WW1 diluted the original American identity beyond the possibility of restoration, but mid-century experiences (Great Depression, WW2, mass media, space race, etc.) managed to forge a composite American nation.

But then America's elite threw it all in the trash by deciding that white supremacy was getting in the way of winning the ever important HEARTS AND MINDS of shithole countries like Upper Volta.

America isn't a blueprint for anyone, other than wreckers who want to break nations. It's a warning.

Too bad for Eurocucks that they're our vassal states and thus instead following us like lemmings off the cliff.

That's not to say that a focus on purity is necessarily desirable. Obviously such a focus in Russia or America today is ridiculous and counterproductive. But in a country like Sweden or Japan it isn't.

My family's genealogy is pretty well done, but no doubt if you go far enough back you'd be likely to find something more "exotic" than a German. Danes and Norwegians certainly; and possibly Scots, Dutchmen, and Walloons. Finns and Slavs less likely but who knows.

Anatoly Karlin , Website June 9, 2018 at 9:06 pm GMT
@German_reader

iirc about 90% of the Germans taken prisoner by the Soviets in 1941-1943 didn't survive the war

They were high but 90% sounds unlikely though it would be good if someone looked the figures up (though I dimly recall that might have been the case in the singular aftermath of Stalingrad).

Anyhow, the two situations are not comparable not even on account of the Nazis having been the ones who attacked as by the fact that the USSR faced a food crisis of its own. A few million died of food shortages within the USSR during 1941-43; IIRC, around half of all Gulag deaths ever also occurred during that period. It was undergoing a low-key famine of its own then (unlike Germany, which was well fed until late 1944). I mean yes, sovcucks will sovcuck, but I suppose even they draw the line at privileging captured enemy combatants over their "own" people.

I think it was in Beevor's Stalingrad there was some account of a German POW Wehrmacht doctor getting fed and clothed by Russian peasants to supplement his low rations. Certainly there was very little of that happening wrt Russian POWs in Germany.

Thorfinnsson , June 9, 2018 at 9:09 pm GMT
@DFH

The French themselves developed a concept known as the NATURAL BORDERS OF FRANCE , and the "natural" eastern border was the Rhine. And the Rhineland was completely German.

Napoleon succeeded in making that the eastern French border, but we know how that turned out.

What's unique about the Polish Partitions at all?

Thorfinnsson , June 9, 2018 at 9:13 pm GMT
@German_reader

This thread is about Joseph Stalin and thus involves the discussion of history .

No doubt French and German nationalists have views on the two World Wars as well.

Russia has territorial concerns France and Germany do not for the simple reason that the USSR collapsed and stranded millions of Russians outside Russia's borders. Russia's late historical development also means we have oddities like two pseudo-Russian nations on its border. The only comparable thing to this in France or Germany is, what, Corsica?

The situation of Russia today is comparable to that of Germany after 1919, not Germany after 1990.

German_reader , June 9, 2018 at 9:17 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

What's unique about the Polish Partitions at all?

How many other states of early modern Europe were gobbled up by their neighbors? It was quite exceptional.

DFH , June 9, 2018 at 9:19 pm GMT
@Thorfinnsson

The French made hardly any progress towards accomplishing that between Richelieu and Napoleon. Louis XIV only got Alsace and Louis XV Lorraine (part of a negotiated swap) and Corsica , over a span of almost 200 years. They couldn't even add the Spanish/Austrian Netherlands despite occupying them many times.
The revolutionary policy of annexation was obviously new (and not repeated in the 19th century) and ended in complete failure, with France being restored to pre-Revolutionary borders.

Frederick II's annexation of Silesia was also regarded as exceptional and shocking. All of this is despite Europe being more at war (and on a large scale) than not during the 17th and 18th centuries.

What's unique about the Polish Partitions at all?

Nothing like it was repeated (barring the very minor and ultimately irrelevant division of Venice). Austria and Russia couldn't even ever finish off the Ottoman Empire, despite having the idea since Potemkin and Catherine the Great.

