In Russia it is pretty powerful social strata that includes the representatives of pseudo-democratic
views who received considerable wealth during Yeltsin's reign and is now seeking to turn back
"the wheel of history". For them the main thing is to secure the return of such period the degradation
of Russia, in which they could continue to plunder the country with impunity. Today, the only
guarantor of their existence is the "democratic" West, mortally afraid of the revival of a powerful
Eastern neighbor and ready to do whatever it costs to support corrupt comprador Russian troops. In this
respect West is following a well known cynical formula used by FDR in respect to Somoza invitation
to Washington: "He may be a son of a bitch, but he's our son of a bitch"
Perhaps it may be more difficult these days to run such manifestly comprador systems given that,
as I suggested earlier, there does tend to be more democratic pressure from below than in the 19th
century. A good example is Russia, although admittedly Russia also has its tradition of Great Power
status and so forth which prevents it from becoming completely subservient to America. As I wrote
in a previous book on the reasons for Russia's defeat in Chechnya between 1994 and 1996,
there was a real attempt by America in the 1990s, with tremendous help from the Russian elites themselves,
to turn Russia into a kind of comprador state, whose elites would be subservient to
America in foreign policy and would exist to export raw materials to the West and transfer money
to Western bank accounts.
In the end, neither the Russian state nor the Russian people would accept that. The Yeltsin order
was replaced by a kind of authoritarian, nationalist backlash under Putin. One sees the same thing
in a rather different form in Venezuela, for example.
I remember the color revolutions in the Ukraine and Georgia very well. I also remember the color
revolution in Kyrghyzia and also in Serbia.
Let me say again that there is NO possibility of a color revolution in Russia and the political
situation in Russia is absolutely not conducive to such a revolution.
I respectfully disagree. I also remember "Orange Revolution" well :-). And I do not share your optimism
for several reasons:
1. West is a really powerful force and had the brainpower and money. Like Ukraine, Russia
is an oligarchic republic that is by definition susceptible to this type of coup d'état. There is always
a level of discontent that can be exploited. In a way, discontent against local oligarchy is a perfect
way to topple any (I mean ANY) weaker oligarchic republic by stronger oligarchic republic without direct
army conflict just by using fifth column and money. With Putin charismatic leadership Russia is
rather strange oligarchic republic, much less hostile to common people, then others. But still it is
an oligarchic republic, not that different from the USA or GB. Such an aberration from "historical
norm" does not last forever. As sad as it was, the economic rape of Russia under Yeltsin was more of
a norm then exception. As Mark aptly observed the meme is “There’s always money for
regime change”.
This is very true because those investments can produce the best return of capital possible. Moreover
acting this way is the most logical for the USA as this is the least costly way to achieve its security
goals in this part of the globe. So they will never stop, just regroup and try again. In way this is
a Trotsky's dream of "permanent revolution" which come true in a very perverted form. Judging from Ukraine
experience those guys who are doing "color revolution" staff for living have brainpower and money to
adapt so you never be sure what will be next trick and from which direction it will hit you. This story
with Yushchenko poisoning was a thing of beauty of Machiavellian politics, is not it? In
Russia they are trying to spread rumors about Putin hidden billions and palaces, but so far not with
much success. They will find something else soon. BTW the fact that Medevedev awarded Gorbachov the
highest medal (Order of St. Andrew) on his 80th birthday, despite the fact the Putin called dissolution
of the USSR the largest socio-political catastrophe is a kick in the face of any real Russian patriot
and dies not inspire too much trust in the regime.
2. The claim of "democratization" and usage of election hijacking as the mean of "regime change"
suppresses the "natural immune response" of the state to the foreign invasion. Like AIDS it is difficult
to treat once you get infected. And this suppression of immune response is very real in this case. For
example, absence of requirements to publish exist polls results only with all necessary information
about size of the sample, the questions used (this is very important) and financial backers of the efforts,
etc is the blunder that Russian authorities committed. That either suggests that they never learned
anything from Orange revolution or were afraid to act decisively. IMHO iron control of NGO related
to interpretation of election results is a must if country wants to survive. That should include iron
rules for publication of exit polls results which should be controlled by Central Election Commission
or similar authority with criminal penalty for violations. I think in view of consequences of Orange
Revolution for Ukraine an article about "misinterpretation" of exit polls should be in criminal code
of any state because it is just legitimate form of sedition. Otherwise their is no defense against claims
like recent Levada center NGO (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Levada_Center) claim of 15% vote fraud in
Moscow -- direct replica of tricks Orange revolution organizers played with impunity. And I probably
am not alone seeing a strong analogy of falsification of exit pools results with sedition. From Wikipedia:
The difference between sedition and treason consists primarily in the subjective ultimate object
of the violation to the public peace. Sedition does not consist of levying war against a government
nor of adhering to its enemies, giving enemies aid, and giving enemies comfort. Nor does it consist,
in most representative democracies, of peaceful protest against a government, nor of attempting to
change the government by democratic means (such as direct democracy or constitutional convention).
Sedition is the stirring up of rebellion against the government in power. Treason is the violation
of allegiance to one's sovereign or state, giving aid to enemies, or levying war against one's state.
Sedition is encouraging one's fellow citizens to rebel against their state, whereas treason is actually
betraying one's country by aiding and abetting another state. Sedition laws somewhat equate to terrorism
and public order laws.
3. Russian government was/is completely beaten/outmaneuvered in the battle for internet media.
Facebook and Twitter are channels that they can't control and those are huge help for "color revolution"
organizers. Help which in a way replaces old-fashioned role of newspapers. And we all know how Bolsheviks
treated newspapers a century ago. In case of Russia much like was the case in Ukraine opposition also
can rely on at least one TV channel (Dozhd'). So the situation with media looks similar or an exact
replica of Ukrainian scenario. That means that an important precondition for color revolution is met:
"fake violations amplifier" mechanism is in place.
4. Authorities look passive and brain-dead in case issue of "falsification of falsification" trick
with exit polls. Looks like they never read the book: The Opinion Makers: An Insider
Exposes the Truth Behind the Polls. With the notable exception of Putin's brave four hour
counterattack there was no efforts to counter the "falsifications of falsifications" and explain who
they are and what interests they support with exit pools "falsifications of falsifications". But
even he did not stress the key mechanism of generating discontent. There was some weak noise about
"three card monte sociologists" from Central Election Commission (http://www.electorat.info/blog/5989.html),
but it was after the fact when all the initiative was completely lost. Nothing or very little was done
preemptively. Authorities got into trap of reacting for claims about violations. And Putin's suggestion
to put camera is IMHO questionable as it belongs to this line of thinking. Cameras are need to control
how exit pools are conducted much more that in the polling stations. Again the real issue here is the
control of exit polls by NGOs. This is a huge black mark for Medvedev. Was it so difficult to publish
"rules of the game for exit polls" before that elections? And inspect such NGO's as Levada center for
violation of rules about financing before elections to make some heads a little bit cooler and some
money not available? That again proved that he is a very weak politician as the key for politician is
to sniff where the danger to his power comes from and preemptively react to it. As a result, some level
of destabilization was actually achieved. Again, there was no clear and well articulation message about
exit polls as the key mechanism for manipulating public opinion about elections. If we in this blog
can figure this out, why not those who are responsible for such things? This brain-dead treatment of
the key mechanism of Orange revolution is inexcusable and suggests that repetition of "color revolution"
is not unfeasible.
5. Oligarchic republic self-generates the "fifth column" of compradors who are more tied to the
West then to the native country. Russia in not an exception. Compradors by definition are mainly
enriching some foreign entity taking a cut for themselves so they are already pre-existing element of
the "regime change". And fifth column is usually more pronounced in capitals where the "color
revolution" take place as the capital usually has stronger ties with the West. In Russia the fifth column
is weaker then in Ukraine were the county is essentially split between Western and Eastern parts, but
still it exists and is growing. Especially because international finance plays more and more important
role in Russian economy, after joining WTO (although the USA and Russia agreed not to use WTO terms
in mutual trade at least for now). I suspect that financial oligarchy by definition represents fifth
column (Khodorkovsky after all was a prominent "Komsomol banker", the owner of Menatep bank).
If this is true, then growth of power of local financial oligarchy (is not Kudrin the best friend of
Putin?) and high level of interconnection between Russia financial system and global financial system
increase chances for the "regime change". Also the essence of neo-colonialism is financial dependency
(debt slavery) so any efforts to increase Russia external debt can also be instrumental in regime change
(the USSR scenario). Also credit default swaps and other derivatives represent certain danger and probably
can be used as supplementary instruments supporting the regime change. See
http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/ML14Dj02.html
6. Oil represents now a strategic resource. As such all countries with this resource are marks.
And no matter what Russia do, my impression is that the West is not inclined to offer Russia an equal
treatment. There is a strong, persistent, strategic determination to convert Russia to the banana republic
status of supplier of cheap oil and gas, Russian population be damned, and the work is under way and
money are allocated to achieve this goal one way or another. The USSR went into a trap of excessive
military spending that ruined the economy and put millions into abject poverty after its collapse.
There is no guarantee that Russia will not get in some other trap.
The most dramatic recent demonstration of the power of fifth column the dissolution of the USSR and
aftermath. At some point elites in the USSR grow thier power to the extent when they feel that it's
time to privatize the country assets. Dissolution of the USSR was the mean to this end. What is
interesting is the composition of this new transnational elite that came to power in xUSSR space in
1991. It was broad and powerful political force which included part of old elite such as KGB brass and
especially its international division (Alexander Lebedev is one example), CPSU bonzas, etc as
well as new elite such as
"Komsomol bankers" (Khodorkovsky and company).
Academics turned businessmen (Berezobski)
Staff of joint ventures (this was mostly in Moscow phenomenon)
Programmers and system administrators who are getting salary in dollars, especially in join
venture companies.
The greatest problem confronting the ECHR in the Navalny pantomime is that of being
presented with evidence that is determined by people with a high potential of bias and even
malice. Any prosecution or hearing that is based on evidence from people with mala fide (in
bad faith) is fraught with erroneous judgement UNLESS the procedure is doubly cautious in
testing every presentation. One can't know for certain unless one reads the entire
transcript.
So far (from the snippets in press) I can see that there might be good reason to doubt
anything from the German Military labs, from the lady with the drink bottles, from Navalny
the peripatetic pharmaceutical carrier/consumer.
Considering the entire story is premised on a less than 2%er political figure directly
funded by foreign sources to seek power in a nation under propaganda and economic siege (and
failing miserably at that) THEN the court will need to demonstrate some credible evidence as
to how the Novichok failed to infect every passenger and crew in a closed circulation plane
cabin.
Or are we to believe that Navalny has the balls within his underwear to absorb it all?
The ECHR court is being asked to give legitimacy to state propaganda and black ops. This
is a very sad downfall from ethics and common sense. But it certainly won't bother the EU in
perpetrating its pernicious game.
The ECHR also made recent decisions directed against Russia regarding alleged "ethnic
cleansing" in Georgia 2008, and alleged "illegal annexation" in Crimea 2014.
The pathetic attempts to confirm Sainthood onto Navalny when he's clearly one of the
Devil's men is just beyond--outré, is more precise. What does that then make those who
make such attempts? It shows they are further Devil's men and not at all in control of
themselves. Tools are used; they don't use/operate themselves. Trolls are also tools. There
are many of those here that are made to look like they control themselves but ultimately they
remain tools. Too many are treated as humans. I once fought them as Don Quixote fought the
Windmill, but no more; and I very seldom engage them unless the attempt to distort is too
deceptive and must be addressed.
By Daria Litvinova and Vladimir Isachenkov Associated Press
Moscow court on Tuesday ordered Russian opposition leader Alexei Navalny to prison for
more than 2 1/2 years, finding that he violated the terms of his probation while recuperating
in Germany from nerve-agent poisoning. The ruling ignited protests in Moscow and St.
Petersburg.
Mr. Navalny, who is the most prominent critic of President Vladimir Putin, had denounced
the proceedings as a vain attempt by the Kremlin to scare millions of Russians into
submission.
After the verdict that was announced around 8 p.m., protesters converged on areas of
central Moscow and gathered on St. Petersburg's main avenue, Nevsky Prospekt.
Helmeted riot police grabbed demonstrators without obvious provocation and put them in
police vehicles. The Meduza website showed video of police roughly pulling a passenger and
driver out of a taxi.
The ruling came despite massive protests across Russia over the past two weekends and
Western calls to free the anti-corruption campaigner.
"We reiterate our call for the Russian government to immediately and unconditionally
release Mr. Navalny, as well as the hundreds of other Russian citizens wrongfully detained in
recent weeks for exercising their rights, including the rights to freedom of expression and
of peaceful assembly," United States Secretary of State Antony Blinken said after the
ruling.
The protests lasted until about 1 a.m. Around 650 people were arrested, according to
OVD-Info, a group that monitors political arrests.
The prison sentence stems from a 2014 embezzlement conviction that Mr. Navalny has
rejected as fabricated and politically motivated.
Mr. Navalny was arrested Jan. 17 upon returning from his five-month convalescence in
Germany from the attack, which he has blamed on the Kremlin. Russian authorities deny any
involvement. Despite tests by several European labs, Russian authorities said they have no
proof he was poisoned.
As the order was read, Mr. Navalny smiled and pointed to his wife Yulia in the courtroom
and traced the outline of a heart on the glass cage where he was being held. "Everything will
be fine," he told her as guards led him away.
Earlier in the proceedings, Mr. Navalny attributed his arrest to Mr. Putin's "fear and
hatred," saying the Russian leader will go down in history as a "poisoner."
"I have deeply offended him simply by surviving the assassination attempt that he
ordered," he said.
https://86ccf4fd41c191d9b4cc608af0e915d0.safeframe.googlesyndication.com/safeframe/1-0-37/html/container.html
About these ads
"The aim of this hearing is to scare a great number of people," Mr. Navalny added. "You
can't jail the entire country."
Russia's penitentiary service said Mr. Navalny violated the probation conditions of his
suspended sentence from the 2014 conviction. It asked the court to turn his 3 1/2-year
suspended sentence into one that he must serve in prison, although about a year he spent
under house arrest will be counted as time served.
Mr. Navalny emphasized that the European Court of Human Rights ruled that his 2014
conviction was unlawful and Russia paid him compensation in line with the ruling.
Mr. Navalny and his lawyers have argued that while he was recovering in Germany from the
poisoning, he couldn't register with Russian authorities in person as required by his
probation. He also insisted that his due process rights were crudely violated during his
arrest and described his jailing as a travesty of justice.
"I came back to Moscow after I completed the course of treatment," Mr. Navalny said during
Tuesday's hearing. "What else could I have done?"
Tens of thousands of people took to the streets the past two weekends to demand Mr.
Navalny's release and chant slogans against Mr. Putin.
On Sunday , police detained more than 5,750 people nationwide, which was the biggest
one-day total in Russia since Soviet times. Most were released after being handed a court
summons, and they face fines or jail terms of seven to 15 days, although several face
criminal charges of violence against police.
"I am fighting and will keep doing it even though I am now in the hands of people who love
to put chemical weapons everywhere and no one would give three kopecks for my life," Mr.
Navalny said.
Mr. Navalny's team called for a demonstration Tuesday outside the Moscow courthouse, but
police were out in force, cordoning off nearby streets and making random arrests. More than
320 people were detained, according to OVD-Info.
Some Navalny supporters still managed to approach the building. A young woman climbed a
pile of snow across the street and held up a poster saying "Freedom to Navalny." Less than a
minute later, a police officer took her away.
Before the ruling, authorities also cordoned off Red Square and other parts of central
Moscow, as well as Palace Square in St. Petersburg, anticipating protests. Police flooded the
centers of both cities.
In court, Mr. Navalny thanked protesters for their courage and urged other Russians not to
fear repression.
"Millions can't be jailed," he said. "You have stolen people's future and you are now
trying to scare them. I'm urging all not to be afraid."
Observers noted that authorities want Mr. Navalny in prison, fearing he could run an
efficient campaign against the main Kremlin party, United Russia, in September's
parliamentary election. "If Navalny remains free, he is absolutely capable of burying the
Kremlin's plans regarding the outcome of the Duma election," said political analyst Abbas
Gallyamov.
After his arrest, Mr. Navalny's team released a two-hour YouTube video about an opulent
Black Sea residence allegedly built for Putin. It has been viewed over 100 million times,
fueling discontent as ordinary Russians struggle with an economic downturn, the coronavirus,
and widespread corruption during Mr. Putin's years in office.
Mr. Putin insisted that neither he nor his relatives own any of the properties mentioned
in the video, and his longtime confidant, construction magnate Arkady Rotenberg, claimed that
he owns it.
As part of efforts to squelch the protests, authorities have targeted Mr. Navalny's
associates and activists across the country. His brother Oleg, top ally Lyubov Sobol, and
several others were put under house arrest for two months and face criminal charges of
violating coronavirus restrictions.
The jailing of Mr. Navalny and the crackdown on protests have stoked international
outrage.
British Foreign Secretary Dominic Raab said the "perverse ruling, targeting the victim of
a poisoning rather than those responsible, shows Russia is failing to meet the most basic
commitments expected of any responsible member of the international community."
Russia has dismissed the criticism as meddling in its domestic affairs and said Mr.
Navalny's current situation is a procedural matter for the court, not an issue for the
government.
"A Russian citizen sentenced by Russian court in accordance with Russian laws. Who gave US
the right to judge if it was wrongful or not? Wouldn't you mind your own business, gentlemen?
Recent events show that there are a lot of things for you to mend!," Russia's deputy U.N.
ambassador, Dmitry Polyansky, said on Twitter.
More than a dozen Western diplomats attended the hearing. Foreign Ministry spokeswoman
Maria Zakharova said their presence was part of efforts by the West to contain Russia, adding
that it could be an attempt to exert "psychological pressure" on the judge.
Kremlin spokesman Dmitry Peskov said Russia is ready for dialogue about Mr. Navalny, but
sternly warned it wouldn't take Western criticism into account.
"... As further evidence of this foreign support and pressure, at least 20 diplomats from various countries, including the US, made an appearance when Navalny's case came up in the Moscow Court hoping to pressure the court in his favour thereby meddling in Russian internal affairs. The massive media propaganda campaign was also plain to see. ..."
"... Following the court decision, Western leaders and diplomats further publicly meddled in internal Russian affairs by calling for violence to demand the release of the self-proclaimed anti-corruption activist. ..."
The flag-bearer of Western influence and globalists in Russia, Alexey Navalny, has been
sentenced to 2 years and 8 months in prison for grossly disregarding the terms of his suspended
sentence.
The initial sentence was for 3.5 years, but he has already served a part of that term under
house arrest. The absurdity of the situation is that his initial sentence was related to
corruption – something he allegedly fights against.
Despite claims by MSM and Western diplomats that Navalny is subject to political
persecution, his proven and known ties to Western Intelligence were not part of the case.
Just recently, on February 1st, videos were released online showing the joyful cooperation
between Navalny's team and foreign intelligence services. To put it plainly – Navalny's
team requested information from British Intelligence. It planned to employ that "dirt" to
hinder Russia's interests, both internal and external. His Anti-Corruption Foundation,
furthermore, promised to work against Russian business, and to promote British companies. For
that, these would be paid hefty sums when he, ultimately, somehow managed to come to power. To
achieve that, Navalny's people vowed to stage mass protests, spread propaganda and strike
behind the scenes deals with the elites. It can't be corruption, if it's for a "good cause",
right?
As further evidence of this foreign support and pressure, at least 20 diplomats from various
countries, including the US, made an appearance when Navalny's case came up in the Moscow Court
hoping to pressure the court in his favour thereby meddling in Russian internal affairs. The
massive media propaganda campaign was also plain to see.
For proven in court criminal offenses involving embezzlement of funds on a massive scale,
dozens of violations of the terms of his suspended sentence, contempt of court, his active and
public work in the interests of foreign states against the Russian nation Navalny faced
slightly more than 2.5 years in jail. For any neutral observer, this was an expected outcome
and the only concern would be the soft punishment that he received. This can be partly
explained by Russia once again showing itself to be a stronghold of tolerance and democracy and
also by the fact that the decision of the court is related to the violations of the suspended
sentence only and it did not review other 'achievements' of the anti-Russian clique operating
under the Navalny brand.
Following the court decision, Western leaders and diplomats further publicly meddled in
internal Russian affairs by calling for violence to demand the release of the self-proclaimed
anti-corruption activist. This will also likely be used as a pretext for increasing pressure on
Russia, including new sanctions. The remaining Western-funded network inside the country
already tried to stage violent protests in Moscow and other big cities. Nonetheless, their
attempts failed largely due to a low turnout and to the successful actions of the authorities.
There are no doubts that foreign efforts in this field will continue as opponents of Russia
need violence on the streets and casualties to push forward their destabilization campaign. At
the same time, recent events demonstrated that the hardcore pro-Western opposition has close to
no real support among the general Russian population. Therefore, help from Western special
services will likely focus on creating pinpoint provocations to escalate the violence and to
create some sacred sacrifice. If the government acts successfully to contain these provocations
and avoid the escalation of violence, anti-Russian forces will likely focus on keeping up the
pressure and some level of instability in the larger cities for the next month. A new round of
major provocations can be expected in the runup to the Russian general election in September
2021.
Actions of the global establishment show that hopes for a 'reconciliation with the West'
demonstrated by the 'liberal part' of the Russian elites are largely baseless. Therefore,
Russia should be ready for the further confrontation with the so-called 'Democratic world',
which has for a long time forgotten what the words 'democracy' and the 'rule of law' really
mean.
Savvy 1 hour ago
All that's left is for the US to declare Navalny President of Russia.
Five_Black_Eyes_Intel_Agency 1 hour ago (Edited)
They declared Guaido prez of Venezuela. How did that work out? Even the EU are distancing
themselves from him. The US is the global pariah, along with zionist entity.
Savvy 1 hour ago
At least Guaido has the distinction of being one of the Chicago Five. Look it up,
interesting read. : )
Five_Black_Eyes_Intel_Agency 1 hour ago
U mean the Chicago boys? Milton Friedman and the Washington Consensus
Savvy 1 hour ago
No, the CIA had a group of trainees that did boot camp in Eastern Europe, heavily involved
in Georgia and Ukraine. They were called the Chicago Five. Guaido was one.
2 play_arrow
jonesbeach 1 hour ago
America has zero credibility to dictate to any other country about how they should treat
their dissidents. The corporate media and Washington establishment have waged war on half the
country for decades. And now they are arresting people for posting memes, labeling peaceful
protestors as terrorists and purging people for wrongthink.
BaNNeD oN THe RuN 1 hour ago
Novichok had to be the easiest fraud for the Russians to refute, but was used because the
general public was conditioned to believe it after the Skriptal hoax.
Novichok is stored in 2 separate vials which have to be mixed shortly before use. It is
not something you whip up in a restaurant kitchen or hotel bathroom. The risk is too great to
the handlers.
Navalny's day-to-day MI-6 handlers (Maria Pevchikh) then concocted a series of
increasingly unbelievable scenarios about how he came in contact.
The final blow came when the initial Berlin hospital tests contradicted what the mititary
tests claimed they found.
This should have ended with the Russian side mentioning they had blood samples taken at
their hospital before Navalny left for Berlin.
Max21c 30 minutes ago
Despite claims by MSM and Western diplomats that Navalny is subject to political
persecution
Washington elites conveniently & consistently ignore real political persecution in
their own homeland by their security services and only use the phony claim of "political
persecution" as a political tool when it benefits them against countries & governments
they are at odds with or where they may someday gain a financial windfall by overthrowing
another government and installing their own hand picked puppets...
Max21c 27 minutes ago (Edited) remove link
Navalny may be a crook and embezzler in Russia but in the eyes of Washingtonians he's
their kind of crook. In the Washingtonians skewed & distorted way of viewing the world
Navalny is a GOOD CROOK rather than a BAD CROOK .
BaNNeD oN THe RuN 1 hour ago
How about this source:
"Navalny received a scholarship to the Yale World Fellows program at Yale University in
2010."
I wonder what "Bonesman" drew the short straw to be his State Dept handler.
Raising Hell: QandA: Who The Hell Is Alexei Navalny?"If Yeltsin suspends an
anti-democratic Parliament, it is not necessarily an anti-democratic act." - Anonymous Clinton
Administration official quoted in the New York Times, 13 March 1993Royce Kurmelovs
Jan 27
Compressed into a two-minute soundbite, the story of Alexei Navalny and the recent
protests that have erupted across Russia seems simple enough. The Russian opposition figure who
recently survived an attempt on his life -- an alleged poisoning delivered via Novichok-laced
pants -- was arrested and convicted of breaching his bail conditions in a process that can
be fairly described as unjust. In response, his supporters took to the streets across the
country in protest.
Ask a Russian, like Katya
Kazbek , and they will tell you something different: things are way more complicated than
they seem. Katya is a writer, translator and the editor-in-chief of arts and culture magazine
Supamodu.com who today lives in New York by
way of Moscow and Krasnodar Krai in the North Caucuses. In an effort to give some nuance to
Navalny and what has been happening overseas, they recently put together a widely shared
Twitter
thread that served as a highlight reel of Navalny's political career -- and the picture it
painted was not pretty. Having read this, I contacted them to ask more about a man whose
treatment has been unjust, but who -- it turns out -- is no hero.
This QandA has been edited for length and style.
Royce Kurmelovs : What is happening in Russia right now?
Katya Kazbek: Nothing fundamentally new is happening right now. A part of Russian society is
unhappy with Putin and his government, but that's been a constant throughout his 20-plus year
term and, previously, throughout his predecessor Boris Yeltsin's term. The grievances include
corruption, low life quality, restricted freedoms and undemocratic elections. Additionally, in
the last decade, since the previous wave of protests in the early 2010s, there had been some
particular legislative measures, such as Putin amending the constitution to his advantage.
There has been a tightening in the protest laws, which make protesting harder, even in
single-person pickets, and the ramifications graver. But most importantly, 2019 was marked by
the beginning of a sprawling pension reform project, which looks to raise the retirement age by
five years and has caused a lot of outcry from the population.
In this light, a change in government seems an even more remote perspective for those
Russians who do not support Putin and practicing dissent becomes an even more daunting
task.
Meanwhile, a particular set of the general public is also concerned with the events
surrounding investigative journalist and opposition figure Alexei Navalny. His alleged
poisoning last year, subsequent return to Russia, and arrest upon arrival due to parole
violations have led to calls for his supporters to protest against this, alongside other
issues.
RK : Who is Alexei Navalny?
KK : Alexei Navalny should be first and foremost viewed as an investigative journalist. He
founded and leads his Anti-Corruption Foundation, which conducts thorough examinations of
corruption in the personal and business lives of members of Vladimir Putin's government. He
mostly digs up hidden assets, such as real estate, businesses and yachts that belong to them
and members of their families.
In 2010, he received a scholarship from Yale's World Fellows program, with graduates
directly linked to the Maidan Revolution in Ukraine. In 2013 he ran for mayor of Moscow, coming
second after the incumbent Sergey Sobyanin. However, it's important to point out that both then
and now, his popularity is only high in large cities, and the situation in the regions is
drastically different. He was not allowed to run for president in 2018 because of two
conditional convictions for fraud in the cases of timber company Kirovles and cosmetics company
Yves Rocher, which Navalny himself calls "frame-ups."
It was that year that he started expanding into election activism and has used various
tactics to engage in them. During the 2018 presidential election, he called for people to
boycott. In the 2019 regional elections, he launched the system called "Smart Elections," where
the goal was to take away as many votes from United Russia candidates by supporting anyone
outside the party. It was lauded as a success by Navalny and his followers, while the leaders
of Russia's other two biggest parties, Communist Party of the Russian Federation (CPRF) and
Liberal Democratic Party of Russia (LDPR), argue that it was their popularity that led to
evident electoral shifts.
There are plans to use the system again this year in various elections. And of course,
lately, Alexei Navalny has been in the headlines for his alleged poisoning with the nerve agent
Novichok. It's worth pointing out that according to liberal polls, the attitudes of Russians en
masse to the poisoning and its implications differ significantly from the narrative in the
western press: while to some people he remains obscure, and many stay neutral, people in
general are more distrustful and wary of him than they are distrustful and wary of the Russian
government or Putin personally. His popularity has indeed grown some in the wake of the alleged
poisoning, as well as the calls he made relatively recently for direct stimulus measures to
help citizens in the wake of COVID. However, it still tails that of Putin and even that of
Vladimir Zhirinovsky, the leader of far-right LDPR.
RK : I know you could write a whole book about this, but what are his politics?
KK : Navalny is most definitely a populist, and he likes to follow trends. For instance,
during the US democratic primary, he endorsed Bernie Sanders because American cultural markers
are appealing to him. I have been watching Navalny since he was just an aspiring politician and
had a blog on LiveJournal, the prevalent social media platform in Russia at the time.
Back then, he identified openly as a nationalist and attended nationalist rallies. He
started in the liberal, market-oriented party Yabloko but was kicked out for his nationalist
views. He then created his movement "The People" aimed against illegal immigration and recorded
blatantly xenophobic videos where he compared people from South Caucuses to dental cavities and
migrants to cockroaches: one of these videos is still on his verified YouTube
channel.
In the following years, there has been an effort to whitewash his views, and he has switched
gears on various topics; for instance, I believe he has changed his position on same sex
marriage from negative to positive. But when pressed about his earlier convictions and the
videos mentioned above, for instance, in a post-poisoning interview with Der Spiegel, he flat
out said, "I have the same views that I held when I went into politics." When he ran for
president, he wanted to introduce a visa regime with Central Asian countries -- the source of
the majority of labor migrants in Russia. When asked why he insists on that while also saying
he'd want to let German people visit Russia visa-free, he responded that those who have a rich
country should be more welcome as visitors.
As to the other spheres: his economic views favor privatisation and free markets, and he is
backed by many post-Soviet capitalists, from the oligarch Mikhail Khodorkovsky to the former
head of the Central Bank of Russia, Sergei Aleksashenko. However, he also wanted to run for the
presidency on the platform of raising wages, pensions, and introducing progressive taxes -- but
never centered the working class in his agenda, only sometimes talking about poverty and always
outlining the necessity of helping small business owners. The times when I recall him talking
about the working class, it was with disdain or posturing.
Navalny's geopolitical views are a bit all over the place as well. While he has made calls
against Russian military presence in Syria and Ukraine, Navalny's stance on Crimea varies from
supportive to cautious. In general, when it concerns internal Russian politics, he tends to
support regional autonomy: one of his central policies through the years has been "Stop Feeding
Caucusus," which called, among other things, for severing republics such as Chechnya from the
Russian Federation.
In general, Russian regions are way worse off than Moscow and St. Petersburg, and the
growing resentment is a straightforward target for further balkanization of the post-Soviet
space and Russian Federation in particular. Moreover, when it comes to foreign diplomacy,
Navalny thinks Russia should align more with Europe and less with its ex-Soviet neighbors,
Asian or Latin American countries.
Basically, his politics adapt to whatever seems opportune, but that also doesn't seem to
help his cause. He is not Nazi enough for the ultra-right, too right-wing for leftists, spooks
some liberals with his pro-gun stance and uncertain position on Crimea, which are both serious
issues for them. He seems to only find full support in those who want to switch from Putin's
government by any means necessary and don't really care about views or policies.
RK : How much support does Navalny have within Russia?
KK : Despite his 15-year-old crusade against Putin, his government, and corruption, Navalny
is still mostly recognized only for his investigative work. Even though trust in him grew in
the wake of the poisoning, the number of people distrusting him has also grown along with
awareness. Overall, in the last poll about the number of people trusting significant political
figures taken in August 2020, he scored two per cent, in third place after Vladimir Putin's
comfortable 40 per cent and Vladimir Zhirinovsky's four per cent. However, some politicians who
trailed behind him belong to parties in the Russian Duma that enjoy way more support as whole
entities, including the CPRF and LDPR.
RK : Why is this happening now?
KK : His support in Russia has been greatly exaggerated by the Western press. The Navalny
supporters, who are not as numerous, have been galvanized by the attempt on his life and his
arrest. Others, who might not be supporting Navalny per se, view the case of his apprehension
as yet another in the string of cases where one's political views become a basis for detention
and imprisonment. Such cases vary greatly; some figures are more popular, some downright
ambiguous, others do not get as much coverage in the liberal media and Western media. I'll name
a few I consider most worthy of attention, even as my personal opinion on them varies.
Communist party member and diplomat Nikolai Platoshkin has been under house
arrest on charges of inciting riots and endangering public safety for the past few months.
Anarchist Azat
Miftakhov has just been sentenced to six years in prison for breaking the window and
throwing a smoke bomb into the United Russia party -- Putin's party -- office in Moscow.
Investigative journalist
Ivan Golunov had been tried on a fabricated drug charge, although released after much
public outcry and an investigation. Feminist artist Yulia Tsvetkova is still on
trial for administrative charges, including dissemination of pornography and gay propaganda,
for her online activity and art.
Meanwhile, far-right populist Sergey Furgal , ex-Khabarovsk Krai
governor, has been charged with multiple murders. Because of this, regular protests in support
of the "people's governor," as his constituents call him, and against federal involvement in
regional politics, have been going on for the past six months. Around 25 thousand protestors
took part at its peak, about four per cent of the city's population.
I would say that these protests, as well as the protests in neighboring Belarus, have been
an inspirational force for recent protests across Russia. But I believe that the Russian
protests are a mix of organic and astroturfed. I would definitely see what's happening with
Alexei Navalny in the context of the foreign politics of the European Union and the USA -- and
especially to the presidency of Joe Biden. The US Democrats have spent years talking about the
so-called "Russiagate", a narrative prevalent in the US, that blamed Russia for Hilary
Clinton's loss in 2016. The conspiracy has been debunked continuously but remains a big staple
of American politics. I believe that because of that and the proxy wars going on between the
two countries, Biden's term will be very hawkish on Russia.
RK : There have been other protest movements before. I remember images of Garry Kasparov
getting arrested. Is this different?
KK : Apart from some particularities, in general, a lot of what's happening seems to be
similar to the events in the 2010s, when I personally participated in the protests. Back then,
I believe, they were also astroturfed to a point by foreign interference but also stemmed from
various reasons of organic discontent -- quite similar reasons to what has sparked the protests
now. I will also add that the 2010s protests started right after parliamentary elections, which
were widely considered fraudulent.
That said, I believe that the protests of the early 2010s and early 2020s seem to be almost
identical. I have seen the same jokes and memes surface, very similar manifestos written,
people have been referring to unsanctioned protests as "going out for a walk" and cracking
jokes about that, and taking white flowers as a symbol of peace to the events. But most
importantly, the people most vehemently supporting these protests remain pretty much the same.
Of course, there are newer figures, and some have died or changed camps since the last ones,
but in general, it's all pretty much the same, which creates a peculiar feeling of deja vu.
As opposed to the Black Lives Matter protests here in the US, which I had also been
following since inception and which had taken on a completely different spin this past summer,
the Russian protests do not seem to have evolved. Of course, I might be mistaken because I'm
not currently in Russia, but I have not seen anything radically different about them. Of
course, twenty-somethings, who were too young to participate in the protests of the 2010s, or
people who had been apolitical before will perceive them as unprecedented, and I do believe
that there has been an increase in participation in a broader geographic and class context --
as compared to the mostly Moscow-centric, middle-class events of 2010s. But the overall tactics
had not changed, no meaningful strategy has been adopted, and most importantly, just like the
last time, no effort to address or center the working class has been made. All of it makes the
narrative all too familiar, and the protests appear detached from the everyday worries of
Russia's working class.
"Twenty-somethings, who were too young to participate in the protests of the 2010s, or
people who had been apolitical before will perceive them as unprecedented "
RK : The nineties were, to put it mildly, a hell of a time for Russia with western
governments massively interfering in Russian politics and, essentially, looting the economy.
Those events, such as Yeltsin's coup to depose a democratically elected parliament and the
creation of the oligarchs, must have been scarring for many in society. How much can we read
what is happening within Russia today as an echo of those events?
KK : Everything that has been happening in Russia over the past 30 years has been an echo of
these events. Boris Yeltsin's coup, that was backed
by Bill Clinton and the US media , is
definitely something people think back to a lot. Vladimir Putin was Yeltsin's chosen heir and a
continuation of the system that makes sure that power and capital are concentrated in the
Kremlin. The whole idea of Putin being replaced with Navalny just seems like a reshuffling of
the same old: a new pro-Western leader to replace the one who has strayed from NATO's grasp,
and a different set of oligarchs and capitalists taking the reigns. But even if people were
eager for this shuffle, Putin has something that Navalny doesn't: a factual track record as the
country's leader. And even if this record is indeed marred deeply with corruption, trespasses,
and things that many find unpalatable, life under Putin has improved as compared to the
impoverished 90s. It might not be a huge advantage, but having seen the pits, no one is eager
to forfeit the small advantage that exists for the unknown. And as someone on Twitter rightly
said: "While it's obvious whom Navalny is against, it's not quite clear whom he is for."
RK : What do those outside Russia need to know about the situation?
KK : I want everyone to realize that the overwhelming majority of western journalists are
busy communicating their own narrative, which does not have anything to do with the real
situation on the ground; however, it too often reflects the opinions of State Departments of
NATO countries. Disgruntled diaspora voices and loud English-speaking liberals in Moscow are
incredibly biased, also. The majority of Russian online presence is in Russian and
overwhelmingly on VK.com and Telegram. So judging
the country by what you hear most often about it is misleading and dangerous. Honestly, I think
the same applies to most countries that are not considered allies by the US and EU, but Russia
more than others because of this new Cold War we have at hand.
The biggest myth about Russia is that Putin is some off-the-charts dictator, Russia is an
absolute hellhole, and that his only opposition is Navalny, who is being prevented from
elections and poisoned. Careful investigation into the material circumstances of people in
Russia will show that while the country is poor, it has improved since the 90s. It isn't a
liberal paradise, for sure, but having tirelessly compared it to the US where I've been working
in the past few years, I have to say while nothing about Russia is performatively woke, the
foundations set in place by the Soviet Union remain quite firm: from the access to free,
unlimited abortions to a genuinely multiethnic society. Russia is not without its racial
problems, of course, but that's also true for Europe with its Roma and migrants, the US with
its Latinos and African-Americans and Australia with the Aboriginal and Torres-Strait Islander
people to pontificate about.
The more significant problems that Russia struggles with are Putin's weaponisation of the
orthodox church and nationalism, the domestic violence surges and decriminalisation of them,
and the economy, of course, especially in the COVID era and with the pension reform in full
swing. But I firmly believe we Russians can solve those internally and don't need any
interference from the West. Moreover, the West should get rid of the white savior syndrome and
allow Russians to choose their leader themselves. According to polls, right now, it is Putin.
I'm not a fan, but I don't feel like I have the moral high ground to tell most of my
compatriots they lack the agency to make this choice for themselves.
"As someone who has worked as an election observer during a presidential election, I can say
that even in Moscow, [Putin] wins by a margin, fair and square."
Moreover, as someone who has worked as an election observer during a presidential election,
I can say that even in Moscow, he wins by a margin, fair and square. Meanwhile, his most
significant opposition is not Navalny, as one can gather from the poll figures. The real
opposition party, CPRF, holds a sizeable presence in the Duma. And while overall it is quite
reactionary for my personal taste and tends to sometimes fall in line with Putin, it exists;
it's big. Those on the left can build towards socialism from within it, which numerous
politicians have done, as they became Duma members, mayors, governors or form their coalitions
that splinter off CPRF in less reactionary formations that have some promising members, like
the Russian United Labour Front
movement. All of this is something I can not even imagine in the United States, where the
socialist parties are small, fringe, and not present in the Congress, and self-proclaimed
socialist politicians would rate as centrists elsewhere.
So whenever you hear something about Russia, please consider what vested interests there may
be in that opinion, who is telling you these things, and why. And just in general, whenever
you're interested, try to talk to actual people within Russia, preferably its regions, and not
the pundits who get paid for pitting Navalny against Putin.
Before You Go (Go)
Are you a public sector bureaucrat whose tyrannical boss is behaving badly? Have you
recently come into possession of documents showing some rich guy is trying to move their
ill-gotten-gains to Curacao? Did you take a low-paying job with an evil corporation
registered in Delaware that is burying toxic waste under playgrounds? If your conscience is
keeping you up at night, or you'd just plain like to see some wrong-doers cast into the
sea, we here at Raising Hell can suggest a course of action: leak! You can securely make
contact through Signal or through
encrypted message Wickr Me on
my account: rorok1990.
And if you've come this far, consider supporting me further by picking up one of my
books, leaving a review or by just telling a friend about Raising Hell !
We live in upscale Westchester, NY, just north of Manhattan. Most of our social circles
are highly educated, high income earners with advanced degrees -- MBAs, lawyers, doctors. Of
those that subscribe to these theories our general sense is that it is driven by either
--
1) Anti immigrant sentiment, despite almost all of them being descendants of Jewish
immigrants
2) Anti tax -- this is a big driver
3) Anti government -- classic neoliberalists if that is a term of art
4) They get their news from Fox and or CNBC (which has become a Fox-like spin on things)
They claim to abhor Trump, are clearly anti populist, very pro Israel (Trump scores major
points here) but support all the policies (but they are not anti abortion). Interestingly, as
they earn their incomes serving the wealthy donor class they will not risk this and cross
them.
They view Biden and Sanders as being alike, despite any actual facts you cite such as
Biden's work in bankruptcy, think the democrats are anti Israel and pro Palestinian, etc.
Much of this dates back to Obama and the claims he was going to transfer all the money to the
welfare queens -- remember the give them free cell phones.
Interestingly, they clash heavily with their children (upper teens to 20-somethings) who
more align with Sanders and progressives and are very concerned about wealth inequality and
climate change.
One last point, they are as inclined to get their news from Facebook feeds as Fox.
@annamaria
or wish it well – and everyone knows that.
He must know this. He must also know that his electoral prospects are nil – even if
he was allowed to compete and given access. Short of a revolution he is done, and
revolution is not coming, too soon. That is not a good place to be. He is in theory protected
by his sponsors, but that may not amount to much if things get hot. At best he would get
exchanged. Or he can quietly slip away after a few years if he is lucky.
Mulatto did his job, now mulatto can go. A single-use politician who is endlessly
promoted, celebrated, and then discarded and forgotten, only to be listed on a sad list of
names to demonise the enemy. That enemy is his own country, is that really heroism?
He is a nationalist like the Maiden. Maiden in power promoted with violence anti-Russian
hysteria. This action created a civil war since a large part of Ukraine are Russian
speakers.
Navalny, if in power, would do something similar as in Ukraine. Act as a Nationalist of
only the Russians in the Russian Federation. Get all the other peoples of the Russian
Federation to break away or stir up a civil war.
Within a few years, put in place Zion/USA puppets like Poroshenko and Zelensky. Look at
the recent Ukrainegate Impeachment trial, almost everyone supporting Ukrainegate trial was
Jewish, even the Ukrainians in this sham trial. .
This is not about bringing down Putin but about dismembering Russia and ending its
sovereignty
The easiest proxy here is the 1990s campaign against Milosevic (the campaign) as a tool to
dismember Yugoslavia
Russia is too rich, too week and is refusing to surrender, hence it will be divided
between and
Absorbed on one side by China and on the other side/s by USA and EUSA
The initial planning for disintegration of Russia was drafted in the NSC directive in
1948
West of Russia to Urals will be absorbed by EU/(Germany)
East of Russia to Yenisei will be controlled by US/(Japan)
China will take over hte greatest price – everything between Urals and Yenisei
Putin with his United Russia/One Russia Party is a major obstacle to the master plan
and
will therefore
be eliminated
whether one likes it or not
@annamaria
from his sponsors are of little use in his current situation.
I find the Western coverage of this affair absurdly propagandistic. A few things are never
mentioned:
– what was Navalny convicted off – fraud
– that he is not by any stretch of imagination the "opposition" leader – his
party has not reached even 5% required to be represented in the parliament
There is also an omission of why Russia claims "interference" – because US Embassy
published the routes for the demos. And many of the demonstrators are paid one way on
another by the West – if the situation was reversed, liberals would call for a war
(as they basically did with Trump's allegations).
A long while ago, somebody here (Skoolafish or James Lake, perhaps?) asked other Stooges
what they thought of the woman, about whom a Russian blogger has written below.
First of all, though, and before any of you care to read the translation below, my opinion
of her is thus:
Let us start with the simplest of questions. Is anyone reading these lines familiar
with Aleksievich's works? I read some once, because I had nothing better to do. What is she
like? Well, in general, she is a classic representative of the perestroika fashion for
dishing out all sorts of dirt.
In the late '80s and even more so in the '90s, this was in vogue. You remember, of
course, what kind of cinema flourished then our country: black and gloomy, painting reality
in terrible colours. In the country itself, not everything was in order either, and such art
might have been appropriate then. After all, an artist strives to reflect the moods of the
surrounding reality. But is Svetlana Alexandrovna an artist? Rather yes than no, but the fact
that her whole essence is reflected in the artificial squeezing out of tears from the reader
is an opinion with which it is difficult to argue. This is not my idea. This is what
Tatyana Tolstaya
has said. I shall tell you more: all this pseudo documentary prose of hers cannot claim a
place on the bookshelf of any self-respecting Russian person.
Well what a surprise!
The presentation of the Nobel Prize to Aleksievich did not surprise me. It has long been
common knowledge that this award is given for political reasons. Did they give it to Tolstoy,
for example? No. Maybe Yesenin? Or Mayakovsky? Of course not. Let us remember what kind of
Russian-speaking people in general have received this award.
Bunin and Brodsky lived in exile. Solzhenitsyn was a dissident. Pasternak received the
award for publishing his novel outside the USSR. And only Sholokhov stands out from the
crowd. However, our liberals were then ready to trample on him. To this day, they boldly
argue that he did not write his works himself. Well, I do not believe that, but it is a
killer argument -- obviously: obvious to them, that is, but not to me.
But what about Aleksievich? Is she really a dissident? Well, what is a dissident? In the
USSR, films were even shot and performances were staged according to her scripts. But, of
course, she was not allowed to live. True, she managed to receive a dozen awards from the
country she hates. Being adaptive, I think it is called.
To be continued, otherwise the above will be checked out because of all the links
therein
MOSCOW EXILE October 31, 2020 at 1:37 am On Aleksievich (continued) . . .
Actually, what are her political motives today? What is her rationale as regards our
country? She hates Russia and the Russians and exudes bile. I regularly come across creepy
quotes from her revelations. For example, according to her, my people are mean. There is
nothing vile In the USA, which has destroyed Libya, Syria, Yugoslavia, but in Russia, which
made Central Asian people literate, everything is vile; in Russia, which rebuilt the Baltics,
Belarus and the Ukraine, there live bad people. They are so bad that Svetlana Aleksandrova
cannot sleep.
She calls Russia a pit. The "Maidan", in her opinion, is a good thing. In general,
everything that is anti-Russian is a great blessing. Well, how can one ask that a prize not
be given to this woman, who is so wonderful in all respects? Of course they gave her a prize!
I should have been surprised if she had not been awarded one.
It would have been possible for her to go on living in peace and quiet, not denying
herself anything, but no -- people like her, like Solzhenitsyn, rave on about the fate of
entire countries. And of course, she could not stay away from the opposition in Belarus.
Naturally, she does not like Lukashenko -- how can anyone like a person who has safeguarded
industry in his country? Neither she nor her controllers can like him. No, I have not made a
typing error! Just take a look at this cute photograph and admire:
Here she is with the ambassadors of Germany, Poland, the Czech Republic, Lithuania and
Slovakia. This shot was taken the other day. By the way, for some reason, everyone is not
wearing a mask.
So all these ambassadors represent the interests of big business. The battle of ideologies
on the planet is over. Today, everything is ruled by representatives of Capital and its
service personnel. Naturally, representatives of certain countries regularly interfere in the
internal affairs of sovereign states. This is generally a fashion in the West, namely
sticking their noses into other peoples' business.
Aleksievich, on the other hand, in this story is just another talking head. Another head,
which is terribly far from the people and, in general, is not interested in other opinions.
She is not worried that thousands of people will be left without work. That they will have
nothing to feed their children with. This is an unimportant opinion and wrong.
There is also an opinion of her controllers, and it is a wrong one. Her controllers are
all anti-Russian. So, by supporting the opposition, Svetlana speaks from Russophobic
positions. I do not go along with such people: we are of different worlds. And I really do
hope that Lukashenko will have the willpower to arrest this wonderful woman who is lying low
and keeping her eye on how to bring down Belarus.
I advise you to read the works of this writer. For example, "Boys in Zinc"*, dreamt up by
her. You might like it: then again, you might not. I did not like it, but then I am not one
of the creative intelligentsia, which for some reason always knows how to write.
That is all for today.Thank you for your attention and see you soon.
*Boys in Zinc
Nuff said!
By the way, Aliksieva was born in Ivano-Frankivsk in deepest Western Ukraine when
"Independent Ukraine" was the Ukrainian Soviet Socialist Republic.
Ivano-Frankivsk was formerly a Polish city known as Stanisławów, situated in
that portion of partitioned Poland that became part of the Hapsburg Austro-Hungarian
Empire.
You know, that part of the world where Bandera and others of his ilk hailed from.
I didn't see Stas Belkovsky, that oft-quoted 'Kremlin insider' who is always 'blowing the
whistle' on Putin's Billions. Or is that him far left, second row, with the glasses?
You and I have wandered together on this long journey through the Inferno of Lyttenburgh's
brain. We reached the epicenter of Russian cultural Hell, where a Satanic Gerontocracy ™
of handshakeable kreakles impose their pornographic "Visions" of High Art upon a
mouth-breathing bydlo who only want to see trite spectacles, and who are incapable of
appreciating the True Genius of the Artistic Mind.
A singing dancing porno Jesus? A kangaroo eating jelly at the Last Supper? Why not!?
Which reminds me, I should probably explain those terms up there which I put in italics. For
those not in the know, " handshakeable " is another of those winged words invented by,
probably, dissident blogger Lev Shcharansky . Who, as I mentioned before, has
exerted more influence over the modern Russian language (well, at least its Internet version)
than Ilf, Petrov, Griboedov, and Pushkin combined. Shcharansky earned his chops by popularizing
words and expressions suitable for flaying the Soviet and now Russian dissident intelligentsia,
aka "The Scorpions in the Nest" ™. In Russian the word is
Рукопожатный
(ruko-po-zhat-ny), from "ruka" ("hand") and "po-zhat" ("to press"). This "internet meme" of the
"handshakeable person" is defined as "a person to whom the Russian liberal Opposition is
inclined to shake hands with". Quite simple, no?