German_reader , June 9, 2018 at 9:24 pm GMT
@Anatoly Karlin

though I dimly recall that might have been the case in the singular aftermath of Stalingrad

Stalingrad is well known, only about 6000 of the Germans captured there survived; but iirc the same was true for Germans taken prisoner in 1941/1942 (the numbers weren't that high by WW2 standards, somewhat above 100 000, unfortunately I can't find a reference right now). Anyway, it could of course hardly be expected that the Soviet Union in 1941/42 would give much priority to caring for German pows, and in any case the policy changed during the later years of war; I also don't doubt that something like with the elderly Russian women you mentioned did happen. It just seems implausible to me that Russians could have felt less hatred for Germans than the western allies, when the entire character of the war in the east was different (mostly conventional war in the west vs. highly ideological war in the east that was waged as a war of extermination and conquest by the Germans).

Anatoly Karlin , Website June 9, 2018 at 9:26 pm GMT
@German_reader

But how many Germans or Frenchmen are still going on about this as if it were relevant today?

It is a concern in a historic context . I mean, the entire point of the second half of EK's article is that Stalinists say Stalin is good because he returned the Russian Empire to its older borders; EK points out that it was merely a rectification of Lenin's sabotage, came at a huge cost, and in the end turned out to be a toxic gift anyway.

What, exactly, is controversial about any of that? Modern Russian nationalists are quite open about having imperial ambitions on Belorussia, Novorossiya, and to a lesser extent, Northern Kazakhstan (fast becoming demographically unfeasible) and Malorossiya/Central Ukraine (has become politically unfeasible since 2014).

You are of course free not to like that, but, whatever. Romanian nationalists have imperial ambitions on their lost province of Moldova:

(Incidentally, Russian nationalists don't, aside from Transnistria; even though more Moldovans would vote to join Russia

[Jun 13, 2018] Germany Was Defeated on the Eastern Front, Not Normandy, by Eric Margolis - The Unz Review

Notable quotes:
"... Germany's mighty Wehrmacht, which included the Luftwaffe, was destroyed by Stalin's Soviet Union. The Red Army claims to have destroyed 507 German divisions, 48,000 German tanks, 77,000 German aircraft, and 100 divisions of Axis troops allied to Germany from Italy, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Finland. ..."
"... Of Germany's 10 million casualties in WWII, 75% were inflicted by the Red Army. The once mighty Luftwaffe was decimated over Russia. Almost all German military production went to supplying the 1,600 km Eastern Front where Germany's elite forces were ground up in titanic battles like Kursk and Stalingrad that involved millions of soldiers. ..."
Jun 13, 2018 | www.unz.com

On my many walking visits to the vast Normandy battlefield in France, I kept recalling the ever so wise dictum of Prussia's great monarch, Frederick the Great: 'he who defends everything, defends nothing.' On this 74 th anniversary of the D-Day landings, it's well worth recalling the old warrior-king.

Adolf Hitler, a veteran of the infantry, should certainly have known better. Defending the European coast from Brittany to Norway was an impossibility given Germany's military and economic weakness in 1944. But he did not understand this. Having so brilliantly overcome France's Maginot Line fortifications in 1940, Hitler and his High Command repeated the same strategic and tactical errors as the French only four years later: not having enough reserves to effectively counter-attack enemy breakthrough forces.

Germany's vaunted Atlantic Wall looked formidable on paper, but it was too long, too thin, lacked defensive depth and was lacking in adequate reserve forces. The linear Maginot Line suffered the same failings. America's fortifications protecting Manila and Britain's 'impregnable' fortifications at Singapore also proved worthless. The Japanese merely marched into their undefended rears.

In 1940, the German Wehrmacht was modern history's supreme fighting machine. But only four years later, the Wehrmacht was broken. Most Americans, British and Canadians believe that D-Day was the decisive stroke that ended WWII in Europe. But this is not true.

Germany's mighty Wehrmacht, which included the Luftwaffe, was destroyed by Stalin's Soviet Union. The Red Army claims to have destroyed 507 German divisions, 48,000 German tanks, 77,000 German aircraft, and 100 divisions of Axis troops allied to Germany from Italy, Romania, Hungary, Slovakia, and Finland.

Few Americans have ever heard of the Soviet Far East offensive of 1945, a huge operation that extended from Central Asia to Manchuria and the Pacific. At least 450,000 Japanese soldiers were killed, wounded or captured by the Red Army, 32% of Japan's total wartime military losses. The Soviets were poised to invade Japan when the US struck it with two