As for "bydlo", that is an ancient Slavic, and even Indo-European word. The ancient
Indo-European root was something like *bʰuH , and it meant "to be". As in Hamlet's
"to be or not to be". Russian and all Slavic not to mention most European languages use the
same verb, namely, "byt". In West Slavic languages, such as Polish and Czech, a derived word
"bydlo" came to mean a place where people settled. Then the meaning shifted from "place" to
"property or stuff", like household stuff, and from there to "domestic animals". In this sense
of the meaning, the word was borrowed from West Slavic
into Russian . Russians, always on the lookout for new ways to insult their friends and
neighbors, were, like, "We need a word just like that to describe our domestic animals, and
also certain persons who look and behave like domestic animals". Hence, bydlo .
With that bit of house-keeping out of the way, let us return to Lyttenburgh. Having passed
the epicenter of Inferno, we are now in the field of reverse gravity. What seems up is down,
and vice versa. Who knows, we may yet emerge, popping out of some volcanic crater in Iceland or
New Zealand, or somewhere like that.
"The skies gonna open
People going pray and crawl
It's gonna rain down fire
It's gonna burn us all"
– Christian Kane, "L.A. song"
This happened a year and a half ago. As time will tell us – no one learned anything
from this earlier incident. Maybe because at the moment of its eruption in February-March of
2015 there were plenty of other issues closer to home to occupy the general discourse of
Russian people. Hence a scandal in the cultural sphere just failed to generate a significant
resonance at the time to produce a serious discussion within society.
All sides of the conflict were dissatisfied with its resolution. The artistic intelligentsia
warped the whole story into the now well-known myth about "creeping censorship" and continued
to enjoy their Fronde . The people were dissatisfied that they were ignored, scoffed at
and offended by the self-proclaimed new High Priesthood of the Art. Real members of the real
world religions made their views on the scandal abundantly clear. This also raised the ire of
the kreakls, who saw no controversy in demanding a limit to the clergy's right of freedom of
speech. With the conflict not resolved, with tensions still high and simmering just beneath the
surface of deceiving calm, with lessons unlearned and the State aloof and unresponsive to its
role as the keeper of peace and high arbiter, new scandals and conflicts were bound to
happen.
Pugachev in a Cage!
When the people don't have a voice they tend to lash out. This is a fact of life, a fact of
history and a fact of the present day, as a lot of exalted alien beings inhabiting safe spaces
of Facebook, Tumblr and politically correct hangouts found to their stupefied dismay only
recently, and who, probably, will keep finding it in the future till they learn the lesson and
change some of their dearly held preconceptions. Lashing out in question is always an ugly,
destructive affair. Revolting peasants of the Jacquerie, German Peasant War, Khmelnitsky's uprising and
Pugachev's
rebellion committed uncountable number of violent crimes and atrocities. They were
criminals by anyone's standards, and the Powers That Be had to suppress them. Yet, dismissing
them outright without recognizing both the pressing issues that made people rise up and the
fact, that they were denied any say in legally addressing their grievances, puts these events
out of context.
Desperate people are prone to desperate measures. Lacking a clear moral authority to lead
them and rein in the worst expressions of violent urges, then something else entirely,
something less benevolent and more unhinged is bound to attempt to ride this tiger of an
awakened, self-conscious and angry population. Some con artists, fanatics, goofballs and
demagogues are bound to appear and attempt to hijack the legitimate protest or even try to
discredit it while overstepping the law.
Bydlo Fight Back
Due to the all-prevailing narrative, which places squarely all possible and impossible
crimes against humanity on Stalin; and to the generally cherished ignorance of history --
people forget that it was in the reign of the "Dear and Beloved" Nikita Sergeyevich Khrushchev that the
atheist and anti-religious propaganda reached an exorbitant and all penetrating level in the
Soviet Union. This is all part of our history, which is always better to know than pretend it
never happened.
Look out! Enteo is out of his cage!
It's anyone's guess what were the driving imperatives of the people, organizing the
exhibition in Manezh expo-hall in Moscow in August 2015, when they decided to feature mainly
"sculptures" on religious themes of the so-called nonconformist artists from 1954-68. The
exhibition was attacked by one man freak show Dmitry Tsorionov aka
Enteo . Former liberast, proponent of the alternative spiritual practices (read: sects and
cults) and a connoisseur of mind-expanding ingredients (read: drugs) Enteo is the violent,
always angry born again self-proclaimed zealot of the true Christianity in the form of his
organization "God's Will". The official Church and the authorities showed him their silent and
tacit support, while his group was disrupting attempts to hold gay-prides (not that it would
require a lot of manpower or effort), but what he did at Manezh clearly shocked and dismayed
them. Enteo and his own cultists entered the hall where the exhibition was taking place,
screeched out their displeasure with what they saw and attempted to deface the objects of
"art". Thankfully, like virtually anything produced in the USSR back then, said "statues"
proved to be nigh indestructible, so Enteo and Co succeed only in smashing an Ikea made plate,
on which one of the "exhibits" was standing. Security did absolutely nothing to stop them.
As the result of this escapade Tsorionov lost even the tacit support of the officials, and
the public opinion of him and his vigilantes became much more negative. Manezh expo-hall
filed an official request to the police , accusing Enteo of vandalism and hooliganism. One
month later, he was found guilty of
petty hooliganism and sentenced to 10 days of arrest. Same people, who deemed Pussy Riot's
and "artist" Pavlensky's escapades a form of "creative protest" and "modern art-events", while
bemoaning any attempts of the state to characterize their actions as unlawful, were less
forgiving in Enteo's case with his very own "happening" and "performance". But, as said Dmitriy
Anatolyevich Medvedev in his capacity as then president of Russia (and as was aptly
demonstrated in cases of Enteo, Pavlensky and the former art-director Mezdrich, who won't
answer for the mysterious disappearance of the state funds in his opera) – "The System
must learn how to forgive".
Again – nothing came out of that, sides of the conflict exchanged volleys of
accusations and no lessons were learned. Again everyone had been left guessing when and what
will explode next time. Surely enough, something exploded, riling up two clearly incomparable
in numbers sides even more in their non-acceptance of each other.
Dmitry Zakharov protests against art depicting Ukrainian National Guard as heroes
In September 2016 a group of Byelarussian members of the artistic intelligentsia (and local
Fronde to bat'ka Lukashenko) held a photo-exhibition at the Sakharov Center, Moscow,
depicting "Heroes of Donbass". In their version – members of the so-called volunteer
battalions of the National Guard were these heroes. People, killing their former countrymen,
women, children and elderly – depicted as smiling, nice, hearty persons. This most
"balanced" and "neutral" exhibition proclaimed them as the people, fighting against the
"Separatists" – all in accordance to the Vision of the Artist. Needless to say, that such
interpretation was met with
most loud protests from the people of Russia. Equally unnecessary would be pointing out,
that we are talking about an "event" sanctioned by our always shy and hands-off Ministry of
Culture in their own building. It turned ugly very soon – photos were sprayed with red paint
by one of the enraged visitors – an artist himself.
Sergeii Lukashevsky: Always fair and balanced.
Most progressive intelligentsia of Russia deemed these actions of protest "barbarous", once
again confirming everyone's suspicions about whose side they were supporting in the Ukrainian
civil war. [yalensis hint: Russia's "progressive intelligentsia" mostly supports the
Ukrainian government side in that war, although they won't always admit it out loud.]
Art-Director of the Sakharov Center
Sergey Lukashevsky admitted that he knew what kind of reaction such an exhibition could
produce. Still, he decided to stage it, arguing that last year his center produced a similar
exhibition, only from the People's Republics side – he was just striving for "balance"
and "neutrality".
More Scandals Involving Children And Animals
At the same time, another scandal was in full swing, once again polarizing society into two
numerically unequal camps. Again, it was because of yet another example of the generous
permissiveness of our Ministry of Culture. Photo exhibition of Jock Sturges "art" drew a
proverbial tsunami of people's wrath. The artistic intelligentsia couldn't just deny itself the
pleasure of prodding a tiger, safely locked behind bars. While pointing out that from a purely
judicial point of view the exhibit was not violating any Russian laws. The people answered with
stating the obvious – there are underage completely nude girls on this photo exhibition.
How can any normal, non-pervert person claim that taking photos of them and then making their
photos available for "appreciation" among the connoisseurs of such things is normal? Kreakls
answered with wailing, gnashing of teeth and condemnation of the "spiritual paupers", incapable
of seeing and understating the Art. In their opinion, it was the Regime's guilt. If only it
could cough up more money and make the "appreciation of culture" taught at schools then the
people will grow up as highly-artistic persons, with broad views on reality at large and new
sets of values. These suggestions were made live, on state owned "Kremlin-controlled" TV
channels with no ill consequences to the members of artistic intelligentsia. What is more
important, IMO, is that no one dared to ask these fine specimens and results of countless
generations of "progress" and "higher culture", how do they suggest an underage kid would be
taught to appreciate the "positive artistic eroticism" of photos of equally underage
kids.
Jock Sturges art photography
Again the Ministry of Culture stood aloof, again nothing was done on the official level
– because Russia, no matter what the detractors say, has no censorship. Some people
staged one-person protest against the exhibit – to the apparent displeasure of the
so-called Russian liberals. Others went much far and beyond the law. A group calling itself
"The Union of Russian Officers" (with no official status or even real officers among their
numbers) organized a picket at the entrance of the expo-hall, and one of their number entered
the accursed placed armed with a can full of urine, to consecrate the exhibits with its
content. He succeeded in this endeavor, which later translated into his detainment and arrest.
Aristocrats of the Spirit responsible for this scandal wallowed (and enjoyed!) in their newly
acquired status of Victims of the Regime – because how else can you explain their
decision to have no security on site, or that they did not call the police the first moment
they saw trouble brewing on the horizon?
The Hermitage Museum, St. Petersburg
It was exactly against this that Konstantin Raikin decided to raise his voice. Being a
member of the Aristocracy of the Spirit he and the likes of him never doubted for a moment that
all protests against the sacred Art were fake, staged, paid by the Regime, which uses these
fake protestors as cat's-paws in its quest to squash already threatened Freedom of Expression
in This Country. The idea that there is such thing as self-aware narod , instead of a
silent quietly mewling herd of mostly stupid and submissive bydlo never crossed his or
other's minds. For them it is all old "The Artist vs the State" struggle, and the people,
public, society, spectators – they do not fit into the narrative. Since XIX century the
so-called liberal intelligentsia in Russia was fashionably in opposition to the Regime –
and it was the first to crawl begging said regime to suppress the revolting masses, which more
than anything else had frightened them.
"Ladies and gentlemen: On your right is an Old Master painting. On your left, a stuffed dog
wearing a birthday cap."
A Ministry of Culture self-contradictory passive, all permissiveness and unable to defend
their own official program, an ossified if not degenerative modus Vivendi of the vast
majority of representatives of the so-called creative classes and the un-diminishing anger and
rejection of both the "post-modern values" and the legislation, paradoxically protecting it, by
the people deprived of any say, would mean only one thing – such scandals will happen
more and more in the future. Just to demonstrate that even the nearly universal condemnation of
Raikin's haughtiness by the common people is not a big deal to the Aristocracy of the Spirit,
yet another scandal
erupted last week . Russian society, still reeling after the criminal affair featuring
girl-students from Khabarovsk
mutilating animals on-line , now was not prepared for a state-sanctioned, highly artistic
dead-animal mutilating fete – in the Hermitage, Saint-Petersburg, of all places! The
Hermitage is ruled by a true Aristocrat – the infamous M.B. Piotrovsky , who, literally,
inherited the title of the head of one of (if not the) most important museums of Russia from
his father. No scandal or accusation ever harmed his handshakable status or deprived him from
the favour of the Ministry of Culture. Surely, a person who allowed enormous graft and theft of
objects of art in Hermitage in the past will survive the present day scandal unscathed, while
accusing all those opposing this most wondrous exhibition as "hired slanderers".
Note: I wrote about Hermitage museum scandal nearly 2 weeks ago. Unsurprisingly, I was
correct in my prediction about the autcome and that Piotrovsky will steadfastly defend his
nobbish position on the "art".
"Position of the Hermitage – there should not be censorship. This was in the
context of the controversial exhibition by Jan Fabre with stuffed animals, as told to "Echo
of Petersburg" Hermitage director Mikhail Piotrovsky.
"We are defending our position that there was must be no censorship from the
government, nor the censorship from the crowd. So that museums within bounds of their
rights and powers could be able to work, and be protected, "- said Piotrowski to
Echo."
I reiterate once again. These shockingly life-like stuffd animals, hanged around famous
paintings in a way that would make any fan of BDSM and animal mutiliation proud and
salivating – this is "art". People who come to the Hermitage museum, who pay rate
steep price for the tickets, who usually come from the backgrounds of those, who are
willing to come and appreciate the art in the first place – they are "the crowd".
Despite all this controversy, the exhibition won't be closed – that's the power of
Piotrovsky. It will continue no matter what till April 2017.
m@84 the buzz about Navalny is that he and some partners were running an anti-corruption
blackmail racket getting compromising information on various enterprises and individuals and
Navalny decided to cash out without informing or consulting with his partners. Nothing to do
with the Russian government.
m@89 I got a rather detailed explanation from a Russian friend who just spent several
weeks there. Navalny started out as an anti corruption reformer but got involved with
partners that figured out how to monetize the dirt he was digging up. This is over a period
of years, not something recent. There is no conspiracy between the Russian government and the
Germans. Navalny was not a threat to governmental power in Russia - this was strictly a
business matter. See the RT article I linked to:
Which are the dumbest false flags of recent memory?
My selections are:
#1) Journalist Arkady Babchenko - he gets every prize!
He faked his death, complete with blood soaked pictures,
and then showed up the next day alive at a news conference.
They should name a drink after him, "Noah's Ark Ark Ark"- glacier water mixed
with glacier water, stirred not shaken.
#2) Saudi Intelligence Service - they air shipped printers
with incomplete bombs in them to the US and Britain from Yemen.
The Saudi agents revealed that they kept the tracking slips of the bombs!
I'll drink to that. And the Saudis played heroes by providing the tracking
numbers to the US and Britain in the nick of time. And I'll drink to that!
#3) Just this week CrowdStrike (yes, they still enjoy "credibility" in some circles)
let us know that Iranian hackers included a video with their email threats.
And that clever video:
"The video showed the hackers' computer screen as they typed in commands to purportedly hack
a voter registration system.
Investigators noticed snippets of revealing computer code, including file paths, file names
and an internet protocol (IP) address."
How does the Saudi Intelligence service say, "Skol!"?
"... Perhaps the plot extended beyond those who directly participated but I don't think it was a high level operation. Navalny took a gamble that his sponsors would have no choice but to follow his lead. It now makes no practical difference as to whom planned it. ..."
Alexey Navalny: It's a banned substance. I think for Putin– why– he's using
this chemical weapon to do– do both, kill me and, you know, terrify others. It's
something really scary, where the people just drop dead without– there are no gun.
There are no shots and in a couple of hours, you– you'll be dead and without any traces
on your body. It's something terrifying. And Putin is enjoying it.
So am I. It's very intriguing, the constant plot twists – Navalny is recorded live
'moaning in anguish' but he was not in any pain! Perhaps the very thought of such an amazing
human being and exceptional leader – himself, naturally – struck down in his
prime was just so sorrowful that he could not stifle his sadness.
It's 'something really scary', is it? Why? So far nearly everyone poisoned by it has
survived with no apparent medium-to-long-term damage. The deadliest toxin in the world by a
wide margin has so far managed to kill one barbag who was also a drug addict, and completely
incidentally – she was not ever a target.
According to the Russian record of its use as a murder weapon, though, on the sole known
occasion it was so used, it killed the target in just a few hours. It also killed his
secretary, who used the same phone to call an ambulance, and the pathologist who did his
autopsy.
So whoever is copying Novichok for its terror effects is not doing a very good job. Like
Porsche, there is no substitute.
The "moaning in anguish" was likely Navalny's theatrical assumption that Novichok creates
intense pain. When he learned, after his performance, that Novichok does not create intense
pain, he changed his story on the fly.
This, and a few other things, brings up an interesting conjecture. The Navalny stunt may
have been a free-lance operation done without prior knowledge of Western intelligence
agencies. He and his posse concocted the scheme betting that the the US and Germany would be
backed into a corner and had to play along. They really had no choice as they could not
abandon this asset without the entire "fearless opposition to the tyrant Putin" collapsing
into the cesspool it was built upon.
If so, it was an audacious move that only a sociopath could do. However, it does suggest
that Navalny is finished after the last bit of propaganda value is wrung out. His future
could be either termination under a convenient pretext (i.e. Putin finally got him) or to
become a professor of BS at some US University or the like. The main point is that he is too
unreliable to conduct further operations.
I think the whole thing was a carefully-concocted operation that Lyosha was fully
briefed-in on. His howls and screams would have been necessary in any case, with or without
pain, because it was imperative that all on board be convinced that a terrible event was
taking place and that emergency actions were absolutely called for. It's hard to imagine the
same dramatic effect could have been achieved by Navalny flopping out of the toilet like a
gaffed bass, and whispering to the flight attendant, "I just have this feeling that says
body, we are done". Everyone including the flight attendant would assume he was drunk or
something that was no particular cause for alarm, and maybe even for amusement. Until they
learned that the flight was being diverted so this fuckwad could get off.
I don't know and I don't care who's cuning plan this was. It's got him all the
publicity he needs and also those in the west with their standard 'no smoke without fire'
level of foreign policy 'evidence.' I think he's actually looking to sell his life story for
a Netflix series. Nothing else makes logical sense.
Yes, maybe -- apart from the fact that one of his posse is British agent who has been
controlling FBK investigations into corruption for quite a while now and apparently was stuck
to Navalny during his last foray into the provinces like shit to an army blanket.
To Mark and ME;
The Navalny show still has an ad hoc feel to it. Perhaps the plot extended beyond those
who directly participated but I don't think it was a high level operation. Navalny took a
gamble that his sponsors would have no choice but to follow his lead. It now makes no
practical difference as to whom planned it.
Navalny has complained that Trump has not condemned what happened to him
19.10.2020 | 07:59
Blogger Aleksei Navalny has expressed the opinion that US President Donald Trump should
have also condemned what happened to him, as did European politicians, TASS reports.
"I think it is especially important that everyone, including, and perhaps first and
foremost, the US president, speak out against the use of chemical weapons in the 21st
century", Navalny said.
["Я думаю, что
особенно важно,
чтобы все,
включая и,
возможно, в
первую очередь
президента США,
выступили
против
применения
химического
оружия в XXI
веке".]
On August 20, Navalny was taken to a hospital in Omsk after he had fallen ill on an
aeroplane. Omsk doctors said that the main diagnosis was metabolic disorders. Then Navalny
was transported to Germany. He was in a coma for two weeks. German doctors announced that he
had been poisoned with substances from the Novichok group. Russia has asked Berlin for more
detailed information on the test results, but has not yet received a response.
Currently, Navalny has been discharged from the hospital and is undergoing
rehabilitation.
Big gobbed gobshite shouting his big gob off -- or did his US controllers really urge him
to make that statement? Is the CIA really using him as part of the Democrats "Russiagate"
arsenal?
Got it in one; I was going to say, until I read your last couple of lines, that this is
further suggestion that Navalny is a Democratic project. The US State Department is full of
Democratic appointees. They want to get all the mileage out of him they can before interest
fades.
Miraculously, he recovered from the poison that is so dangerous people fear to mention its
name, for fear that doing so might encourage tongue cancer, and is today fit as a flea; can't
wait to return to Russia for Round Two. If they were wise, they'd kill Lyosha themselves for
his stem cells. Then world leaders could be protected against Russian assassination
attempts.
Certainly capitalizing on his new-found fame, isn't he? Now he feels comfortable telling
the US president how he ought to behave, and chiding him for not appropriately recognizing
Navalny's importance to the world. Dear God, what a swellheaded prat.
If the Chief Bullshitter really feels so concerned for the safety of his family, he will
leave them all abroad and return to Russia alone – I mean, he's not a bit afraid for
himself, he's said as much. Go on, Lyosha – go back home and rally the great restless
throng of oppressed ordinary Russians who cry out for your leadership!!
Not on your life. He's got the sweetest gig ever going on right there, newspapers beating
a path to his door to find out what he likes to eat for breakfast and whose shirts he wears,
no worries about income or housing, hobnobbing with world leaders who listen respectfully to
his opinions, and all he has to do is rant about Putin all day long. The Americans are
finally getting their money's worth out of Lyosha. Whereas what would happen if he went
home?
It would quickly become clear that his support still comes exclusively from the same group
– a few disaffected intelligentsia such as Boris Akunin, the Atlanticist liberatsi who
endlessly predict the collapse of Putin, and the angry kiddies who feel like they are part of
some great Thunberg-like global freedom movement that will bring them a comfortable life but
absolve them of responsibility for working for it – you know; the way they live in
America!
" 69% of Americans say they are more concerned about bias in the news other people consume
than its presence in their own news (29%) ."
In other words: 69/29, or 2.38 times, as many Americans are closed-minded (prejudiced)
regarding information-sources which don't fit their ideology, than are not. Overwhelmingly in
America, only Democratic Party information-sources are trusted by Democrats, and only
Republican information-sources are trusted by Republicans. Each side distrusts the other's
information-sources. Gallup's news-report aptly noted the important fact that "This plays into
the political polarization in the U.S. national discourse ."
The more prejudiced a population are, the more polarized it will be. Of course, one would
expect this to be the case, but Gallup has now found striking new empirical evidence for it --
that the public's closed-mindedness is greatly increasing America's political polarization.
Each side is craving propaganda instead of truth, but each side's voters want only the type of
propaganda that is funded by the billionaires who also fund that side's politicians and control
that side's 'news' media. Consequently, American politics is controlled by the conflict between liberal
billionaires versus conservative billionaires -- totally controlled by billionaires
(instead of by the public). There is the liberal herd, and the conservative herd, but they're
both herds -- not by the public in an actual democracy. And each of these two herds is
controlled by its shepherd, who are its billionaires. ( Here is how that's done. ) Billionaires control each Party and
thereby control the Government. This is why the Government ignores the
preferences of America's public . As will be shown here, the September 11th Gallup findings
help to explain how and why that results.
Neither Democrats nor Republicans can become exposed to the other side's evidence and
arguments unless they see those -- the other side's evidence and arguments, both for its own
case and against the opposite side's case (i.e., against the case that oneself believes). Not
to see the opposite side's viewpoint is to be blind to it, and thus to become locked into
whatever oneself believes. This 69/29 is like a jury's rendering its verdict and nearly three
quarters of the jurors having not listened to -- and thus not considered -- the opposite side's
presentations. That's a frightening situation to exist in any court of law, and it is an
equally frightening situation to exist in any nation's electorate.
As a consequence of Americans' strong tendency to be closed-minded, America's politics are,
to a very large extent, driven more by prejudices than by the realities that the public are
actually facing. Individuals are seeking for sources that will likeliest confirm what they
already believe, and are seeking to avoid sources that are the likeliest to disconfirm their
beliefs. This is consequently a population that's highly vulnerable to being manipulated, by
playing up to, and amplifying, the given Party's propaganda, to which the given individual
already subscribes. Republican Party billionaires (by their use of their conservative newsmedia
and think tanks, etc., which they control) can easily manipulate Republican Party voters, and
Democratic Party billionaires can, likewise, easily manipulate Democratic Party voters, by
their liberal media, think tanks, etc. That's billionaires, on each of the two sides, guiding
each of the two Parties' voters; and, therefore, the nation is an aristocracy -- a country
which is controlled by its wealthiest few -- instead of an authentic democracy (which is
controlled not by the numbers of dollars, but actually by the numbers of residents, each one of
whom is independently and open-mindedly seeking for credibly documented facts). An aristocracy
rules any such land.
The public are not the rulers in such a nation. It's not a democracy; it is a collective
dictatorship, by its billionaires (its aristocracy).
Both of the two Parties' voters vote in accord with their billionaires' agenda, but
especially in accord with whatever is on the agenda that's shared by both liberal and
conservative billionaires -- billionaires
fund both of the national Parties: Democrats and Republicans , and thereby control both
Parties. Billionaires, in each Party, have their very golden, very heavy, thumbs, pressing down
hard upon the scale of any such 'democracy', such that regardless of which group of
billionaires ends up winning any ultimate election, the public inevitably will lose, because
it's really just a contest between billionaires, who are stage-managing the nation's entire
political proceedings. This is like two boxers fighting in a ring, in which the
selection-process which placed them there was corrupt; and, so, even if the ultimate winner is
not equally corruptly pre-determined, the final result has nonetheless already been rigged
(during the primaries). When the contenders have been selected by a corrupt process, the
ultimate outcome cannot be a democracy.
This happens not only regarding elections, but regarding particular issues. For example, in
2002 and 2003, "regime-change in Iraq," and "Saddam's WMD," were just as much agendas of
liberal billionaires' media and think tanks as they were of conservative billionaires' media
and think tanks (and were thoroughly based on
lies ); so, a closed-minded public were actually trapped, into the lies that were
agreed-upon by both sides of the domestic American political spectrum -- the sides that are
funded and controlled by the liberal billionaires, and by the conservative billionaires. The
nearly $2 trillion
cost of the invasion and military occupation of that country , and the consequent
destruction of that country , were done
for America's billionaires, and produced nothing for the American people except that enormous
public debt and those injuries and deaths to America's soldiers and to Iraqis. And that's
typical, nowadays, in this (just as in any) aristocracy: the aristocracy are served; the
nation's public serve to them. (In the U.S., this has caused "U.S. Satisfaction at
13%, Lowest in Nine Years" , as Gallup headlined on 4 August 2020; and it has caused
Americas' satisfaction with their Government to have ranged from its all-time low of only 7% in
2008, to its all-time high of only 45% at the very start of 2020 -- well below 50%, for as long
as Gallup has surveyed this.)
What all of the billionaires want is what the American public get as their Government. It's
bipartisanship amongst its billionaires. That's what produces this Government's policies. It's what
determines the Government that Americans get. However, what is basic in making it a
dictatorship of the aristocracy-type (such as this America is) is that the population is very
prejudiced, not open-minded -- not each individual constantly seeking solid evidence to change
one's mind about how society works (what the reality in the nation actually is), so as for
one's view to become increasingly accurate over time. Instead, one's myths are constantly being
fed. Such a public, as this, are not individuals, in a democracy, but more like mobs, very
manipulable .
Often, America's bipartisan views are based upon lies that virtually all billionaires want
the public to believe. In such cases -- and these instances are frequent -- the truth is being
simply ignored, or else outright denied, by both sides (and by the media, for both sides).
Individuals' prejudices are thus being increased, instead of reduced, by what the public see
and hear in "the news." Everyone has prejudices, and truth can predominate only if people are
constantly skeptical of the sources that they are relying upon -- constantly trying to root out
and replace whatever false beliefs they have. This is the essence of scientific method.
Democracy depends upon it. Aristocracy requires the opposite. America has the opposite.
Change away from this present situation, to a democracy, would be difficult. On both of
America's political sides, there needs to be far less trust of the Establishment (including its
politicians, its media, its think tanks, etc.), in order for any real democracy to become able
to exist. It's not even able to exist now. And, therefore, it does not exist .
But what is even more depressing is that America's educational system, most especially its
colleges and universities, are encouraging, instead of discouraging, this situation, this
closed-mindedness. The more educated an American is, the more closed-minded that person becomes
-- as is further shown in this
same September 11th Gallup news-report :
" Whereas 52% of Americans with a high school education or less are more concerned about
bias in others' news than in their own [and 45% of that minimally educated group think that
the news which they are reading might be biased] , the figure is 64% among those with some
college education and is even higher among college graduates (73%) and those with
postgraduate education (77%) [and only 22% of that maximally educated group think that the
news which they are reading might be biased]."
The most-educated Americans are the most-manipulable (the most closed-minded) Americans.
No finding in this Gallup report was as extreme as the finding that the more highly educated
an American is, the less open that person is likely to be to changing his or her mind (outlook)
about the situation. In other words: the more educated an American is, the more closed-minded
that person tends to become . Higher education in America increases, instead of decreases, an
individual's closed-mindedness. However, other contrasts which were almost as extreme are:
"Those who identify as liberal (80%) are more concerned than conservatives (68%) and
moderates (65%) with other people's media bias. "
In other words: liberals are 80/65 or 1.23 times as closed-minded as are moderates, and are
80/68 or 1.18 times as closed-minded as conservatives are.
"While 58% of Black adults are more concerned about bias in others' news than in their
own, fully 73% of Asian Americans and 72% of White adults say the same ."
Thus, African-Americans are 58/72.5 or 80% as closed-minded as are Euro-Americans and
Asian-Americans.
This is the worst combination possible: it's a closed-minded population, which is especially
closed-minded amongst its most educated segment. The leading segment is also the most
closed-minded segment. These are crucial agents of the billionaires, and they crucially
inculcate into the next generation of Americans the aristocracy's values.
This means that the leaders keep themselves, conceptually, inside a cocoon. They have
minimal contact with the most vulnerable members of the society, which is the less-educated
members. That enhances inequality of opportunity, throughout the society. Since the
most-highly-educated Americans are the group that are the most-closed to opinions which are
contrary to their own, it's easy for the most-highly-educated Americans to view individuals who
disagree with those persons' views as being simply a "basket of
deplorables." Their disagreement then becomes their contempt.
'Facts' about politics are -- for those persons, highly educated persons -- more derived
from their values and priorities, than their values and priorities are derived from the
political facts. Scientific epistemology is being turned upside-down, regarding political
issues, in such a country. Overwhelmingly, some sort of faith, instead of any sort of science,
determines what individuals in such a country believe about politics. In every aristocracy,
this is the way that both conservative and liberal persons view any persons in the general
public who oppose themselves: they're viewed as being a "basket of deplorables." It's the very
essence of elitism -- on both sides. (For prominent examples of this: both Hillary Clinton and
Donald Trump had contempt for each-others' voters -- blotted them out.)
The leadership's minimal contact with the public makes exceedingly unlikely the leadership's
compassion, concern about the sufferings that they, themselves, are causing down below.
Actually, though every aristocracy claims to want to improve conditions for their public, the
reality is that whenever doing that would entail their own losing power, that claim becomes
exposed to be sheer hypocrisy -- a lie; often a self-deception, and not merely a deception
against the public. Deceiving themselves about their own decency is easy, because they have
minimal contact with the most vulnerable members of the society, the very people whom they
claim to care the most about (and to be working in politics to help). Fakery is built into each
and every aristocracy. Americans' strong tendency to be closed-minded causes the aristocratic
con to be widely accepted as if it were instead truth. (Again: the "WMD in Iraq" con was a good
example of this -- the aristocracy's media just blocked-out the
reality .) Scientific studies have even demonstrated that the wealthier a person is, the less compassion
the individual tends to have for people who are suffering.
NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT
MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX
Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.
Furthermore, since the less-educated persons aspire to be more-educated, they are -- even
without knowing it -- aspiring to become less open to contrary views, instead of to become more
open to such views. One bad consequence of this is: it strangulates imaginativeness, openness,
and creativity, in favor of being rote, rigid, and bureaucratic. Another bad consequence of it
is that the authority-figures, in such a society, are, in some important ways, actually
inferior to the rest of the population. Moreover, America's colleges and universities are not
increasing their students' open-mindedness (as they should) but the exact opposite -- they are
reducing their students' open-mindedness. Even if professors are teaching some truths, the
professors are training their students to be authoritarian, instead of to be open to a more
truthful, comprehensive, and deeper understanding, which encompasses those truths, but also
many more -- which the majority of professors either ignore or else deny, because such deeper
understanding violates the existing Scripture, or standard viewpoint (shaped by both sides'
billionaires). At least in the United States, this is now the normal situation. That Gallup
poll showed it not merely weakly, nor even only moderately, but extremely.
This is a perverse situation, which bodes ill for the future of the entire nation. Any
country which is like this is not only an aristocracy instead of a democracy, but it is greatly
disadvantaged, going forward. It will be disadvantaged both in the arts and in the sciences.
Its future will be stultifying, instead of dynamic. Aristocracies tend to be this way. Also,
because it will remain highly polarized, its internal ideological frictions will waste a large
proportion of the nation's efforts. As a nation, its forward-motion, its progress , will thus
largely be crippled, by its internal discord and distrust, between the two warring factions of
its aristocracy -- and friction between the respective followers on each side.
This describes a declining culture -- a nation that is in decline.
That's what this poll-report, from Gallup, indicates, as clearly as any poll-findings
can.
It indicates a nation in decline.
During the Presidential primaries in the Democratic Party, a major point of difference
between the two major candidates, Joe Biden versus Bernie Sanders, was whether billionaires are
bad for the country: Biden said no; Sanders said yes. (This was a major reason
why the billionaires made sure that Sanders would lose .) In any country where
wealth-inequality is so extreme, there can be no authentic democracy. America's extreme
inequality of wealth makes democracy impossible in this country. America's other problems
follow from that. In reality, it's a one-party state, and that party is controlled not actually
by the counts of voters, but by the counts of dollars. It is an aristocracy; and its decline --
to what has been documented here -- follows from that fact. Whatever democracy America might
once have had is gone now. It has become replaced by a land of mass-deceptions, which are
bought and sold.
US led west doesn't leave room for atlanticist fifth column of Russian federation to gain
political traction. Keeping their course in demonizing Russia and subjecting it with unfair
standard of conduct wherever possible is sure way to boost nationalist faction political
gain.
If the US led west want to strengthen their 'Democratic' factions on the Russian
federation they need to start playing nice so at least those poor sob have something to work
on. This however no longer possible for the US who rapidly left behind in development in
every aspect.
I didn't want to write any more about this, but after the stages of irony, sarcasm, and grins, the stage of endless weariness
came.
A rally was held in
Khabarovsk
again.
Our
"oppositionists"
again claim that
"filthy
Rashka"
[a pejorative way of referring to "Russia" used by the fifth-column – ed] and that there is a
"Beautiful
Russia"
[a slogan used by
Navalny
–
ed] of the future, in Khabarovsk and right now.
"It seems that due to its geographical location in Khabarovsk, not only does the New Year
arrive earlier than it does in Moscow, but also the Beautiful Russia of the future."
More tantrums, moaning, and calls for a Far Eastern People's Republic (when will they start putting people in prison for
separatism?). Especially amusing are theses like
"the government is falling under the
pressure of the crowd"
and
"Putin's fate is being decided in Khabarovsk today"
.
Yes, I've even seen that.
You there, in Khabarovsk, no longer want to decide anyone's fate? The Dalai Lama, our agent Donnie, maybe you can take care of
the whole State Department there? Although, in fact, these questions are not for Khabarovsk residents, because Moscow and St.
Petersburg hamsters [liberals – ed] masturbate loudest over the protests.
They say that about 50,000 people came to the rally. After the end of the rally, reports started to arrive about as many as
80,000 – comparable to
Bolotnaya
,
Yes. The
"opposition"
is happy and shout that every 5th person has come out to
Khabarovsk, the people are against the government, Baba Yaga is against everything and anything in general.
And, like, it starts to seem that this is really serious and guys like this moose on salt aren't overreacting.
"It is reported that now just in Khabarovsk at a rally against the government – 82,000
people – every 5th resident!
Moscow, St. Petersburg, Russia! Can you stop sleeping?
'ARISE, great country! Get up to fight TO THE DEATH!'"
Although, for the desecration of sacred lines [Stalin's famous WW2 quote: "Arise, great country!" – ed], it is simply not
enough to hit his ugly mug.
So: let me show you what and how it really was in Khabarovsk, and then remember that there are many filming techniques to
create the effect of the crowd being massive.
This is what the center of Khabarovsk looked like at 12:22 local time, 22 minutes after the start of the campaign, when
messages about endless tens of thousands of people began to pop up.
And this is how the main square of Khabarovsk looked at 13:16, a little more than an hour after the start of the rally. When
the
"opposition"
introduced reports of thousands on the square, and the mayor's office
declared a maximum of 300 – well, about 300 people are visible. At most.
According to the Ministry of Internal Affairs, there were no more than 10,000 people at the rally. Photos taken by a
quadrocopter make even these figures overly optimistic, I would estimate about 5,000 people.
Everything else was faked in order to put pressure on the investigation and convince the authorities that the protest is
growing and spreading. Moreover, the mayor of Khabarovsk himself started to complain about the sent kosachoks and idiots,
jumping for money every day with the same speeches and posters.
There will not be any
"revolution of dignity"
[maidan – ed]. All that is happening is
an attempt by Khabarovsk bandits from the 90s to protect their crook, and I hope the central authorities will deal with this
effectively.
No mass participation, no
"every fifth resident"
, no country will arise for a fight to
the death. Bummer, that's that, let's move on, the revolution has been cancelled.
Finally, there is concrete evidence and witness statements against
Furgal
.
Do you know why they are so implacably trying to push the authorities into an open trial in his case?
Do you even know why it was closed?
To protect witnesses who have been threatened and silenced for years. Witnesses and a mother, who were bullied and whose lives
might be in danger.
And Furgal is a huckster who, using his deputy's mandate and immunity, for years evaded the investigation, did not turn up for
questioning, and protected his ass as best he could.
Furgal is a killer.
And everyone who yells
"I/We are Furgal"
stands in solidarity with this killer.
Voluntarily.
Anyone who insists on an open process insists on disclosing the privacy of people who would be put at risk. Real danger,
unlike all these fat-faced hamsters who are completely raging with impudence and don't see further than the end of their nose.
For them the best case scenario is a trip in a police van, selfies, and hopes for payments that they will be awarded by the
ECHR.
One would think that following the massive victory the Kremlin has achieved with the vote on
the changes to the Russian Constitution, the political situation in Russia would be idyllic, at
least compared to the sinking Titanic of the "collective West". Alas, this is far from being
the case. Here are some of the factors which contribute to a potentially dangerous situation
inside Russia.
As I have mentioned in the past, besides the "official" (pretend) opposition
in the Duma, there are now two very distinct "non-system" oppositions to Putin: the bad old
"liberals" (which I sometimes call the 5th column) and the (relatively new) "pink-nationalist"
Putin-haters which I christened, somewhat tongue-in-cheek, I admit – as a 6th
column (Ruslan Ostashko calls them "
emo-Marxists ", and that is a very accurate description too). What is so striking is
that while Russian 5th and 6th columnists hate each other, they clearly hate Putin even more.
Many of them also hate the Russian people because they don't "get it" (at least in their
opinion) and because time and again the people vote with and for Putin. Needless to say, these
"5th and 6th columnists" (let's call them "5&6c" from now on) declare that the election was
stolen, that millions of votes were not counted at all, while others were counted many times.
According to these 5&6c types, it is literally unthinkable that Putin would get such
a high support therefore the only explanation is that the elections were rigged.
While the sum total of these 5&6c types is probably not enough to truly threaten Putin
or the Russian society, the Kremlin has to be very careful in how it handles these groups,
especially since the condition of the Russian society is clearly deteriorating:
Russia has objective, real, problems which cannot simply be dismissed. Most Russians clearly
would prefer a much more social and economically active state. The reality is that the current
political system in Russia cares little for the "little man".
The way the Kremlin and the Russian "big business" are enmeshed is distressing to a lot of
Russians, and I agree with them. Furthermore, while the western sanctions did a great job
preparing Russia for the current crisis, it still remains true that Russia does not operate in
such a favorable environment, revenues are down in many sectors, and the COVID19 pandemic has
also had a devastating effect on Russian small businesses.
And while the issue of the COVID19 virus has not been so hopelessly politicized in Russia
has it has in the West, a lot of my contacts report to me that many people feel that the
Kremlin and the Moscow authorities have mismanaged the crisis.
So while the non-systemic opposition of the 5&6c cannot truly threaten Russia, there are
enough of what I would call "toxic and potentially dangerous trends" inside the Russian society
which could turn into a much bigger threat should a crisis suddenly erupt (including a crisis
triggered by an always possible Ukrainian provocation).
More and more Russians, including Putin-supporters, are getting frustrated with what they
perceive as being a lame and frankly flaccid Russian foreign policy. This does not necessarily
mean that they disagree with the way Putin deals with the big issues (say Crimea, or Syria or
the West's sabre-rattling), but they get especially frustrated by what they perceive as lame
Russian responses against petty provocations.
For example, the US Congress and the Trump Administration have continued to produce
sanctions and stupid accusations against Russia on a quasi-daily basis, yet Russia is really
doing nothing much about that, in spite of the fact that there are many options in her
political "toolkit" to really make the US pay for that attitude. Another thing which irritates
the Russians is that arrogant, condescending and outright rude manner in which western
politicians (and their paid for journalists in Russia) constantly intervene in internal Russian
matters without ever being seriously called out for this. Sure, some particularly nasty
characters (and organization) have been kicked out of Russia, but not nearly enough to really
send a clear message Russia's enemies.
And, just to make things worse, there are some serious problems between Russia and her supposed
allies, specifically Belarus and Kazakhstan. Nothing truly critical has happened yet, but the
political situation in Belarus is growing worse by the day (courtesy of, on one hand, the inept
policies of Lukashenko and, on the other, a resurgence of Kazakh nationalism, apparently with
the approval of the central government).
Not only is the destabilization of two major Russian allies a bad thing in itself, it also
begs the question of how Putin can deal with, say, Turkey or Poland, when Russia can't even
stabilize the situation in Belarus and Kazakhstan.
To a large degree, I share many of these frustrations too and I agree that it is time for
Putin and Russia to show a much more proactive posture towards the (eternally hostile)
West.
My problem with the 5th column is that it is composed of rabid russophobes who hate their
own nation and who are nothing but willing prostitutes to the AngloZionist Empire. They want
Russia to become a kind of "another Poland only further East" or something equally insipid and
uninspiring.
My problem with the 6th column is that it hates Putin much more than it loves Russia, which
is regularly shows by predicting either a coup, or a revolution, or a popular uprising or any
other bloody event which Russia simply cannot afford for two main reasons:
Russia almost
destroyed herself twice in just the past century: in 1917 and 1991. Each time, the price paid
by the Russian people was absolutely horrendous and the Russian nation simply cannot afford
another major internal conflict.Russia is at war against the Empire, and while this war
remains roughly an 80% informational/ideological one, about 15% an economic one and only about
5% a kinetic war, it remains that this is a total, existential, war for survival: either the
Empire disappears or Russia will. This is therefore a situation where any action which weakens
your state, your country and its leader always comes dangerously close to treason.
Right now the biggest blessing for Russia is that neither the 5th nor the 6th column has
managed to produce even a halfway credible political figure who at least appears as marginally
capable of offering realistic solutions. A number of 5th columnists have decided to emigrate
and leave what they see as "Putin's Mordor". Alas, I don't see any stream of 6th columnists
leaving Russia, which objectively makes them a much more useful tool for outfits like the CIA
who will not hesitate to infiltrate even a putatively anti-US political movement if this can
weaken Russia in general, or Putin personally.
Right now the Russian security services are doing a superb job countering all these
threats (including the still very real Wahabi terrorist threat) all at the same time. However,
considering the rather unstable and even dangerous international political situation, this
could change if all the forces who hate Putin and what they call "Putinism" either join forces
or simply strike at the same time.
@Cowboy
A society that goes for an economy of divided labour reduces the individual away from the
natural equality of aggrarian, or artisan production. A worker who screws in one bolt for a
car in a production line is a slave – they are dependent on the system of
manufactoring, and a level of technology, for their security.
Division of labour brings its own systemic inequality, which can only be dealt with by
adjusting the system to provide each individual security from destitution – same as the
city demanded the birth of the state for the provision of security from violence. This
provision costs 30% of GDP now, if done universally, without all this capitalistic means
testing and progressive taxation, which engorges the state monopoly. And leave that 70% of
GDP to a free market regulated away from monopoly and deceit. Or even caveat emptor –
so long as the people have what they need when they enter such a cold economy.
A collective responsibility for needs won't produce golems, unless you believe the
psychology of 'unlimited wants' is incorrect, and people just want daily bread and shelter,
to live out their pointless lives and die.
Stealing tech – so you agree with knowledge monopolies then. It's not theft –
technology just filters through. What if nation A develops a touchscreen, sells it to the
world. You demand no one get curious and finds out how it works by themselves? Curiosity is a
key driver of human progress, denying that to people is denying them an aspect of their human
nature.. How communist! Look at Edison, he stole. Einstein, he plagiarised. Israel, they got
their nuclear program how? And the space programs got seeded how for the US and USSR?
You think the Chinese steal because they spend billions in US unis learning, then working
for US companies, then later take know how to China? You want to lobotomised them so they
can't or something? You should have treated them better. Same as the Russians. I got sent to
the UK at age 9, by west leaning liberal parents (who like Putin, but didn't like where
Russia was heading in the late 90s). They now regret that decision because of how the west
has acted on other nations. They would say the west betrayed its advertising, and that those
that leave for their birth lands do so out of disappointment at these nations. Sure some
spies, but that's a thing in itself. Most are leaving with their acquired knowledge because
of the risk of being interned like the Japanese in WWII.
"... Avaaz supported the establishment of a no-fly zone over Libya, which led to the military intervention in the country in 2011. It was criticized for its pro-intervention stance in the media and blogs. [17] ..."
"... Avaaz supported the civil uprising preceding the Syrian Civil War . This included sending $1.5 million of Internet communications equipment to protesters, and training activists. Later it used smuggling routes to send over $2 million of medical equipment into rebel-held areas of Syria. It also smuggled 34 international journalists into Syria. [10] [18] ..."
"... Yes, pilgrims, my professional deformation leads me to find pattern where there may be none. ..."
"... It would be logical for there to exist connective tissue that relates the Sorosistas, The Clintonistas, the media freaks, Tom Perez' DNC, ..."
"... And then, there is Neil Ferguson the British epidemiologist who sold #10 on the idea of a national lock-down that looks to destroy the UK economy and political system. Antonia Staats his married mistress is a major figure in AVAAZ. He broke curfew twice to get a little bit of that. Coincidence? ..."
"... Even a small amount of google searching suggests that Avaaz is simply another Zionist-funded pro-Israel controlled opposition cutout type of organization. Funded by Zionist George Soros. Main honcho Ricken Patel is associated with Zionist lobby group J Street. ..."
"... Per the commentary above, supported the regime change operation in Syria (a longstanding Zionist goal, refer to the Clean Break plan.) ..."
"... What pillow talk went on between AVAAZ agent Antonia Staats and her Imperial College of London paramour Neil Ferguson right before he briefed Trump/Pence on their corona "we are all gonna die" projections. ..."
"Avaaz claims to unite practical idealists from around the
world. [8] Director Ricken Patel
said in 2011, "We have no ideology per se. Our mission is to close the gap between the world we
have and the world most people everywhere want. Idealists of the world unite!" [12] In practice ,
Avaaz often supports causes considered progressive, such as calling for global action on climate change ,
challenging Monsanto, and building greater global support for refugees. [13][14][15]
Avaaz supported the civil uprising
preceding the Syrian Civil War . This included sending $1.5 million of Internet
communications equipment to protesters, and training activists. Later it used smuggling routes
to send over $2 million of medical equipment into rebel-held areas of Syria. It also smuggled
34 international journalists into Syria. [10][18] Avaaz
coordinated the evacuation of wounded British photographer Paul Conroy from Homs . Thirteen Syrian activists died
during the evacuation operation. [10][19]
Some senior members of other non-governmental organizations working in the Middle East have
criticized Avaaz for taking sides in a civil war. [16] As of November
2016, Avaaz continues campaigning for no-fly zones over Syria in general and specifically
Aleppo . (Gen. Dunford,
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff of the United States, has said that establishing a no-fly
zone means going to war against Syria and Russia. [20] ) It has received
criticism from parts of the political blogosphere and has a single digit percentage
of its users opposing the petitions, with a number of users ultimately leaving the network. The
Avaaz team responded to this criticism by issuing two statements defending their decision to
campaign. wiki
----------------
Yes, pilgrims, my professional deformation leads me to find pattern where there may be
none. BUT, OTOH, there may BE a pattern. It would be logical for there to exist
connective tissue that relates the Sorosistas, The Clintonistas, the media freaks, Tom Perez'
DNC, etc., etc., ad nauseam. ...
And then, there is Neil Ferguson the British epidemiologist who sold #10 on the idea of
a national lock-down that looks to destroy the UK economy and political system. Antonia Staats
his married mistress is a major figure in AVAAZ. He broke curfew twice to get a little bit of
that. Coincidence? pl
Even a small amount of google searching suggests that Avaaz is simply another
Zionist-funded pro-Israel controlled opposition cutout type of organization. Funded by
Zionist George Soros. Main honcho Ricken Patel is associated with Zionist lobby group J
Street.
Per the commentary above, supported the regime change operation in Syria (a
longstanding Zionist goal, refer to the Clean Break plan.)
Bottom line: not a leftist organization. Faux leftist, controlled opposition, Zionist.
Neocons are probably delighted with Avaaz.
It was a ground hog day nightmare when I read the AVAAZ website and found all the
"progressive" chestnuts, alive, well and kicking into high gear. This AVAAZ agenda fuels the
politics in my state, California, so I know each element well plus how each of of them has
failed us so badly. They all teeter on OPM, which the state wide corona shut down has
decimated.
What pillow talk went on between AVAAZ agent Antonia Staats and her Imperial College
of London paramour Neil Ferguson right before he briefed Trump/Pence on their corona "we are
all gonna die" projections.
It all happened so fast - from runs on toilet paper in Australia reported on March 2 to
global shutdown on March 16 due to this Imperial College model in just two weeks. Who and
what communication network was behind this radical global shift that generated virtually no
push back? The message quickly became one case of corona and we are all gonna die. How did
that find such a willing audience?
I keep hearing that same echo in my nightmares, never let a crisis go to waste - now with
this very distinct German accent on the face of a red-lipped blonde. Too weird to see this
AVAAZ "global" network is so darn interested in over-turning a US Supreme Court Citizens
United ruling - the old Hilary Clinton rallying cry. What is with that - they care in
Malaysia?
Thank you for sunshining this very curious operation and its all too familiar cast of
known characters lurking in its history, shadows, funding and leadership circle. Injecting
them with Lysol is the better plan.
It is one thing to sic Barr-Durham on US government operations, but who can even explore
let alone touch the world of global NGO's.
It does explain where a lot of the Bernie Sanders fervor comes from and how it sustains
this energy despite defeat in the US election polls. The AVAAZ agenda winning the hearts and
minds of many young people around the world. It will be their world to inherit, if they go
down this path; not ours. God speed to all of them. Namaste. Dahl and naan for everyone.
A little internet search also questions if AVAAZ is an intelligence community funded
operation, linking key Obama administration players.
Good indoor fun during our national lockdowns - track AVAAZ in all its permutations and
recurrent players. Samantha Powers and her hundreds of FISA unmasking requests comes to mind
as well as her role in the AVAAZ games played in Syria.
Some AVAAZ fodder from a random internet search: Tinfoil hat fun times - keep digging.
......."Curiously, however, the absence of routine information on the Avaaz website --
board of directors, contact information, etc. -- raises the possibility that the organization
is one of innumerable such groups created around the world by intelligence organizations with
secret funding to advance hidden agendas.
This was the gist of a 2012 column by Global Research columnist Susanne Posel, headlined
Avaaz: The Lobbyist that Masquerades as Online Activism. She alleged that Avaaz
purports to be a global avenue for dissent, but channels reform energies on the most
sensitive issues into such pro-U.S. positions as support for Israel and the Free Syrian
Army......."
"Who and what communication network ..." ... " but who can even explore let alone touch
the world of global NGO's."
Have you noticed how fast Project Veritas gets shut down, how Twitter, FB, etc silence any
effective opposition to the message of the left?
"It is one thing to sic Barr-Durham on US government operations,..."
Perhaps now that FlynnFlu is evaporating in the disinfecting sunlight some sunshine should be
applied to the H1B visa holders at the aformentioned social media companies and add in
Google, Bing, Oath etc. and see how many Communist operatives are there, in addition to
"essential employee" non-citizen lefty's pushing the anti-American propaganda. A dinner
invitation to Jeff Bezos and his paramore might provide some interesting conversation on just
who at Amazon might be involved in the same type of anti-western operations; compare their
corporate response to distribution operations in the US vs. France as an example. https://twitter.com/JamesOKeefeIII/status/1143127502895898625
Furthermore, observe the Google leadership team discussion of the 2016 elections.
https://www.breitbart.com/tech/2018/09/12/leaked-video-google-leaderships-dismayed-reaction-to-trump-election/
Minute 12:30 CFO Ruth Porat
Minute 27:00 Q&A Sergey Brin response on matching donations to employee causes.
Make sure to watch minute 52 on H1B visa holders. With 30,000,000 unemployed Americans just
how many of those visas does Google need now? (I don't recall any organization telling China
they need open borders immigration since thier hispanic/african/caucasian population
percentages are effectively zero, so we might wonder who has been behind that message for the
past few decades and why it is only directed at Western democracies).
And the inevitable campaign against "low information" voters and "fake news". I wonder what
their take on Russian election interference is now? (Russia cyber trolling! minute
54:44.)
56:20 The inevitable arc of "progress". Make sure you join the fight for Hilary's values.
That's the actual corporate leadership message. See the final round of applause at 1:01. Our
new overlords know best. Too bad they don't own a mirror, or an ability to reflect on why
someone can see the same data and come to a different conclusion of than these experts.
That's just a scratch on the surface. How much money flowed through the Clinton Global
Initiative, which NGOs got some cleansed proceeds, which elections were influenced,
professors and research sponsored, local communities "organzied". There's plenty to look at
and "Isreal, Soros, Zionists" are the least of it.
avaaz always struck me like some intel agency psyc op... maybe israel like the poster outrage
beyond implies.. either way - one could read stay away based on everything about them..
A friend of a friend is a research scientist at Imperial in biology, he is as lefty as they
get and I think would be happy to falsify his research to serve his political goals. Besides
Imperial is a hard science uni, UCL is top in the University of London for medicine.
Soros and his organisations should be made persona non grata, as the Russians and
Hungarians have. Extraordinary his influence in the EU, he has picked up where the Soviet
Union left off, funding every organisation that demoralises society, from gay rights to
immigration promotion to ethnic lobbies, even in Eastern European countries where there are
no minorities.
The one woman standing up to a pompous judge who has called her "selfish" for wanting to earn
the money it takes to feed her child is the heroine of this week's news.
Hers is the story of our Democratic Republic, born in the Age of Reason. Voltaire's
Candide comes to the best conclusion for the way our elected representatives should make
decisions: what works best to help INDIVIDUALS tend their own gardens is the form of
government we should pursue.
It's true that young people have hearts and good intentions, but older people in most
cases have brains and understand human nature better.
This older person--even when she was young--always distrusted a popular uprising or
growing movement.
And if Obama and Hillary are for it, I know I am against it. (That's a more specific life
lesson I've learned.)
"... What is often forgotten is that at the same time, the Soviet society was oppressive, the corrupt and geriatric CPSU ran everything and was mostly hated, the Russian people were afraid of the KGB and could not enjoy the freedoms folks in the US or Europe had. In truth, it was a mixed bag, but it is easy to remember only the good stuff. ..."
"... The core of this opposition is formed of Communists and Communist sympathizers who absolutely hate Putin for his (quite outspoken) anti-Communism. Let's call them "new Communists" or "Neo-Communists". And here is what makes them much more dangerous than the "liberal" opposition: the Neo-Communists are often absolutely right. ..."
"... Under Putin the Russian foreign policy has been such a success that even the Russian liberals, very reluctantly, admit that he did a pretty good job. However, the internal, many financial, policies of Russia have been a disaster. Just one example, the fact that the major Russian banks are bloated with their immense revenues, did not prevent millions of Russians from living in poverty and many hundreds of thousands of Russian small/family businesses of going under due to the very high interest rates. ..."
"... First, Russia has been in a state of war against the US+EU+NATO since at least 2015. Yes, this war is 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic. But it is a very real war nonetheless. ..."
"... The Neo-Communist Russian opposition steadfastly pretends like there is no war, like all the losses (economic and human) are only the result of corruption and incompetence. They forget that during the last war between Russia and the "United West" German tanks were at the outskirts of Moscow. ..."
"... if Putin decided to follow the advice of, say, Glaziev and his supporters, the Russian bankers would react with a "total war" against Putin. ..."
"... If you study Russian history, you will soon realize that Russia did superbly with military enemies, did very averagely with diplomatic efforts (which often negated military victories) and did terribly with what we could call the "internal opposition". ..."
"... I have always, and still do, consider that the real danger for Putin and those who share his views is the internal, often "insider", opposition in Russia. They were always the ones to present the biggest threat to any Russian ruler, from the Czars to Stalin. ..."
"... This new Neo-Communist 6th column is, however, a much more dangerous threat to the future of Russia than the pro-western 5th columnists. Some of their tactics are extremely devious. For example, one of the things you hear most often from these folks is this: "unless Putin does X, Y or Z, there is a risk of a bloody revolution". ..."
"... "Too often in our history we have seen that instead of an opposition to the government we are confronted with an opposition to Russia herself. And we know how this ends: with the destruction of the state as such". ..."
"... Now, if you think as a true patriot of Russia, you have to realize that Russia suffered from not one, but two, truly horrible revolutions: in 1917 and 1991. In each case the consequences of these revolutions (irrespective of how justified they might have appeared at the time) were absolutely horrible: both in 1917 and in 1991 Russia almost completely vanished as a country, and millions suffered terribly. I now hold is as axiomatic that nothing would be worse for Russia than *any* revolution, no matter what ideology feeds it or how bad the "regime in power" might appear to be. ..."
"... These Neo-Communists would very much disagree with me. They "warn" about a revolution, while in reality trying to create the conditions for one. ..."
"... There is a very vocal internal opposition to Putin in Russia which is most unlikely to ever get real popular support, but which could possibly unite enough of the nostalgics of the Soviet era to create a real crisis. This internal opposition clearly and objectively weakens the authority/reputation of Putin, which has been main goal of the western "alphabet soup" ever since Putin came to power. ..."
"... This internal opposition, being mostly nostalgics of the Soviet era, will get no official support from the West, but it will enjoy a maximal covert support from the western "alphabet soup". ..."
"... Finally, this Neo-Communist opposition will never seize power, but it might create a very real internal political crisis which will very much weaken Putin and the Eurasian Sovereignists. ..."
"... The bottom line is this: Putin represents something very unique and very precious: he is a true Russian patriot, but he is not one nostalgic for the days of the Soviet Union. Right now, he is the only (or one of very few) Russian politician which can claim this quality. He needs to preempt the crisis which the Neo-Communists could trigger not by silencing them, but by realizing that on some issues the Russian people do, in fact, agree with them (even if they are not willing to call for a revolution). ..."
"... That poll showing Putin on top of everybody else, tells me that he is the Single-Point-Failure. If he croaks, so does Russia. Very much like Jesus, or Nicholas the II, or Gorbachov, before him -- all obrazovanshchiki, educated past the point of their intelligence level ..."
For those of us who followed the Russian Internet there is a highly visible phenomenon
taking place which is quite startling: there are a lot of anti-Putin videos posted on YouTube
or its Russian equivalents. Not only that, but a flurry of channels has recently appeared which
seem to have made bashing Putin or Mishustin their full-time job. Of course, there have always
been anti-Putin and anti-Medvedev videos in the past, but what makes this new wave so different
from the old one is that they attack Putin and Mishustin not from pro-Western positions, but
from putatively Russian patriotic positions. Even the supposed (not true) "personal advisor" to
Putin and national-Bolshevik (true), Alexander Dugin has joined that movement (see
here if you understand
Russian).
This is a new, interesting and complex phenomenon, and I will try to unpack it here.
First, we have to remember that Putin was extremely successful at destroying the pro-Western
opposition which, while shown on a daily basis on Russian TV, represents something in the 3-5%
of the people at most. You might ask why they are so frequent on TV, and the reason is simple:
the more they talk, the more they are hated.
So far from silencing the opposition, the Kremlin not only gives it air time, it even pays
opposition figures top dollars to participate in the most popular talk shows. See here and
here for
more details
Truly, the reputation of the pro-Western "liberal" (in the Russian sense) opposition is now
roadkill in Russia. Yes, there is a core of Russophobic Russians who hate Russia with a passion
(they refer to it as "Rashka") and their hatred for everything Russian is so obvious that they
are universally despised all over the country (the one big exception being Moscow where there
is a much stronger "liberal" opposition which gets the support of all those who had a great
time pillaging Russia in the 1990s and who now hate Putin for putting an end to their
malfeasance).
As for the Duma opposition, it is an opposition only in name. They make noises, they bitch
here and there, they condemn this or that, but at the end of the day, they will not represent a
credible opposition at all.
The chart is in Russian, but it is also extremely simple to understand. On the Y axis, you
see the percentage of people who "totally trust" and "mostly trust" the six politicians, in
order: Putin, Mishustin, Zhirinovskii, Ziuganov, Mironov and Medvedev. The the X axis you see
the time frame going from July 2019 to April 2020.
The only thing which really matters is this: in spite all the objective and subjective
problems of Russia, in spite of a widely unpopular pension reform, in spite of all the western
sanctions and in spite of the pandemic, Putin still sits alone in a rock-solid position: he has
the overwhelming support of the Russian people. This single cause pretty much explains
everything else I will be talking about today.
As most of you probably remember, there were already several waves of anti-Putin PSYOPS in
the past, but they all failed for very simple reasons:
Most Russians remember the horrors of
the 1990s when the pro-Western "liberals" were in power. Second, the Russian people could
observe how the West put bona fide rabidly russophobic Nazis in power in Kiev.
The liberals expressed a great deal of sympathy for the Ukronazi regime. Few Russians doubt
that if the pro-western "liberals" got to power, they would turn Russia into something very
similar to today's Ukraine. Next, the Russians could follow, day after day, how the Ukraine
imploded, went through a bloody civil war, underwent a almost total de-industrialization and
ended up with a real buffoon as President (Zelenskii just appointed, I kid you not, Saakashvili
as Vice Prime Minister of the Ukraine, that is all you need to know to get the full measure of
what kind of clueless imbecile Zelenskii is!). Not only do the liberals blame Russia for what
happened to this poor country, they openly support Zelenskii. Most (all?) of the pro-western
"NGO" (I put that in quotation marks, because these putatively non-governmental organization
were entirely financed by western governments, mostly US and UK) were legally forced to reveal
their sources of financing and most of them got listed as "foreign agents". Others were simply
kicked out of Russia. Thus, it became impossible for the AngloZionists to trigger what appeared
to be "mass protests" under these condition. There is a solid "anti-Maidan" movement in Russia
(including in Moscow!) which is ready to "pounce" (politically) in case of any Maidan-like
movement in Russia. I strongly suspect that the FSB has a warm if unofficial collaboration with
them. The Russian internal security services (FSB, FSO, National Guard, etc.) saw a major
revival under Putin and they are now not only more powerful than in the past, but also much
better organized to deal with subversion. As for the armed forces are solidly behind Putin and
Shoigu. While in the 1990s Russia was basically defenseless, Russia today is a very tough nut
to crack for western subversion/PSYOP operations. Last, but not least, the Russian liberals are
so obviously from the class Alexander Solzhenitsyn referred to as " obrazovanshchina ", a word hard to
translate but which roughly means "pretend [to be] educated": these folks have always
considered themselves very superior to the vast majority of the Russian people and they simply
cannot hide their contempt for the "common man" (very similar to Hillary's "deporables"). The
common man fully realizes that and, quite logically, profoundly distrusts and even hates
"liberals".
There came a moment when the western curators of the Russian 5th column realized that
calling Putin names in the western press, or publicly accusing him of being a "bloody despot"
and a "KGB killer" might work with the gullible and brainwashed western audience, but it got
absolutely no traction whatsoever in Russia.
And then, somebody, somewhere (I don't know who, or where) came up with an truly brilliant
idea: accusing Putin of not being a patriot and declare that he is a puppet in the hands of the
AngloZionist Empire. This was nothing short of brilliant, I have to admit that.
First, they tried to sell the idea that Putin was about to "sell out" (or "trade")
Novorussia. One theory was that Russia would stand by and let the Ukronazis invade Novorussia.
Another one was that the US and Russia would make a secret deal and "give" Syria to Putin, if
he "gave" Novorussia to the Empire. Alternatively, there was the version that Russia would
"give" Syria to Trump and he would "give" Novorussia to Putin. The actual narrative does not
matter. What matters, A LOT, is that Putin was not presented as the "new Hitler" who would
invade Poland and the Baltics, who would poison the Skripals, who would hack DNC servers and
"put Trump into power". These plain stupid fairy tales had not credibility in Russia. But Putin
"selling out" Novorussia was much more credible, especially after it was clear that Russia did
not allow the DNR/LNR forces to seize Mariupol.
I remain convinced that this was the correct decision. Why? Because had the DNR/LNR forces
entered Mariupol their critical supply lines would have been cut off by an envelopment maneuver
by the Ukrainian forces. Yes, the DNR/LNR forces did have the power needed to take Mariupol,
but then they would end up surrounded by Ukronazi forces in a "cauldron/siege" kind of
situation which would then have forced Russia to openly intervene to either support these
forces. That was a no brainer in military terms, but in political terms this would have been a
disaster for Russia and a dream come true to the AngloZionists who could (finally!) "prove"
that Russia was involved all along. The folks in the Russian General Staff are clearly much
smarter than the couch-generals which were accusing Russia of treason for now letting Mariupol
be liberated.
Eventually, both the "sellout Syria" and the "sellout Novorussia" narratives lost their
traction and the PSYOPS specialists in the West tried another good one: Putin became the
obedient servant of Israel and, personally, Netanyahu. The arguments were very similar: Putin
did not allow Syrians (or Russians) to shoot down Israeli aircraft over the Mediterranean or
Lebanon, Putin did not use the famous S-400 to protect Syrian targets from Israeli strikes, and
Putin did not land an airborne division in Syria to deal with the Takfiris. And nevermind here
the fact that the officially declared Russian objectives in Syria were only to " stabilize the
legitimate authority and create conditions for a political compromise " (see here for
details). The simple truth is that Putin never said that he would liberate each square meter of
Syrian land from the Takfiris nor did he promise to defend Syria against Israel!
Still, for a while the Internet was inundated with articles claiming that Putin and
Netanyahu were closely coordinating their every step and that Putin was Israel's chum.
Eventually, this canard also lost a lot of credibility. After all, most folks are smart
enough to realize that if Putin wanted to help Israel, all he had to do is well exactly
*nothing*: the Takfiris would take Damascus and it would be "game over" for a civilized Syria
and the Israelis would have a perfect pretext to intervene.
As I have already mentioned in
a past article , these were the original Israeli goals for Syria:
Bring down a
strong secular Arab state along with its political structure, armed forces and security
services. Create total chaos and horror in Syria justifying the creation of a "security zone"
by Israel not only in the Golan, but further north. Trigger a civil war in Lebanon by
unleashing the Takfiri crazies against Hezbollah. Let the Takfiris and Hezbollah bleed each
other to death, then create a "security zone", but this time in Lebanon. Prevent the creation
of a Shia axis Iran-Iraq-Syria-Lebanon. Breakup Syria along ethnic and religious lines. Create
a Kurdistan which could then be used against Turkey, Syria, Iraq and Iran. Make it possible for
Israel to become the uncontested power broker in the Middle-East and forces the KSA, Qatar,
Oman, Kuwait and all others to have to go to Israel for any gas or oil pipeline project.
Gradually isolate, threaten, subvert and eventually attack Iran with a wide regional coalition
of forces. Eliminate all center of Shia power in the Middle-East.
It is quite easy nowadays to prove the two following theses: 1) Israel dismally failed to
achieve ANY of the above set goals and 2) the Russian intervention is the one single most
important factor which prevented Israel from achieving these goals (the 2nd most important one
was the heroic support given by Iran and Hezbollah who, quite literally, "saved the day",
especially during the early phases of the Russian intervention. Only an ignorant or dishonest
person could seriously claim that Russia and Israel are working together when Russia, in
reality, completely defeated Israel in Syria.
Still, while the first PSYOP (Putin the new Hitler) failed, and while the second PSYOP
(Putin the sellout) also failed, the PSYOP specialists in the West came up with a much more
potentially dangerous and effective PSYOP operation.
But first, they did something truly brilliant: they realized that their best allies in
Russia would not be the (frankly, clueless) "liberals" but that they would find a much more
powerful "ally" in those nostalgic of the Soviet Union. This I have to explain in some
detail.
First, there is one thing human psychology which I have observed all my life: we tend to
remember the good and forget the bad. Today, most of what I remember from boot-camp (and even
"survival week") sounds like fun times. The truth is that while in boot camp I hated almost
every day. In a similar way, a lot of Russian have developed a kind of nostalgia for the Soviet
era. I can understand that. After all, during the 50s the USSR achieved a truly miraculous
rebirth, then in the 60s and 70s there were a lot of true triumphs. Finally, even in the hated
80s the USSR did achieve absolutely spectacular things (in science, technology, etc.). This is
all true. What is often forgotten is that at the same time, the Soviet society was
oppressive, the corrupt and geriatric CPSU ran everything and was mostly hated, the Russian
people were afraid of the KGB and could not enjoy the freedoms folks in the US or Europe had.
In truth, it was a mixed bag, but it is easy to remember only the good stuff.
Furthermore, a lot of folks who had high positions during the Soviet era did lose it all.
And now that Russia is objectively undergoing various difficult trials, these folks have
"smelled blood" and they clearly hope that by some miracle Putin will be overthrown. He won't,
if only for the following very basic reasons:
The kind of state apparatus which protects
Putin today can easily deal with this new, pseudo (I will explain below why I say "pseudo")
patriotic opposition. In the ranks of this opposition there is absolutely no credible leader
(remember the chart above!) This opposition mostly complains, but offers no real solutions.
The core of this opposition is formed of Communists and Communist sympathizers who
absolutely hate Putin for his (quite outspoken) anti-Communism. Let's call them "new
Communists" or "Neo-Communists". And here is what makes them much more dangerous than the
"liberal" opposition: the Neo-Communists are often absolutely right.
The (in my opinion) sad reality is that, for all his immense qualities, Putin is indeed a
liberal, at least an economic sense. This manifests itself in two very different ways:
Putin
has still not removed all of the 5th columnists (aka "Atlantic Integrationists" aka "Washington
consensus" types) from power. Yes, he did ditch Medvedev, but others (Nabiulina, Siluanov,
etc.) are still there. Putin inherited a very bad system where almost all they key actors were
5th columnists. Not just a few (in)famous individuals, but an entire CLASS (in a Marxist sense
of the term) of people who hate anything "social" and who support "liberal" ideas just so they
can fill their pockets.
Here is the paradox: the USSR died in 1991-1993, Putin is an anti-Communist, but there STILL
is a (Soviet-style) Nomenklatura in Russia, except for now
they are often referred to as "oligarchs" (which is incorrect because, say, the Ukrainian
oligarch truly decide the fate of the nation whereas this new Russian Nomenklatura
does not decide the fate of Russia as a whole, but they have a major influence in the financial
sector, which is what they care mostly about).
So we have something of a, maybe not quite "perfect", but still very dangerous storm looming
over Russia. How? Consider this:
Under Putin the Russian foreign policy has been such a success that even the Russian
liberals, very reluctantly, admit that he did a pretty good job. However, the internal, many
financial, policies of Russia have been a disaster. Just one example, the fact that the major
Russian banks are bloated with their immense revenues, did not prevent millions of Russians
from living in poverty and many hundreds of thousands of Russian small/family businesses of
going under due to the very high interest rates.
One key problem in Russia is that both the Central Bank and the major commercial banks only
care about their profits. What Russia truly needs is a state-owed DEVELOPMENT bank whose goal
would not be millions and billions for the few, but making it possible for the creativity of
the Russian people to truly blossom. Today, we see the exact opposite in Russia.
So what is my beef with this social ( if not quite "Socialist") opposition?
They are so focused on their narrow complaints that they completely miss the big picture.
Let me explain.
First, Russia has been in a state of war against the US+EU+NATO since at least 2015.
Yes, this war is 80% informational, 15% economic and only 5% kinetic. But it is a very real war
nonetheless. The key characteristic of a real war is that victory is only achieved by one
side, the other is fully defeated. Which means that the war between the AngloZionist Empire is
an existential one: one party will win and survive, the other one will disappear and will be
replaced with a qualitatively new polity/society. The Neo-Communist Russian opposition
steadfastly pretends like there is no war, like all the losses (economic and human) are only
the result of corruption and incompetence. They forget that during the last war between Russia
and the "United West" German tanks were at the outskirts of Moscow.
Well, of course they know that. But they pretend not to. And this is why I think of them as
the 6th column (as opposed to the 5th, openly "liberal" and pro-Western one).
Second, while this opposition is, in my opinion, absolutely correct in deploring Putin's
apparent belief that following the advice of what I would call "IMF types" is safer than
following recommendations of what could be loosely called "opposition economists" (here I think
of Glaziev, whose views I personally fully support), they fail to realize the risks involved in
crushing the "IMF types". The sad truth is that Russian banks are very powerful and that in
many ways, the state cannot afford totally alienating them. Right now the banks support Putin
only because he supports them. But if Putin decided to follow the advice of, say, Glaziev
and his supporters, the Russian bankers would react with a "total war" against Putin.
If you study Russian history, you will soon realize that Russia did superbly with
military enemies, did very averagely with diplomatic efforts (which often negated military
victories) and did terribly with what we could call the "internal opposition".
So let me repeat it here: I do not consider NATO or the US as credible military threats to
Russia, unless they decide to use nuclear weapons, at which point both Russia and the West
would suffer terribly. But even in this scenario, Russia would prevail (Russia has a 10-15 year
advantage against the US in both civilian and military nuclear technologies and the Russian
society is far more survivable one -- if this topic is of interest to you, just read Dmitry
Orlov's books who explains it all better than I ever could). I have always, and still do,
consider that the real danger for Putin and those who share his views is the internal, often
"insider", opposition in Russia. They were always the ones to present the biggest threat to any
Russian ruler, from the Czars to Stalin.
This new Neo-Communist 6th column is, however, a much more dangerous threat to the
future of Russia than the pro-western 5th columnists. Some of their tactics are extremely
devious. For example, one of the things you hear most often from these folks is this: "unless
Putin does X, Y or Z, there is a risk of a bloody revolution". Having listened to many
tens of their videos, I can tell you with total security that far from fearing a bloody
revolution, these folks in reality dream of such a revolution.
"Too often in our history
we have seen that instead of an opposition to the government we are confronted with an
opposition to Russia herself. And we know how this ends: with the destruction of the state as
such".
Now, if you think as a true patriot of Russia, you have to realize that Russia suffered
from not one, but two, truly horrible revolutions: in 1917 and 1991. In each case the
consequences of these revolutions (irrespective of how justified they might have appeared at
the time) were absolutely horrible: both in 1917 and in 1991 Russia almost completely vanished
as a country, and millions suffered terribly. I now hold is as axiomatic that nothing would be
worse for Russia than *any* revolution, no matter what ideology feeds it or how bad the "regime
in power" might appear to be.
Putin is acutely aware of that (see image).
These Neo-Communists would very much disagree with me. They "warn" about a revolution,
while in reality trying to create the conditions for one.
Now let me be clear: I am absolutely convinced that NO revolution (Neo-Communist or other)
is possible in Russia. More accurately, while I do believe that an attempt for a revolution
could happen, I believe that any coup/revolution against Putin is bound to fail. Why? The
graphic above.
Even if by some (horrible) miracle, it was possible to defeat/neutralize the combined power
of the FSB+FSO+National Guard+Armed forces (which I find impossible), this "success" would be
limited to Moscow or, at most, the Moscow Oblast. Beyond that it is all "Putin territory". In
terms of firepower, the Moscow Oblast has a lot of first-rate units, but it does not even come
close to what the "rest of Russia" could engage (just the 58th Army in the south would be
unstoppable). But even that is not truly crucial. The truly crucial thing following any
coup/revolution would be the 70%+ of Russian people who, for the first time in centuries, truly
believe that Putin stands for their interest and that he is "their man". These people will
never accept any illegal attempt to remove Putin from power. That is the key reason why no
successful revolution is currently possible in Russia.
But while any revolution/coup would be bound to fail, it could very much result in a
bloodbath way bigger than what happened in 1993 (where the military was mostly not engaged in
the events).
Now lets add it all up.
There is a very vocal internal opposition to Putin in Russia which is most unlikely to
ever get real popular support, but which could possibly unite enough of the nostalgics of the
Soviet era to create a real crisis. This internal opposition clearly and objectively weakens
the authority/reputation of Putin, which has been main goal of the western "alphabet soup" ever
since Putin came to power.
This internal opposition, being mostly nostalgics of the Soviet era, will get no
official support from the West, but it will enjoy a maximal covert support from the western
"alphabet soup".
Finally, this Neo-Communist opposition will never seize power, but it might create a
very real internal political crisis which will very much weaken Putin and the Eurasian
Sovereignists.
So what is the solution?
Putin needs to preempt any civil unrest. Removing Medvedev and replacing him by Mishustin
was the correct move, but it was also too little too late. Frankly, I believe that it is high
time for Putin to finally openly break with the "Washington consensus types" and listen to
Glaziev who, at least, is no Communist.
Russia has always been a collectivistic society, and she needs to stop apologizing (even
just mentally) for this. Instead, she should openly and fully embrace her collectivistic
culture and traditions and show the "Washington consensus" types to the door.
Yes, the Moscow elites will be furious, but it is also high time to tell these folks that
they don't own Russia, and that while they could make a killing prostituting themselves to the
Empire, most Russian don't want to do that.
The bottom line is this: Putin represents something very unique and very precious: he is
a true Russian patriot, but he is not one nostalgic for the days of the Soviet Union. Right
now, he is the only (or one of very few) Russian politician which can claim this quality. He
needs to preempt the crisis which the Neo-Communists could trigger not by silencing them, but
by realizing that on some issues the Russian people do, in fact, agree with them (even if they
are not willing to call for a revolution).
Does that sound complicated or even convoluted? If it does, it is because it is. But for all
the nuances we can discern a bottom line: it is not worth prevailing (or even failing) if that
weakens/threatens Russia. Right now, the Neo-Communist opposition is, objectively, a threat to
the stability and prosperity of Russia. That does NOT, however, mean that these folks are
always wrong. They often are spot on, 100% correct.
Putin needs to prove them wrong by listening to them and do the right thing.
Difficult? Yes. Doable? Yes. Therefore he has to do it.
Russia needs to be strong for the sake of global civilization, human decency, religious
freedom, etc, not only for her own good. going back to communism and Godlessness should be
unthinkable. nor should we sell our souls for 30 kopeks of silver to become the dumping
ground for western filth and surplus.
Russia has the unique position, the space and resources, an intelligent population, Orthodox
tradition to show mankind that a decent, safe, compassionate, sound existence is
possible.
although great leaders are a gift from Above, the state also should make every effort to
identify and prepare Putin's successor while strengthening the institutions so that the
people will perceive them as their own and will not be tempted to support revolutionary
radicals again.
First of all, Russian electorate have much better sources and the grasp of the international
political scene than the American media's self-centered pseudo-trues.
Putin's obvious pros:
-Reclaimed Russian crucial energy industry from the pillaging by
Yeltsin oligarchs. Now babysat by the UK and Israel. -Russian voters' motto: "We vote for a
leader that is most criticized and slandered by our enemies and adversaries. Vote almost
never for their selected puppet a la Kasparov." -Putin's brilliant move to reclaimed Crimea
-- administratively attached to Ukraine in 1954 by a communist dictate after being centuries
part of Russia -- by a democratic mean. -Western sanctions are viewed by the Russian
electorate as a declaration of the "enemy status". Furthermore, they are also viewed as a
sinister attempt to slow down the Russian economic progress. -NATO backstabbing expansion to
Russian border. Continuation of Western military encircling Russia -- US military in Poland.
-Opposing Western clumsy interference in Ukraine or in Georgia. Liberating S. Ossetia from
the Georgia's lunatic who is now Ukraine deputy prime minister.
I have always seen Putin as a late, reluctant, and often only partially effective reacter to
a crisis, never someone who proactively acts to defuse one before it gets bad. I will repeat
what I've said many, many times: in 2014 Putin could have sent two battalions of Spetsnaz
into Kiev, routed the Ukranazi coup regime, reinstated Yanukovych, and withdrawn with the
warning that if there was ever again any attempt to stage another Maidan Russian troops would
be back and this time to stay. Instead he got Russia blamed for an invasion he should have
but did not carry out, and consequently sanctions that are still in effect to this day, not
to speak of a NATO proxy thrust against the Russian heartland. (That Russia needed the
sanctions and that they were good for Russia is another thing entirely; it isn't as though
Putin planned them to turn out like that.)
In Syria in 2015 Putin waited until the government was in desperate straits -- similar to
the final stages of the Libyan government forces' collapse in 2011 as Obama's terrorists
advanced on Tripoli -- before sending in small commando detachments and the air force. And
even then the failure to defend Syria, an ally of Russia, which has given Russia bases,
against zionazi bombing is inexcusable. For one thing it cost Russia a valuable
reconnaissance plane with priceless trained crew, after which Putin first rushed to absolve
Nazinyahu of blame before even calling the crew's families. For another the refusal to use
the S 400 merely gives the Amerikastanis an excuse to portray the S 400s as hyped,
ineffective weapons Russia does not dare to actually use. How is showing Putin's obvious
affinity to the zionazi pseudostate "anti Russian" in any way? It's the absolute and obvious
truth, from Putin's own record.
This is also why Putin will do nothing about the capitalist leeches still sucking Russia
dry (many of whom are zionazi citizens); he will have to be forced into it and then will try
to get away with cosmetic measures, leaving as much undone as he possibly can. That he has
not already eliminated the oligarchy is proof enough of that. No amount of Saker excuses is
enough to hide the fact; what could the banks do to harm Putin, given the popularity the
Saker keeps touting? You'll see that the Saker is very careful not to say anything about what
they could, he just says that they could. You'd almost think he just made it up.
I agree about the Moscow "liberals"; I met a few of them and they're always smartly
dressed, fluent in English -- with an inevitable American accent -- and they hate Russia more
than anything. I recall meeting a couple in this town in late 2014 or early 2015. I remember
saying that I support Russia's help to the Donbass freedom fighters. The woman's eyes went
round. "But why? This is a great burden for Russia, none of our business, we should never
have got involved " There is an excellent argument for shifting the capital from Moscow back
to St Petersburg, or, if that's too strategically vulnerable, to Volgograd or some other city
in the Russian interior.
By the way, as one of the "neo communists", as the Saker dismissively calls us -- in an
obvious effort to conflate us with the neo-nazis -- let me ask a question: let's suppose
everything the Saker says is correct. Well, then, is Putin immortal? No? So what happens when
he dies or retires? Who will take over? Will the "pro-Putin population" switch its loyalty to
a replacement from Putin's party, given that most of them are so despised that United Russia
keeps losing local elections from Moscow to Vladivostok? If not, what happens but either a
total change of course or .a bloody revolution?
I can certainly say that there are people in United Russia who quite openly work for the West
and push for western liberal projects in Russia, as well as attack patriotic forces.
What kind of joke is that to have people like this in the so called ruling party and in
various Duma comitees? Why is this even allowed? Why are they still there?
Russia needs a depositor credit union type local banking system. Only the local depositors
would own the bank. The bank's functioning management would be controlled by the
owners/depositors. One depositor -- one vote.
These banks would make loans only to local businesses and homeowners. They would have
nothing to do with Moscow. They would build honesty and stability.
That poll showing Putin on top of everybody else, tells me that he is the
Single-Point-Failure. If he croaks, so does Russia. Very much like Jesus, or Nicholas the II,
or Gorbachov, before him -- all obrazovanshchiki, educated past the point of their
intelligence level . The jerk already swallowed the virus-thing, hook and sinker. He's
gonna be reeled-in in no time.
As a citizen of one of the top ten nations on our Earth (US) -- I believe that Putin is the
savviest, most stable conscientious foreign policy leader of the lot.
He handled both the Ukraine and Syria without getting into all out wars. Both a
considerable achievement, considering Jews played major antagonistic roles in both
confrontations.
@Fiendly
Neighbourhood Terrorist He should have annexed East Ukraine with 12 mil Russians and its
historical Russian cities. When McCain and Biden's puppets were installed in Kiev they banned
the Russian language -- that was the right time to act and killings would have been avoided.
Russia and China deeply underestimate the extent and determination of the US and toadies to
have in place well funded campaigns to blacken those countries names, reputations and
standing. It's awful listening to Chinese or Russian officials making ritual formal protests.
And then doing nothing. Letting their country be undermined and infiltrated, allowing the
minds of the public elsewhere be poisoned. This is how the Colour Revolutions get their
traction.
It's the continual, weak, feeble and inept lack of action by Russia and China against the
western engines of smear. And this state of affairs seriously disheartens their allies and
supporters. Please stop being too reasonable, find your backbone and righteousness and FIGHT!
For Pete's sake.
@Passer
by Sad to say that Putin should have done more internally.
Saker 's point about a national bank is telling. Russia's Central Bank should have it's
neoliberals attrited. Russia's Anglo-zionists should have also been quietly & invisibly
defanged & sent into "outer-space". More actions against NGO's need to also be taken.
A nation in Russia's precarious position re: the West, can afford only so much internal
treachery .
This is not to suggest any of this would be easy. However, Putin has had & still has
considerable popular support -- political Capital capable of being used to take risky but
"right" reforms.
I'm an American living in Moscow for the last 5 years. I've also had the special privilege to
earn a masters degree in politics and economics at the Ministry of Foreign Affair's
university, MGIMO. I can say, as someone who has viewed this situation here from virtually
every angle possible as a foreigner; "Putin" has done nothing good for Russia domestically
that has not been an unplanned side effect of sanctions. And don't get me wrong, the
sanctions were the best thing that could have happened here. But all the official pro-Russia
grandstanding on the international stage aside, there are endless news stories of Russia
lobbying for readmission to the club, pleading with the US to cooperate and a return to the
status-quo. The people who make the policy here and run the institutions are all holdovers
from the 90's. Their overarching concern is that Russia -- ie the elites themselves -- are
"treated with respect" by the Western plutocracy.
But what has changed here since 2014? An explosion in traffic cameras and fines, more
restrictions (prescriptions and bans) on medicines, inflation, reforms (attacks) in pensions
and healthcare, skyrocketing housing costs and an simmering education crisis from preschool
to university where money increasingly buys limited space over need or merit. Now like a
rotten cherry on top, there is this quarantine which seems arbitrary except when you realize
the whole police force has been turned against the citizens to check QR code passes. Who is
deemed essential is also arbitrary and favors the government while bankrupting everyone else.
Gasterbyters, the backbone of the economy, are literally destitute. Russians also dislike
seeing the government luxuriously spend resources in the form of political-point scoring
coronavirus aid to the US and Italy, and then abruptly flip-flopping on the severity of the
pandemic at home. On tv its is Corona Vision 24/7 here, while families with small children
are forced out of work and cramped into tiny apartments in ugly neighborhoods, forbidden to
walk more than 10 meters from their door, their money and sanity running out. Russians who
are able, flout the quarantine at every opportunity, more concerned about being harassed by
police than getting sick.
There is a lot more I could say, but I will leave it at on this note; This new wave of
disillusionment is not coming from the West. The West has virtually no direct influence here
anymore. This is all homegrown.
Although I have admired President Putin for many years now, I have never agreed with his
economic policies. It was sad to read that he fired S. Glazyev as an adviser. When will
President Putin see that following western style economic policies is a tragedy waiting to
happen for Russia. As is happening now to most of the western countries, especially the US
and EU.
@Fiendly
Neighbourhood Terrorist Its a great mystery to me why Putin released Mikhail
Khodorkovsky. Maybe there was a good reason. No clue, it just seems odd especially when you
realize this freed oligarch was the power behind Browder's Magnitzky Act.
'Remembering only the good and forgetting the bad' is what every bad ruler, every bad
culture, demands of those it misleads.
The Anglo-Zionist Empire has been the master of that con game for its entire existence,
back to the start of English Reformation. Bolsheviks were clumsy brutes compared to
Anglo-Zionists even in their early days when they lacked sophistication and finesse.
Apr 19, 2020 US corporate takeover -- Biden 2020 Today, the U.S is living through a power
grab by lobbyists and moneyed interests in government -- the way Russia did after the Soviet
collapse of the 1990s.
Apr 2, 2020 Putin reveals KEY to political success: the poor man
Which is the bigger political influence on President Putin? Multinational corporations,
filthy rich oligarchs or financial institutions? He asserts -- it is the sentiment of 'the
common man' that is responsible for his popularity and long-standing political career.
Mar 12, 2020 Putin: The US Made A Colony Out Of Ukraine But They Want It Sustained By
Russian Money!
The 20 Questions with Vladimir Putin project is an interview with the President of Russia
on the most topical subjects of social and political life in Russia and the world.
I am afraid I'm going to have to disagree with you Saker on this issue. I just can't see how
a communist can be a traitor to their country. Some of the biggest patriots ever produced in
history have been communists. Not just in Russia, but in other countries like North Korea,
Vietnam, Cuba, China. They are willing to do anything for their country. Same thing with
modern communists, I don't see them betraying their country for personal gain.
My theory is like this: Patriotism is different in Capitalist countries (or as they like
to call themselves democracies) than in Communist countries. First of all, Capitalism has 2
types of elites -- real ones and political elites -- who are nothing more than domestic
servants, in other words nobodies. Communism usually has only one type of elites --
political. They are the only game in town.
I know that they ascribed terms such as cult of personalities to Communist leaders, but
the real megalomaniacs and narcissists can really be found among the 2 types of capitalist
elites. Those are the one that are really in love with themselves.
So how does patriotism work in communism vs. capitalism? Well, for one thing, patriotism
means love for one's country. As we all know, a country is a collection of dead rocks,
(hopefully) some arable land, few mountains and so on. Basically a country usually needs a
spokesperson. That's where the elites come in. They are the spokespersons for the needs of
the country.
I believe that communist elites are more honest spokespersons than capitalist ones. Why?
Well for one thing all communist elites were usually 1st generation elites, meaning they were
new on the job and they didn't have the span of few generations time to degenerate like the
capitalist elites. Communist elites for the most could still remember the time when they were
not elites but very ordinary people -- except maybe now the Kim dynasty in North Korea which
is in its 3rd generation of dynastic cycle.
But still, the flow of patriotism is very similar in both "communist" and capitalist
countries. Patriotism flows from the poor dumbos to the rich and powerful elites -- whether
they are political or economic elites. Patriotism whose intended recipient is the fatherland
always gets intercepted by the elites and then processed.
Basically, what that means is that when an ordinary person expresses love and affection
for their country -- it's usually ends up being manifested as love and affection for their
elites.
Remember, a country is just a pile of rocks and some other geological features, -- doesn't
know how to process affection from patriots. But the elites do, and they are the usual
beneficiaries of patriotism.
If love for your country is always a love for the elites, why do the stupid always fall
for the same trick? Well, I guess there are not too many options left, one of them being a
traitor. Still, I believe that communist elites were more honest brokers and managers of
patriotic love, because the managed to pass more of the patriotism to its intended target --
the homeland, than it was ever case with capitalist elites.
Sure, Stalin had few dachas and property that he would have been hard-pressed to explain
how he earned, but it was nothing compared to the spoils from patriotism that elites in
capitalism receive as a payout for being spokespersons for the needs of their countries.
I just don't see a communist doing something with personal benefit in mind first, and
putting the well-being of their country as a second consideration. It usually doesn't happen,
and hopefully the new generation of communists in Russia will keep up with that
tradition.
@Cyrano
Because he is one of those chronic complainers. We dont want him here because he will change
the words "Russia" and "Moscow" in his comment to "USA and Washington" and just reprint the
comment again. That comrade is all puffed up, no pun intended, with his dialogue.
@jbwilson24
I know what you mean, but you are splitting hairs -- a supremacist is a supremacist is a
supremacist. German supremacist, Anglo-Saxon supremacist, Jewish supremacist -- it all leads
to the same result.
Ukraine is dominated by supremacists. That all of Jewish supremacy, Nationalist Socialist
supremacy (the rank parts of the ideology mind you), ISIS, find themselves working and
cooperating in a historically alien land, shows that supremacists really don't mind working
with each other, before whatever the greater enemy they attack is destroyed.. Kinda like the
prelude to Highlander!
25.12. 2015 NATO: Seeking Russia's Destruction Since 1949
Baker told Gorbachev: "Look, if you remove your [300,000] troops [from east Germany] and
allow unification of Germany in NATO, NATO will not expand one inch to the east."
Saker's blind love for all things Putin, a faith in the man against all facts and logic, has
continually amazed me for years.
Putin is using Syria for Russia's advantage: 1.) a Mediterranean port at Tartus and
airfield at Kheimem; 2.) as a 'live fire' weapons testing and demonstration area, much as
Israel uses Gaza for same. Sales of Russian armaments have soared since entering Syria.
As I recall, Putin has allowed at least two Dunkirk moments, when he had ISIS on the ropes
and then agreed to a cease fire when his generals were furious at not being permitted to
finish the Takfiris off, once and for all. I, too, was furious at the time, predicting they
would simply re-trench, re-arm and continue to terrorize the hapless Syrians, which they did
for years, and may even make a comeback from Iraq (with America and Israel's help, of
course).
Same idiocy was applied, and is still being applied regarding Turkey's open and obvious
arming and supporting the terrorist scum of Hayat Tahrir al-Sham (HTS) in Idlib, as innocent
Syrians continue to suffer therefrom, and we daily read of the brave Syrian fighters' being
killed and maimed by these Al-Qaeda butchers .
He has let Syria's eastern oil fields fall into the hands of the US, and allowed the
Turds, excuse me, the Kurds far too much leeway in the north.
He even allows Israel to bomb Syrian territory with absolute impunity, killing countless
Syrian, Hezbollah and Iranian soldiers in the process, when a few freely operated S-300
batteries would allow the Syrians to smoke the Israeli's missiles with ease, and protect
their homeland from hundreds of brazen attacks by the Jews. Yet he denies the Syrians such
freedom, allowing the Israelis to continue their onslaught unabated.
Why? Why does he ignore the advice of his top generals to wipe out ISIS when the
opportunities arose years ago, and allow Israel to continually attack with high-precision
missiles Syrian/Hezbollah/Iranian fighters, just short of allowing the Jews to directly bomb
Assad and Damascus into the stone age, again, with complete impunity? Certainly, the existing
partition of Syria could have been easily avoided long ago, if he simply followed his
general's advice.
And why did he come out and endorse Netanyahu for PM last year, despite continually saying
Russia does not stick its nose into other countries' political affairs?
But to my mind, any world 'leader' who simply cannot control himself publicly and feels
compelled to forcibly lift a small child's t-shirt and slather the tot's bare stomach with
kisses, right in front of countless on-lookers and the international press, in Russia's most
famous public square, and then declare to the BBC thereafter that, "I wanted to cuddle him
like a kitten ", possibly reveals a great deal about why Putin seems to so frequently kiss
another offensive body part publicly, that being Israel's obnoxious, murderous butt ..
Well despite all the "well wishers" here and against saker's expert advice about what she
should be doing, Russia is still somehow alive and kicking and generally getting to be a
better place to live. Imagine that. While the countries the "well wishers" hail from are not
becoming better places to live and rather than alive and kicking are much better described as
zombiefied and twitching.
"Russia today is a very tough nut to crack for western subversion/PSYOP operations."
Correction, democratic Russia is still a tough nut to crack. But Putin cannot rule
forever, and so long as Russia is a democracy, and when there is no longer a strong and
charismatic leader, it is in considerable danger of subversion by the 'AngloZionists'. You
bet that they are waiting for this, the current situation being a preparation, to keep the
fire burning, but when and if Putin is gone, the Western trojan horses already inside will
unleash their puppets of disruption, and the AngloZionists and their Western puppets outside
will attack it vehemently, like a pack of wolves.
As one Russian joke puts it, lets' have cutlets separately and flies separately.
One thing is Youtube, FB, Wiki, and the rest of globohomo-controlled media. They would
host anything anti-Putin, because Putin is continuously stepping on the most sensitive part
of their anatomy: the wallet. If globohomo hates you, you must have done at least something
good.
The other thing is the feelings of Russians who actually live in the country. They
rightfully feel that oligarchs and the state that often acts as their cover are robbing them.
They clearly see that education is going down from Soviet levels (although it still has a
long way to go to become as dismal as the US education). They see that the best part of
healthcare is the holdover from Soviet times, whereas "progressive" paid medicine is fraud
and extortion. But that's exactly what "healthcare" is in the US, as current epidemic
demonstrated in no uncertain terms. They also see that recent pension "reform" was designed
to rob them yet again. What's more, they are at least 90% right.
So, maybe it's not the "6th column", after all? Maybe Russia is actually acquiring an
opposition worth the name? Patriotic opposition, in contrast to "liberal opposition"
consisting exclusively of traitors? If so, it's good, not bad, for the country. Nobody is
infallible, Putin included.
@Quartermaster
The US invaded Ukraine with Nuland's thugs during the Sochi Olympics
Crimea went back home. It did not want be part of Nulandistan.
Donbass does not want to be a US/Israel colony. This is the reason it revolted.
Notice the recent Ukrainegate nonsense. Why would USIsrael care so much about Ukraine if
Ukraine was really an independent nation? It is not, it is a USIsrael colony --
Nulandistan.
@ComradePuff
First I see you just parachuted into this website with this, your very first post
We usually have a welcoming ceremony for new trolls
We look at the cartoonish drivel they post and quickly point out glaring giveaways
Like 'Gasterbyters' which is not actually a word in any language
Your instructions from your troll room supervisor may have referred to the German word
'gastarbeiter' which means 'guest worker'
This expression is not a proper noun and does not get capitalized
And you're trying to tell us you have earned a master's degree from one of Moscow's most
prestigious universities..?
Yeah no, I don't think so cheeseball
Guest workers are 'crucial' to Russia..?
Again total bunk the only countries where guest workers might be 'essential' is in the
Gulf oil monarchies, where they often outnumber the natives
The US is not going to collapse if the Mexican workers take a beating neither will Germany
nor any industrial country with foreign workers why should Russia..?
And then your main whopper NOBODY in the Putin administration is 'begging' the west for
anything much less to be accepted back in some 'club'
Russia has moved on a long time ago they never cared about being in some sort of 'club' to
begin with international relations isn't junior high, which one would expect a 'graduate' of
international relations to know
All Russia ever cared about was having normal relations friendly if possible, but on equal
footing the entire tone of your fantasy is straight out of the '90s only deluded Washington
hacks still dream that we are living in the '90s
In case you haven't noticed Russia has much bigger fish to fry than to obsess over a
tottering empire
The partnership with China for instance the country with the most money, plus the country
with the most advanced military technology
I'd say it's not actually looking good for Exceptionalistan
@DererGeorgia's lunatic who is now Ukraine deputy prime minister
I think Saakashvili has not made it yet. He is being opposed by a lot of the Jews who
control this "country". Last week, the guy investigating "corruption" was sacked. His
replacement was a Jew. It is just so funny. Like a theater.
Almost all the oligarchs are Jewish -- courtesy of the World Bank and (((Western))) banks.
It is amazing that in a country of allegedly 42 million they cannot find an ethnic Slav to
get the job. I do not use the term Ukrainian as it is not really one country.
Forget the bluster. I suspect they want to bring in Saakashvili because he can bring in
more loans from the IMF. His backers are in the USA.
BTW, the new American ambassador to Ukraine is a retired US Army general. That should give
you some idea as to their line of thinking. However, I suspect that he is too knowledgeable
to want to start a war with Russia.
The departing ambassador is a female from the Ukrainian diaspora in Canada. A Ukrainian
"Nationalist" by descent. Incapable of thinking of the interests of this unfortunate
country.
Here are the bullshitter's 5 steps (5 shags!!! :-))as commented on in a Russian blog
yesterday:
Вот так
готовятся
революции. О
пяти шагах
Навального
Here is how revolutions are prepared: about Navalny's Five Steps
I have read here about the five steps that Navalny is offering to Russia. All of them,
I think, are already known. Articles have been read, a video watched, in which he talks about
his five-step plan. Some support and approve of his plan. He believes that this is exactly
what needs to be done in order to save the economy and financially support people left
without work and without money during the coronavirus pandemic. Others criticize his plan,
saying that this is pure populism, which has nothing to do with the real situation in the
country and the financial capabilities of the state.
I have already said that I am not a professional in politics, economics, or finance. As
they say, I am no college boy. If I talk about something, then I talk from the point of view
of an ordinary ordinary person and from the point of view of common sense, so to speak. We
are not academy graduates, but somehow we need to be determined on this or that issue. One
cannot avoid this. For example, who to vote for in the election? Is it worth voting for
Navalny? Or maybe a vote for the Communist Party? Or is it still better to vote for United
Russia? And so on. And how do you make the right choice, make the right decision, if you are
an ordinary person who does not have the necessary knowledge? And knowledgeable people often
make mistakes as well.
So, looking at this Navalny plan, I as an ordinary person think that his plan is pure
populism. He has not made any serious economic calculations. What the implementation of his
plan will ultimately lead to, he does not know and cannot know. But some serious and
responsible economists say that, given the current state of the Russian economy, this plan
cannot lead to anything good. And we should not take an example from the developed countries
of the West. You cannot blindly copy everything that is being done in the West. We copied it
in 1991; we still cannot figure out what copy to make.
Let us quickly go over what Navalny offers us. The first step: he proposes to pay 20
thousand rubles to each adult and 10 thousand rubles to each child. This is the month of
April. And then the question immediately arises: if you pay each and everyone, you will have
to pay those who work and those who are left without work. Somehow, this is not very logical.
If a person works, then what has changed for him? Nothing has changed for him; he receives
the same salary as before. Then why and for what should the state pay him these 20
thousand?
Second step: if the quarantine is extended to May and June, the state will have to pay
another 10 thousand rubles to each adult and child during those months. Well, here is the
same question: why should the state pay money to workers?
Third step: the state must cancel the fee for any utilities for the period of the
quarantine. This is very strange and incomprehensible. What does it mean to cancel? Take, for
example, electricity. Who supplies us with electricity? A private company. Private! That is,
we are buying electricity from a private company. And suddenly the state tells us that we may
not pay for electricity. So who will pay the electric company? The question, as they say, is
interesting. Or perhaps we will not be paying for food in the store? Why does Navalny not
offer this?
Fourth step, also a bold one: the allocation 2 trillion rubles for direct gratuitous
payments to small and medium-sized businesses. So take and give money to everyone in turn.
And why, for example, do you need to give money to some hairdresser? Well, the hairdresser
will not be working for two or three months. So what? Work will start up again. What can
happen to a hairdresser in two to three months? Nothing may happen. So it is with other
businesses. It will not be easy for them during quarantine, and then they will start working
again. By the way, for other reasons, enterprises may be idle for some time or work on a
reduced working day or week mode. Business is a risky business, and there can be all sorts of
situations arising.
Fifth step: cancel for one year all taxes for small businesses (except personal income
tax). The question is, why should a small business, if it works, not pay taxes? A barber, of
course, will not be working. He does not work, so he does not pay taxes. Everything is clear
there. But if some small business works, why should it not have to pay taxes for one year?
Why such a benefit? Can anyone explain?
These are my questions about Navalny's plan. And doubts about his plan. It is with such
populist plans that many revolutions begin. Distributing money is a simple matter. But to
calculate what will happen next -- here you need to work very seriously and thoughtfully.
Navalny did not have time to calculate everything. He hurries to take advantage of the
situation in order to gratify his army of supporters. And the purpose of his plan is
precisely this: his army of supporters will increase, of course. There is no doubt about
that. We have a lot of freebie lovers. But Navalny's job is to rock the state boat. This is
what he is busy with. And he does his job, admittedly, in quite a talented way. Only, I
should warn you as regards unconditional faith in this person. Fraudsters are very talented.
As, for example, was Mavrodi with his MMM. [Notorious Russian pyramid sales fraudster of
the '90s -- ME]
A few words in conclusion. The state should have a reserve fund, that is, money for
emergencies. And not only money, but also technical equipment and professional human
resources. But each of us must have a reserve fund. We must realize that circumstances may
arise where we lose our job, lose our source of income. And for such a case, on a rainy day,
we must have a reserve fund. And each enterprise should also have a reserve fund. And then
you will not have to beg for money from the state.
Under this article in my comments I will ask a few questions. Please answer them. I am
interested to hear your opinion. If you want to personally tell me something, object to
something, ask something and want to get an answer from me, then follow this link and write a
comment there. This article will have number 34. On that page I posted my comments with
numbers of numbered articles (not all articles are numbered) and their names. Find the
comment "34. This is how revolutions are prepared. About the five steps of Navalny "and write
your comment under my comment. This page structure will be more clear and understandable.
Your comment on that page I will not leave unanswered. If I do not answer on the same day, I
will definitely answer the next day. Well, if you want everyone to see your comment, write it
under this article. I will also read them all during the first days, and perhaps somehow
react to them.
I remind you and explain that likes and dislikes to my questions-comments are not approval or
disapproval. They simply mean answers to the question posed.
Sounds like a clear-thinking kind of man or woman to me and not some soft Navalnyite kid
with a yellow rubber duck or some liberast kreakl arsehole!
This person is spot on – individuals should always have "rainy day" money. We live
in society that encourages us to live on credit and have instant gratification. The state can
only do so much.
It's ironic that Navalny who is paid by the west, is proposing a plan that no country in
the west would ever implement.
It's rude to say it but only naive fools, greedy opportunists and criminals would support
such a plan.
That's how I was brought up. And I have never bummed money off anyone. "Never a borrower or
lender be!" has always been my watchword, and when I've had neowt, I've done without. When I
was young, you never got wed until you had a thousand quid in the bank: that's why you
courted. My relatives all courted for 3 or 4 years before they got wed. I was lucky, in that
I only married late, so I led the life of Reilly until I was in my 40s, but I have never
spent what I have never had.
My wife thinks I'm a tight bastard. when I say I've never lent anybody anything and I've
never asked anyone for money either.
I might start spending now what I have in the bank though, seeing as I've now turned
71.
As my granddad used to say: "There's no pockets in a shroud".
Additionally, there is nothing to be gained by hanging on to your tax-deductible savings,
either, at least not here. When you turn a certain age (I think it's 65) you must convert
your Registered Retirement Savings Plan (RRSP) to a Registered Retirement Income Fund (RRIF)
and start drawing it down. The banks don't want you getting a tax break during your saving
years and then passing that benefit on to your wastrel offspring – they want it spent
while you're still here on earth.
I agree, all except for the part that no western country would ever implement such a plan.
Indeed they would, under the circumstances I described. Get the vote out of the way first, to
be followed by the new government cutting budgets or taking other steps to recover its
outlay.
The problem is that in many Western societies, wages and salaries have not kept up with
increases in the cost of living, and this forces individuals and households to buy on credit
when they should be using whatever money comes in during the week from working (after making
deductions for tax or paying bills). What happens instead is that weekly incomes end up
servicing past debts.
Also in countries that have killed off their manufacturing (because it was outsourced
overseas), the main way in which new money circulates in the economy is through lending for
property investments. The property market is turned into a casino with the result that
property prices rise. People wanting to buy apartments and houses to live in end up not only
having to take out huge loans and mortgages for dwellings whose prices are several times
inflated beyond what they originally cost to build, but the mortgagors end up having to use
more of their incomes to service the loans when the money should be used for day-to-day
expenses. In some parts of Australia, people are spending at least 30% of their weekly
incomes servicing mortgages and more – that is considered to be a sign of mortgage
stress.
https://www.ratecity.com.au/home-loans/mortgage-news/how-much-you-have-to-earn-to-buy-in-each-capital-city
There is little doubt that official inflation rate in the US is understated resulting in a
steady erosion of purchasing power. Families need both spouses working just to get by. Two
cars are needed as the public transit systems are generally poor. On top of that we are
driven into a shopping frenzy every Christmas season. We eat out way too much. adding costs
and adding fat. One version of the American Dream is steadily increasing wealth; the dream
ended long ago but with easy credit, a fake dream just keeps on going.
These are the sort of policies which prevail in western countries, and it is apparent people
regard the benefits as free money which will never be accounted for. You will be able to tell
who these people are after the 'pandemic' has passed, who want a new bridge or a new road
such as was planned before the outbreak, and are now told "There's no money" by the
bewildered look on their faces. What? There's no money? How can that be? We can't go into the
past, obviously, and extract money from it, so money that is being thrown around now will
either come out of future budgets or will be covered by gratuitous money-printing which will
only devalue the currency.
Let me give you a rundown of what we are entitled to in BC, if you lost your job –
temporarily or perhaps longer-term – due to COVID 19. First, everyone, BC and
otherwise, can apply for the CERB, the Canada Emergency Response Benefit. That's $2000.00,
straight into your account, and urgency has dictated that analysis of whether or not you
qualify has been pretty cursory. There is a BC benefit, just for British Columbia residents,
which pays a one-time $1000.00 under similar circumstances. There is EI, Employment Insurance
(it used to be called UI, Unemployment Insurance, but progressives didn't like it, thought it
sounded like people were being paid to not work, which was often a pretty accurate summation
of the picture); that's based on your previous income, up to a maximum monthly amount. BC
Hydro will forgive 3 months of payments for its customers who have lost their employment due
to the 'pandemic', on successful application. No word at present on what they will do in
cases where people give up economizing, knowing they have 3 months free electricity, and just
leave everything on. The banks will hold your mortgage payments in abeyance on request,
although that's not forgiven – you just pick up later and in the end will pay more
because your time to pay out the full amount will have been extended for an extra couple of
months of interest payments.
Many of these mirror Navalny's initiatives, just as they mirror Tymoshenko's when she was
Prime Minister and wanted to give everyone a massive pay raise – the money has to come
from somewhere, and western analysts on that latter occasion wrote that her plan 'flew in the
face of fiscal responsibility". That meant 'Wasn't good". But programs which feature chucking
handfuls of money at people are perennially popular, and few ever reason that they will be
paying it back with interest down the road – they believe, instead, that they have
caught you on the cusp of a momentary lapse of reason, and will be able to benefit from you
having lost your mind.
Simply put, it is buying votes. The recovery of the money is delayed until after you have
made your decision, and made your check-mark for the granter of the largess.
Patterson had me until he said "The American people have never tolerated incompetence in
their public officials; you are going to crash and burn, my fatheaded friend". The poor fool.
Not only do Americans tolerate incompetence in their public officials, they expect it. I
wouldn't go so far as to say they welcome it, but their disappointment at learning yet
another public official is incompetent never seems to inspire a revolution such as America
constantly urges on other countries when their public officials are incompetent, or even when
America portrays their public officials as incompetents.
Greetings from the 90s: the "middle class" in Russia is falling into poverty
The Kremlin believes that a separate plan to save the "middle class" is not
required
Timur Khasanov 04/28/2020, 14: 48
The Russian "middle class", which is fundamental for the welfare and development of the
state's economy, may descend into poverty. Yaroslav Kuzminov, the founder and rector of the
Higher school of Economics (HSE), made such a statement. Falling incomes of economically
active Russians will lead to a new social stratification of Russian society. The Kremlin
considered such statements unconvincing
[I wonder which class Kuzminov and the rest of his fellow wankers at HSE consider
themselves belonging to?]
The wealthy stratum of Russians will lose some of its income because of the coronavirus
pandemic, but will retain its elite status and accumulated resources, whilst the "middle
class" risks falling into poverty. This was stated by HSE rector Yaroslav Kuzminov in an
interview with RBC TV channel .
"Most likely, incomes will fall in all levels of society, but if the impoverished rich
still remain rich, and the poor continue to be poor, then for the middle class, which is now
taking the brunt, there are serious risks of sliding into poverty", Kuzminov said live on TV
channel.
According to the Rector of the Higher School of Economics, the downward trend in
revenue relates primarily to the services market, including those related to intellectual and
"impression" services. Recently, they have created a space for the development of new
creative projects. [I presume "impression services" involve the the provision of
élite goods and services that impress folk, such as French wine and cheeses -- ME]
"It has been the service sector that has contracted the most. Large cities have
suffered the most from COVID-19, and their economies have mostly stopped",said
Kuzminov.
According to the basic scenario of the Higher School of Economics, in 2020 the
unemployment rate in Russia will reach 8%. The strongest job losses will be in the
unincorporated sector of the economy. "The corporate sector will lose 700 thousand employees
in 2020 versus 1.5 million people in the unincorporated sector, but then recovery is faster
in the unincorporated sector", said the HSE rector. However, even in this scenario,
unemployment will still be higher in 2024 than in 2019, he warned.
A much more dramatic development of events would suggest a pessimistic scenario for the
HSE forecast: unemployment by the end of the year will rise to 9.5%, and next year it will
grow to 9.8% "and will remain at high levels throughout the forecast period because of a weak
recovery in the growth of the economy".
The corporate sector of the economy in 2020 will short of 1.2 million employees,
compared with 2.2 million in the unincorporated sector. Labour market recovery in both
sectors is expected only in 2022. At the same time, the total number of employed citizens in
2024 will still be noticeably behind the current year. Four years later, unemployment will
still be almost twice as high as in the pre-crisis year of 2019, and will amount to
8.1%.
Kuzminov noted that the coronavirus pandemic has demonstrated to the world a new
reality in the global economy as regards humanitarian considerations. Many states have shown
a willingness to sacrifice part of economic growth in order to save the lives of
citizens.
"We have moved on to a different reality, to a different correlation of morality and
economics. For the first time, the world has stopped its economy and there has been a loss of
5–7% in GDP globally so that people -- older people, sick people -- may live three to
five years longer. I believe that this is a colossal moral movement", said Kuzminov.
[So why are you b;eating about the impoverishment of the middle class? -- ME]
The Kremlin reacted with skepticism to forecasts about the risks in Russia of the
"middle class" sliding into poverty.
According to Dmitry Peskov, Press Secretary of the Russian President, the state is
making a lot of attempts to analyze the situation, but one thing is obvious: this is not easy
to do and requires a lot of coordinated work from the authorities and participants in
economic life.
"It is obvious that this threat of coronavirus and the consequences that this threat
has provoked for economic life is so unprecedented that for the most part, many attempts to
analyze it are unlikely to hit the bull's eye", RT quotes Peskov.
The official representative of the President also stressed that it is wrong to talk
about the need for a separate plan to support the middle class in the country in connection
with the pandemic. According to Peskov, we are now talking about the need to soften the blow
of the crisis for all segments of citizens.
The definition of the "middle class", especially in Russia, is rather vague. Neither
officials nor economists can give clear parameters for it. According to the World Bank
definition, such a stratum in Russia can include citizens with incomes that are at least one
and a half times higher than the poverty level. Accordingly, a person's income should not be
lower than the median values for a particular region of residence.
The median salary divides all salaries of Russians in half: one half of employees
receive a salary above this value, the other half-below. It turns out that only the upper
half can relate to the middle class. Rosstat calculates the median salary in Russia once
every two years -- in April of odd years. In 2019, this figure was equal to 34.3 thousand
rubles.
I'm well below the 2019 median salary now, but I've been in the income sump since 1984 and
have got quite used to it. The middle classes, however, live in mortal fear of entering the
sump whence they or their not to distant forebears slithered forth.
I stop reading as soon as I come to "the Moscow Higher School of Economics", because it is
the breeding-ground of wiggy liberals. If the Russian middle class slips into poverty –
and I don't think it will – the Russian government will have the best excuse in the
world: western governments and their international organizations persuaded us the only way to
fight the coronavirus was to shut down the economy and make all the workers except essential
personnel stay home. It was always a stupid plan that smacks of collusion, and it has proven
to be ineffective at stopping the spread of the virus while nearly all countries have yielded
their regular commerce in the attempt. If it was working, you would not see businesses
opening again while the case count is still climbing. Is it national intent to keep borders
closed until the last case has recovered? If not, retreating from the lockdown policy is an
admission of failure, because international infections will find fertile ground among the
uninfected majorities.
It is the detestable habit of liberalism to make use of a crisis to try to turn the public
against its leaders. Sometimes it was the leaders' fault, and they deserve it, but on such
occasions you usually find the liberals had either the same plan, no plan or no plan that
made any sense. Navalny and his hamsters are all for just opening up the treasury and handing
out money until there's an echo that means it is empty. Then, of course, they would lower
taxes until the state had no income, and then they would take massive loans from the IMF, and
then .well, you know what would happen then.
Amongst the people, the demand for a tougher attitude towards the clear enemies of
Russia is growing: towards all this "Echo of Moscow", "Dozhd", and other liberal Pro-Western
media, as well as towards those bloggers who are carrying out obviously subversive work
against the state and against Putin personally. In this regard, it does not matter at all
whether one is politically coloured right or left, since either since either side of the
political spectrum is clearly playing on the side of the West, which wants to eliminate Putin
by any means necessary.
Russia has always been a "bone in the throat" for the West. The West has always tried
to conquer and destroy Russia, from the time of Ancient Russia to the present day.
Yes, there were brief periods of a warming in relations, but they were soon followed by
devastating wars.
All our history testifies to the fact that the West has always been the most ardent,
implacable enemy of Russia, and thinking that the West can become a friend and partner of
Russia is absurd.
Or deliberate treachery: a betrayal of Russia; a betrayal of its people. Perhaps some
are sincerely mistaken in thinking that this is not so, that the West can become our friend.
For those that think this, I refer them to the "Sacred '90s", when the West was our
friend!
As a result of this friendship, it was only by a miracle that we did not lose our
country, our Russia. And I do not believe that these bloggers and journalists who are calling
on us to change the existing government or social system in Russia do not understand
this!
And if they do understand this, then it means that they are consciously working for the
enemies of Russia, and in this respect, they are also enemies of Russia.
And now, as Russia fights for its sovereignty and influence on the world stage, it is
time to start a serious purge.
THE RUSSIAN LIBERAST
(but he's tolerant, he's an ordinary kind of guy, he's a defender of human rights, he echoes
Muscovites' thoughts, he positions himself, he's on Navalny's side and the anal and oral one
as well ) His bark is heard amongst the troops and in the bazaar, beneath the very walls of the
Kremlin itself, and is often searching with huge longing for fleas for dinner.
Tremble and despair ye pathetic Western fools!!!
"The Sacred '90s", refers to the Yeltsin years, and was a term used when political
commentator Armen Gasparyan castigated Gorbachev on the radio: ""Ваш
опыт привел к
"святым 90-м" -- "Your experiment led to the
'Sacred '90s'"; he continued by saying: "And now you are trying to teach Putin!" -- ME.
Yes, he frequently took public positions which would put him in the liberal camp and seemed
constantly to be crying for political change. I've noticed that's a feature of agitators
worldwide, non-stop braying of "It's time for a change". Frequently it is, but unless the
candidate they are supporting is elected, why, it's time for a change again with no pause for
stability at all. I'm pretty confident that if 'their' candidate were elected, the cries for
change would stop, at least from them.
For all of that, Limonov was one of the few I would say probably argued at least 50% of
the time from the heart, and actually thought the changes he was proposing would be good for
Russia. He might have taken money from the west from time to time, I don't know, but he
seemed in an entirely different class from those wise-ass yappers like Ilya Yashin.
I don't know if I'd go that far. He might have occasionally supported positions taken by the
state, and he was generally respectful of the head of state, but he usually thought things
should be done a different way. Overall he wasn't a bad guy, and spoke as if he actually had
some education rather than whining like that yob Navalny. Limonov grew up in Ukraine, and
attended the pedagogical university there, but there's no real evidence that he distinguished
himself in his academic pursuits and his on-again-off-again career as a writer seems to have
been more informed by a drive to write than a natural aptitude for it.
He was an interesting writer, I believe, specializing in pornographic reminiscences of his
decadent and impoverished life in New York and graphically describing his sodomistic
practices, I have been led to believe. Whatever turns you on!
Limonov was only his "party name", based on the Russian slang for a hand grenade -- a
"limon" [lemon]. His real name was Eduard Veniaminovich Savenko. A Ukrainian family name and
a strange patronymic (to my English lugholes, at least) but he wasn't a Jew, although his
first wife was and because of which he was allowed to emigrate from the USSR to Israel. He
married his second wife in a Russian Orthodox church ceremony.
He lived as an impoverished writer in New York, but in the end managed to get a position
as a butler of all things for some New York millionaire. And then he moved to Paris, the
traditional home of starving artists in garrets, where he wowed literary circles there with
his tales about his life in the Upper East Side of New York City. In the end he became a
naturalised Frog, which can't be bad, I reckon.
However, when the USSR folded up, he came back home and became a Russian citizen.
He certainly was part of the liberal crowd here in the '90s, he and his gang participating
in the protest marches of the time, but in the end he told the liberasts to go take a hike
and became fully supportive of bringing the Crimea back into the fold and fucking the
banderite Svidomites off. He was also 100% behind the Serbs during the NATO war of aggression
against them.
Yeah, I just realized that a few of those featured are now no longer with us; Borya the
Shagger for one. That gormless fat amorphous blob for another, I can never remember her name,
used to be some kind of journalist and always had half of some kind of sweetie hanging out of
her gob, under an expression that suggested she had quite recently been in contact with a
live wire carrying high current. Her schtick was going up to the cops when they were
providing security for another tiresome march, and demanding to be arrested. Must have heard
they had ice cream at the jail.
Something certainly was broken at young Valeria's birth: the hospital scales used to weigh
the bub. Maybe also the hospital's budgeted supply of thread needed to stitch up people after
major operations. Poor old Mum must have looked and felt like the Bride of Frankenstein for a
whole year.
[Articles and interviews about and with V.Novodvorskaya that appeared in her criminal
case.]
Our history has become malignant since the XV century, when the Golden Horde was
replaced by the Moscow Horde. If we don't change our genetic code, we're finished.
The fact that we allowed Putin to make us a European garbage dump, which is shunned
like a plague along with our Customs Union, is not only Putin's fault, it is the fault of the
people.
Yes, it was definitely her I was thinking of, although the one who made a gimmick out of
confronting the police at demonstrations and demanding to be arrested was actually Evgenia
Albats. Then when she was let go, she would write up the horrors of her brutal confinement
for The New Times.
Western fans are often led to believe that detention centers such as where Borya Nemtsov
and Alexey Navalny regularly served their brief penances are just like prison. Ummm no.
Prisons in Russia – and in fact throughout post-Soviet Eastern Europe – are for
punishment, and are not remotely like Martha Stewart's Camp Cupcake. They are not meant to be
fashion houses for prison chic like baggy pants that show a foot of your underwear, and make
you walk as if you messed yourself. I'm sure Navalny's brother could tell you the difference;
while they were being tried they were in jail, but after sentencing he went to prison, where
I daresay he learned a thing or two.
The Novodvorskaya quote below, which I have copied and pasted above, is a typical example of
a translation made by a Russian into Russian-English:
"I cannot imagine how can anyone love a Russian for his laziness, for his lying, for his
poverty, for his spinelessness, for his slavery. But maybe that's not all of his
characteristics" .
In real English:
"I cannot imagine how anyone can love a Russian because of his laziness, his lying, his
poverty, his spinelessness, his slavery. However, these may not be all of his
characteristics".
Of course, "woke" native speakers of English would not use "his" above, but "their", which
usage of "their", grammatically speaking, is crap.
It was already difficult enough to write Personnel Evaluation Reports (PER's); the actual
writing process occupies at least two months each year and for detached units such as ships
the drafts go through multiple levels of review before they leave the unit, and every
reviewer fancies himself/herself a writer so they always want a zillion changes. Now you have
to use 'they' and 'their', no matter how awkward it makes the text sound, so as to conceal
the preferred gender of the subject. Whenever you think, "It can't get stupider than this",
you're wrong.
A PER is supposed to convey to the reader something essential about the human it is
written on. But ceaseless efforts to depersonalize it result in a document that sounds as if
it was written about an electric pencil-sharpener, or a hose spanner; a thing, an object.
Because our leaders and supervisors of tomorrow are just products.
Thank God my time was up when it was; I had probably already stayed 10 years too long,
because I had already seen a lot of stupid things I wished I hadn't. A military which is
simply another PC project completely lacks that unit cohesion that comes from common purpose
and shared values. And it can't fight for shit.
Yes, I didn't wish to correct you, old chap, but Albats it was who used to beg to be arrested
in the vicinity of demonstrations. She was also always pissed when she performed in that way.
I remember her once being lifted on the New Arbat after one of those "March of the
Millions" had taken place, in which she did not take part, as she was seated in her car --
half-pissed. The cops made her get out of the vehicle, whereupon she began her
performance.
I suspect she had been knocking them back at "French" café, where one may imbibe
real Frog wine for rip-off prices, which place is (was?) much favoured by kreakly and
others of the bourgeois chattering classes here. It is (was?) situated on the nearby
Nikitskiy Boulevard.
A
Brave Jewish Voice in Putin's Russia Evgenia Albats was called 'kikeface' as a kid in the Soviet Union and went on to become an
intrepid reporter in Moscow. Visiting the U.S. recently, she spoke with Tablet about the
state of Russian politics and what it's like for Jews there today.
BY
CATHY YOUNG
JANUARY 28, 2020
Boris Nemtsov's son Anton (second from left) and Russian journalist Yevgenia Albats during a
ceremony to unveil a plaque in memory of Russian politician Boris Nemtsov in 2018
Oi vey!
Albats, who speaks accented but excellent English, talked about everything from crying
when she first visited the United States in 1990 and saw black-garbed Orthodox Jews ("I had
never imagined that Jews could walk about so freely and so openly") to the excellence of
modern Russia's kosher supermarket chain, The Kosher Gourmet, to breaking the rules by
sitting in the men's section of a Moscow shul wearing tallit and kippah.
Must be a different Russia,. Must be a different kind of Jew and Rabbi!
The "gulags" in which Navalny has been incarcerated have been local bridewells or in remand
prisons, the latter known as СИЗО
(Следственный
изолятор [investigative isolator] SIZO ) in
Russian, a pretrial detention facility that provides isolation of the following categories of
suspects and accused:
-- those who are under investigation and awaiting trial
-- defendants who are on trial.
-- convicts awaiting escort or in transit to correctional colonies [camps, called "open
prison" in the UK and "gulags" in the Western media; educational colonies, settlement
colonies (for persons who have been sentenced to imprisonment for crimes committed through
negligence , as well as persons who have committed crimes of small or medium gravity for the
first time)
-- detainees awaiting extradition .
The sad fact of life for us women is that once we are past the child-bearing years and go
menopausal, collagen in the body starts to break down (due to lower oestrogen levels) and
muscle tone starts going down. This explains why so many women, once they are in their 50s,
seem to go flabby and fat in spite of all the exercise they do (and maybe even increase).
One odd consequence of having reduced oestrogen levels for some women is that if the level
goes low enough, the normal low level of testosterone, while it doesn't rise, starts to have
an effect on their appearance and their voices. Some women in their 50s and beyond can look a
bit masculine and have very deep voices indeed.
Whereas men just get more virile and attractive to women of all ages.
Seriously, though, you're absolutely right; that's totally what happened to Rush Limbaugh.
Once he was post-menopausal, he started to look and sound almost like a man.
I reply to Ksenia Sobchak about the campaign "5 steps for Russia"
The "5 steps" are proposals given by bullshitter Navalny for the good governance of
Russia.
The Russian blogoshere is now awash with praise for the conman. They all seem to have been
written by children. They ask how good a president the thief would be and go on about how he
had not been allowed to run for president and if he had been then blah blah blah blah.
No mention of course that the US agent could not get enough signatures to enable him to
stand for election. Same happened with Sobol, and investigations were taken as regards her
falsification of signatures.
A counterattack made against this inundation of blogs praising the conman has now started.
The Navalny critics state that clearly the lovers of Russia and all that is good and
wholesome are using criticism government policy as regards this dose of flu that is doing the
rounds as means to attack the the "regime".
Navalny is standing back from this tiff between the two women pictured above..
Sobol presents herself thus in her Echo of Moscow column:
Classic PR pose: arms crossed, a woman to be taken into account.
She labels herself as "Lawyer to the Fund for the Struggle Against Corruption"
I thought Lyosha was a lawyer.
Her legal qualifications are, as are his, questionable.
As is the authenticity of Vasilyeva's dissertation for a Ph.D. in ophthalmology.
Vasilyeva could perhaps be labelled as "Doctor to the Fund for the Fight Against
Corruption".
Apart from his not amassing the required number of signatures in support of his participation
in the 2018 presidential elections, the refusal of which participation the Navalnyites, who
are now swamping the blogosphere with articles in support of his becoming president of
Russia, simply describe as the powers-that-be not allowing him to be elected, there is the
not too small matter of the shyster having been convicted not one but twice for criminal
offences.
In 2013, Washington's agent in Russia was convicted of embezzlement at a state-owned
enterprise and given a 5-year suspended sentence. According to the laws of the Russian
Federation, a convicted person serving a sentence, be it custodial or suspended, forfeits the
right to be elected to public office.
A reminder of the Kirovles affair: the fighter against corruption was engaged in illegal
deforestation by means of a state-owned enterprise and then sold timber at a significantly
reduced price, thereby robbing the state budget of more than 16 million rubles.
And the second conviction of the Washington agent was brought about as a result of Navalny
and his brother defrauding the firm "Yves Rocher", whereby the Navalny brothers laundering
illegal money fraudulently gained from the firm. For that fraud, Navalny received 3.5 years
of imprisonment, and his brother went to a general prison for 4 years.
Of course, the Navalnys lodged a complaint with the ECHR in January 2015 following the
"Yves Rocher" case , which court thereupon found for the dynamic duo, ruling that their
conviction for fraud in 2014 had been "arbitrary and manifestly unreasonable" and ordered
Russia to pay Navalny compensation.
Good to see old Alexeeva in there; I thought she had kicked the bucket. These people are an
irritant, but in and of themselves they are a living argument against liberalism. Sobchak
jets around, very much in the mainstream, dispensing her sarcasm, but it is plain to anyone
who watches her for more than five minutes that she is a born agitator who does not have time
for the boring work of governance. Look at fat, lazy Navalny, the perpetual victim, who does
the occasional stretch in the jug just to prove that he's a man of the people and not simply
directing the gullible on fruitless PR missions; again, five minutes observation without
distractions is enough to see he has no plans of his own, and is merely the front-man for a
western housecleaning operation – he complains endlessly about the way things are done,
but offers no solutions, or recommends actions that would be popular in the short term
(because they are giveaways) but are unsustainable without going deeply into debt. Nobody in
their right mind would follow Yashin; he also is a born agitator with the typical liberal
fascination for investment and wealth, the 'rising tide' that will lift all boats but somehow
only ever ends up enriching the already-rich. Except in the liberal world, the rich are rich
because they are purposeful; risk-takers, daring entrepreneurs, while the people are listless
sludge that is just pushed this way and that way. Anyone who is content with what he's got is
out of place in the liberal world. Bykhov cares only for the pursuit of pleasure, and
attempts to cast him as an incisive social engineer and deep thinker are ludicrous. And
people can see that.
Nobody in Russia really wants to be led by Navalny, or Sobchak or Yashin. Everyone
understands that in order for individual Russians to leapfrog straight to staggering profit,
control of national assets must be surrendered to wealthy international investors who will
take them private and sell shares and make fortunes. Left to its own devices, Russia was
making good progress toward raising the standards of living, education and health without
having to depend on its western 'partners', until Obama decided to have another kick at
destroying the economy in hope that angry Russians would kick out their leader and let the
west have a go at social engineering. It is best to have the stuffed-shirt liberal element
which currently prevails because it has no realistic chance of becoming a force in national
decision-making, and is mostly just wasting the west's money.
The action of a man: Navalny has refused to debate with Maria Zakharova
Yesterday, Maria Zakharova challenged Alexei Navalny to a debate: the reason was
another "sensational" investigation by Alexei. And Maria offered to meet him in order to show
that he was misleading everyone.
And it seems that Mr. Navalny agreed to the debate.
When I saw this on the news, my first thought was that no debate would take
place.
I shall explain why. It is one thing when Alexei exposes everyone on his channel, and
another when he enters into a dispute with someone, especially if the opponent is smart and
educated. As an example, I shall cite the debate that Navalny and Chubais had, when the
experienced old wolf Chubais, with one straight left smashed Navalny to smithereens. Only a
few feathers were left floating around. Since then, Lyosha has carefully avoided a debate
every possible way he can.
However, with Maria Zakharova it was impossible to give a refusal at once, especially
since a woman had challenged him to a debate, so he allegedly agreed.Well, after
that, there were technical matters to be dealt with, as Maria has written: Navalny's
secretary called her at first and said they would have Aleksei Pivovarov as a moderator.
Okay, says Zakharova. Then a new condition appears: there should only one topic debated. "How
come?" Maria exclaims, because this is a debate. How can there be only one topic? "That's how
it is", they say into the phone.
Then Zakharova asks if she can talk directly with Navalny and then they will discuss
everything. In response, the secretary comes out with a brilliant phrase.I really do
think that this has to be included in the Anti-Corruption Foundation gold reserves:
Of course not. That is not possible. He is a free man and, accordingly, free from
direct conversation.
Isn't it just wonderful how they dream up such phrases: the intellectual baggage of
Navalny's team is immediately visible.
You can se now the whole scheme of these gentlemen: Zakharova says to them: "Guys,
let's have a debate on any platform. I am the only woman who has challenged your chief,
leader or whatever you call him.But in response, there is a lot of shuffling around:
firstly, a moderator is urgently needed -- Well, OK then, she agrees; next, there is only one
topic to be discussed; and finally, Navalny does not want to enter into direct communication
with her.
And here, if Maria had agreed to that, then these guys would have come up with another
condition for the debate.For example, Navalny would speak for an hour, and Zakharova
for ten seconds. If she had agreed with that, then the debate would have ben on. However, in
the end, Navalny would simply not have turned up for it and that would have been
that!
As a result, Maria could not stand it any more and refused to participate in this
obscure game.And rightly so: no debate on any topic would have taken place, but one
can easily get bogged down with such endless discussions about procedure.
Maria Zakharova has once again demonstrated that she is a smart and bright woman. But
Navalny's behavior makes you think about the value of his investigations. Although,
personally, everything about them is clear to me!
Actually, Maria handled it very well indeed! As many have said, the liberal "opposition" is
inherently repugnant to a large majority of Russians. Thus, the Russian government actively
promotes opportunities for their message to be heard – Russia out of Crimea! LGBT?#
values!
The Saker had a fairly good analysis of the above strategy including examples of how the
Russian government provides platforms for the liberals to spout their nonsense.
Navalny knows the above hence his reluctance to engage in a debate where his numerous
embarrassing utterance will be dragged out of him by a skillful and charismatic opponent.
A bad strategy would be to jail Navalny or to "silence" the opposition. Let them blather
on, spend NGO money and make themselves pariahs.
Well, that's not the way he is spinning it, and every mention of his name in print is pure
gold to him. He's getting free publicity and lots of it, and probably quite a few people are
saying "Who's this Navalny fellow?" The state is playing Navalny's game now, to his rules,
and they should stop before they do him any more favours; he can dance around like this
forever, pretending open willingness. Zakharova lost her temper, and it is proving to be
expensive.
FBI memos show case was to be closed with a defensive briefing before a second interview
with Flynn was sought.
Evidence withheld for years from Michael Flynn's defense team shows the FBI found "no
derogatory" Russia evidence against the former Trump National Security Adviser and that
counterintelligence agents had recommended closing down the case with a defensive briefing
before the bureau's leadership intervened in January 2017
In the text messages to his team, Strzok specifically cited "the 7th floor" of FBI
headquarters, where then-Director James Comey and then-Deputy Director Andrew McCane worked,
as the reason he intervened.
"Hey if you haven't closed RAZOR, don't do so yet," Strzok texted on Jan. 4,
2017
####
JFC.
Remember kids, the United States is a well oiled machine that dispenses justice equitably
along with free orange juce to the tune of 'One Nation Under a Groove.'
So, I think Mark asked about 'legal action', but as you can see Barr and others are going
through this stuff with a fine tooth comb so it is as solid when it goes public. More
importantly, it can be used as evidenec to reform such corruption and put some proper
controls in place to stop it happening again at least for a few years
And meanwhile everybody who thinks they might be in the line of fire at some future moment is
destroying evidence as fast as they can make it unfindable.
By the way, as very many here in Mordor know full well, Navalny has never had a proper
business. At the beginning of his career he worked as a lawyer on a small salary.
Navalny's parents are pensioners: they receive a pension and have a small business about
20 miles beyond the Moscow beltway. Navalny would be classed by many here as coming from the
middle-class.
Now get this: Navalny was able to buy himself a Mercedes GL class on this low salary that
he earned as a lawyer. The vehicle was then worth about 3.5 million rubles. Not bad, despite
the fact that his salary in those years was estimated to have been no more than 100 thousand
rubles.
And guess what? As soon as Navalny started his "opposition" activities, he immediately
sold the Merc. You see, it wouldn't have done for a popular oppositionist to be seen riding
around in a Mercedes.
The Bullshitter-in-Chief now says that his present salary depends on donations, and
amounts to no more than 100 thousand rubles, that he cannot afford to run a car, because he
supports his wife and 2 children, one of whom now studying in the good ol' US of A.
And so Navalny's headquarters decided to rent a car for his use: not to rent when need be,
but on a permanent basis. The car, by the way, is not quite a popular mark: it is a Land
Rover Freelander. Moreover, the car is rented with a driver
Navalny's headquarters pays out about 240 thousand rubles per month to rent this car with
a driver,.
And this money all comes from donations, they say; from people who want to eradicate
corruption in what Navalny refers to as "this" country.
And below, you can see where some folk think the money for the Bullshitter's car rental
really comes from.
That's the sight that greeted Navalny when he woke up one morning in Kostroma, following
PARNASSUS crushing electoral defeat there. Unknown persons on a Twitter feed that had the
above image posted labelled the above vehicle a "State Department combat vehicle".
Now I ask you: how many ordinary Joes here -- not that slimy BBC get who reports from
Moscow and his oppo Rainsford, not the owners of "Moscow Times", not those who run RFE/RL but
your regular Ivan and Natasha -- really believe that Navalny will eradicate corruption in
"this" country?
Let's take a look at that last article ,
written by FT's Henry Foy today, and one of the more balanced (read: less PDS-afflicted)
journalists doing the Russia beat (not to mention the most prominent in the above sample,
having scored an exclusive interview
with Putin in 2019).
"The present number of patients with coronavirus will be hidden from us," said Anastasia
Vasilieva, chairman of Doctors' Alliance, a Russian lobby group affiliated with opposition
politician Alexei Navalny.
Now Foy, to his credit, at least has the journalistic integrity to acknowledge that this
doctors' group (which I have never heard of before now) is affiliated with Navalny, whose
entire shtick is to oppose everything and anything the Kremlin does.
A political tilt that its chairwoman helpfully confirms:
"The value of human life for our president is nil . . . We
don't want to admit to any pandemic," said Ms Vasilieva. "We know of hospitals that are
completely full and nurses who are asked to sew face masks from gauze."
This weaponizing of random indignation is a classic tool of the Western propaganda. In
Romania, we heard for a decade how the national-populists masquerading as socialists are to
blame for the lack of highways. It's been a few years since idiot Romanians gather in random
cities to complain that their city is not yet hooked to the Austro-Hungarian highway system,
despite the lack of traffic between their city and Austro-Hungary.
It is my understanding that, once highway construction will start, there will be protests
about natural or archeological treasures presumably endangered by the construction. It has
been decently working in Russia, with that Khimki forest.
Anything that can be thrown at a government threatening to leave the NWO will be used.
It's even worse for governments that are already one foot out, like Russia / China, or
completely out, like Iran / North Korea. Putin will be blamed for epidemics, earthquakes,
tsunamis, and even eclipses. If an earthquake would kill only a few, we will hear about
"failure to respond". If the earthquake doesn't kill anybody. we will be told that Putin
exploited it for propaganda.
One of the ways that CIA and Soros use, in order to weaponize Romania's presumed lack of
highways, is to pay some useful idiots, who call themselves "The Association for the
Betterment of Highways", "The Pro-Infrastructura Brigade", and so on. Most of these NGOs
consist of a single person, who posts videos of them ranting next to a construction site.
Using the model that BoJo used for the upcoming marriage (three men and one dog), the more
Soros/CIA-resistant types call them "The One-Incel-And-His-Drone Association".
By that same standard, I suspect we call this Doctors' Alliance
"Vasilievna-and-her-thermometer Association". Whatever she says about Moscow hospitals is
probably informed by her thermometer anyway. I doubt you can tell how things are in a
10-million city, especially if you are a marginal clown.
Is she an ophthalmologist, like The Part-Time Virologist Martyr of Wuhan? Dentist,
perhaps?
If intellectuals replace the current professional politicians as the leaders of society the
situation would become much worse. Because they have neither the sense of reality, nor common
sense. For them, the words and speeches are more important than the actual social laws and the
dominant trends, the dominant social dynamics of the society. The psychological principle of
the intellectuals is that we could organize everything much better, but we are not allowed to
do it.
But the actual situation is as following: they could organize the life of society as they
wish and plan, in the way they view is the best only if under conditions that are not present
now are not feasible in the future. Therefore they are not able to act even at the level of
current leaders of the society, which they despise. The actual leaders are influenced by social
pressures, by the current social situation, but at least they doing something. Intellectuals
are unhappy that the real stream of life they are living in. They consider it wrong. that makes
them very dangerous, because they look really smart, while in reality being sophisticated
professional idiots.
"... That person then will land on a special list of "agents" and will be obliged to register as a company so that his or her funding is transparent to the state. A Russian journalist working for Voice of America also becomes a foreign agent under the law. ..."
"... Butina was charged under a different though similar statute , which also requires foreign agents to register with the U.S. government. Even U.S. officials sometimes confuse the regulations, and it's not easy for a layman to understand what actions make one a foreign agent under them. ..."
"... Butina, for example, was sentenced to 18 months for trying to establish contacts with Republican operatives and National Rifle Association members ..."
"... Putin was annoyed by the Butina case. "They grabbed the girl, put her behind bars, and they had nothing to show for it," he commented after her sentencing. ..."
"... Now comes the retaliation -- and as usual under Putin, mainly against Russians he sees as a Western fifth column ..."
The new law makes it possible to
apply the foreign agent label to individuals, specifically to those who spread content from
media or other organizations determined to be foreign agents and who receive any kind of
funding from a foreign or foreign-financed source...
That person then will land on a special list of "agents" and will be obliged to
register as a company so that his or her funding is transparent to the state. A Russian
journalist working for Voice of America also becomes a foreign agent under the law.
... ... ...
Failure to register, open a company or mark one's stories or posts as coming from a foreign
agent will be punishable by a yet-undetermined fine.
Andrei Klimov, one of the drafters of the law, recently told
the government-owned daily Rossiyskaya Gazeta:
Unlike our foreign counterparts, we envisage no criminal liability. We don't grab people,
we don't toss them into torture chambers, like some other countries that do it for five or
fifteen years. We are capable of getting results with administrative measures.
It's clear from his comment that the Russian law is a response to the sudden
prominence of foreign-agent registration, a previously obscure requirement best known to
professional lobbyists, in the Donald Trump-Russia investigations of special counsel Robert
Mueller. He had political operatives Paul Manafort and Rick Gates indicted for violating the
Foreign Agent Registration Act of 1938, previously a laxly enforced law.
Butina was charged under a different
though similar statute , which also requires foreign
agents to register with the U.S. government. Even U.S. officials sometimes confuse the regulations, and it's not
easy for a layman to understand what actions make one a foreign agent under them.
Butina, for example, was sentenced to 18 months for trying to establish contacts with
Republican operatives and National Rifle Association members on behalf of a Russian
Central Bank official who may have wanted to set up a back channel between the Kremlin and the
Republican elite in the U.S.
Putin was annoyed by the Butina case. "They grabbed the girl, put her behind bars, and
they had nothing to show for it," he commented after her sentencing.
Now comes the retaliation -- and as usual under Putin, mainly against Russians he sees
as a Western fifth column rather than against the U.S. as such. Also as usual under Putin,
the response is asymmetrical.
Ambassador Frank G. Wisner raised his son-in-law Nicolas Sarkozy, a teenager in New
York.
Just another ordinary coincidence. Meaningless, really./sarc
Like Jews and power (They don't have any so shut up.) ; Hillary and Benghazi
(What difference does it make? None whatsoever.) ; and Trump and Epstein (He cut
off relations! It just took him 10 years to tell us about it) .
Supporting neoliberalism is the key treason of contemporary intellectuals eeho were instrumental in decimating the New Deal capitalism,
to say nothing about neocon, who downgraded themselves into intellectual prostitutes of MIC mad try to destroy post WWII order.
Notable quotes:
"... More and more, intellectuals were abandoning their attachment to the traditional panoply of philosophical and scholarly ideals. One clear sign of the change was the attack on the Enlightenment ideal of universal humanity and the concomitant glorification of various particularisms. ..."
"... "Our age is indeed the age of the intellectual organization of political hatreds ," he wrote near the beginning of the book. "It will be one of its chief claims to notice in the moral history of humanity." There was no need to add that its place in moral history would be as a cautionary tale. In little more than a decade, Benda's prediction that, because of the "great betrayal" of the intellectuals, humanity was "heading for the greatest and most perfect war ever seen in the world," would achieve a terrifying corroboration. ..."
"... In Plato's Gorgias , for instance, the sophist Callicles expresses his contempt for Socrates' devotion to philosophy: "I feel toward philosophers very much as I do toward those who lisp and play the child." Callicles taunts Socrates with the idea that "the more powerful, the better, and the stronger" are simply different words for the same thing. Successfully pursued, he insists, "luxury and intemperance are virtue and happiness, and all the rest is tinsel." How contemporary Callicles sounds! ..."
"... In Benda's formula, this boils down to the conviction that "politics decides morality." To be sure, the cynicism that Callicles espoused is perennial: like the poor, it will be always with us. What Benda found novel was the accreditation of such cynicism by intellectuals. "It is true indeed that these new 'clerks' declare that they do not know what is meant by justice, truth, and other 'metaphysical fogs,' that for them the true is determined by the useful, the just by circumstances," he noted. "All these things were taught by Callicles, but with this difference; he revolted all the important thinkers of his time." ..."
"... In other words, the real treason of the intellectuals was not that they countenanced Callicles but that they championed him. ..."
"... His doctrine of "the will to power," his contempt for the "slave morality" of Christianity, his plea for an ethic "beyond good and evil," his infatuation with violence -- all epitomize the disastrous "pragmatism" that marks the intellectual's "treason." The real problem was not the unattainability but the disintegration of ideals, an event that Nietzsche hailed as the "transvaluation of all values." "Formerly," Benda observed, "leaders of States practiced realism, but did not honor it; With them morality was violated but moral notions remained intact, and that is why, in spite of all their violence, they did not disturb civilization ." ..."
"... From the savage flowering of ethnic hatreds in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the mendacious demands for political correctness and multiculturalism on college campuses across America and Europe, the treason of the intellectuals continues to play out its unedifying drama. Benda spoke of "a cataclysm in the moral notions of those who educate the world." That cataclysm is erupting in every corner of cultural life today. ..."
"... Finkielkraut catalogues several prominent strategies that contemporary intellectuals have employed to retreat from the universal. A frequent point of reference is the eighteenth-century German Romantic philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder. "From the beginning, or to be more precise, from the time of Plato until that of Voltaire," he writes, "human diversity had come before the tribunal of universal values; with Herder the eternal values were condemned by the court of diversity." ..."
"... Finkielkraut focuses especially on Herder's definitively anti-Enlightenment idea of the Volksgeist or "national spirit." ..."
"... Nevertheless, the multiculturalists' obsession with "diversity" and ethnic origins is in many ways a contemporary redaction of Herder's elevation of racial particularism over the universalizing mandate of reason ..."
"... In Goethe's words, "A generalized tolerance will be best achieved if we leave undisturbed whatever it is which constitutes the special character of particular individuals and peoples, whilst at the same time we retain the conviction that the distinctive worth of anything with true merit lies in its belonging to all humanity." ..."
"... The geography of intellectual betrayal has changed dramatically in the last sixty-odd years. In 1927, intellectuals still had something definite to betray. In today's "postmodernist" world, the terrain is far mushier: the claims of tradition are much attenuated and betrayal is often only a matter of acquiescence. ..."
"... In the broadest terms, The Undoing of Thought is a brief for the principles of the Enlightenment. Among other things, this means that it is a brief for the idea that mankind is united by a common humanity that transcends ethnic, racial, and sexual divisions ..."
"... Granted, the belief that there is "Jewish thinking" or "Soviet science" or "Aryan art" is no longer as widespread as it once was. But the dispersal of these particular chimeras has provided no inoculation against kindred fabrications: "African knowledge," "female language," "Eurocentric science": these are among today's talismanic fetishes. ..."
"... Then, too, one finds a stunning array of anti-Enlightenment phantasmagoria congregated under the banner of "anti-positivism." The idea that history is a "myth," that the truths of science are merely "fictions" dressed up in forbidding clothes, that reason and language are powerless to discover the truth -- more, that truth itself is a deceitful ideological construct: these and other absurdities are now part of the standard intellectual diet of Western intellectuals. The Frankfurt School Marxists Max Horkheimer and Theodor Adorno gave an exemplary but by no means uncharacteristic demonstration of one strain of this brand of anti-rational animus in the mid-1940s. ..."
"... Historically, the Enlightenment arose as a deeply anti-clerical and, perforce, anti-traditional movement. Its goal, in Kant's famous phrase, was to release man from his "self-imposed immaturity." ..."
"... The process of disintegration has lately become an explicit attack on culture. This is not simply to say that there are many anti-intellectual elements in society: that has always been the case. "Non-thought," in Finkielkraut's phrase, has always co-existed with the life of the mind. The innovation of contemporary culture is to have obliterated the distinction between the two. ..."
"... There are many sides to this phenomenon. What Finkielkraut has given us is not a systematic dissection but a kind of pathologist's scrapbook. He reminds us, for example, that the multiculturalists' demand for "diversity" requires the eclipse of the individual in favor of the group ..."
"... To a large extent, the abdication of reason demanded by multiculturalism has been the result of what we might call the subjection of culture to anthropology. ..."
"... In describing this process of leveling, Finkielkraut distinguishes between those who wish to obliterate distinctions in the name of politics and those who do so out of a kind of narcissism. The multiculturalists wave the standard of radical politics and say (in the words of a nineteenth-century Russian populist slogan that Finkielkraut quotes): "A pair of boots is worth more than Shakespeare." ..."
"... The upshot is not only that Shakespeare is downgraded, but also that the bootmaker is elevated. "It is not just that high culture must be demystified; sport, fashion and leisure now lay claim to high cultural status." A grotesque fantasy? ..."
"... . Finkielkraut notes that the rhetoric of postmodernism is in some ways similar to the rhetoric of Enlightenment. Both look forward to releasing man from his "self-imposed immaturity." But there is this difference: Enlightenment looks to culture as a repository of values that transcend the self, postmodernism looks to the fleeting desires of the isolated self as the only legitimate source of value ..."
"... The products of culture are valuable only as a source of amusement or distraction. In order to realize the freedom that postmodernism promises, culture must be transformed into a field of arbitrary "options." "The post-modern individual," Finkielkraut writes, "is a free and easy bundle of fleeting and contingent appetites. He has forgotten that liberty involves more than the ability to change one's chains, and that culture itself is more than a satiated whim." ..."
"... "'All cultures are equally legitimate and everything is cultural,' is the common cry of affluent society's spoiled children and of the detractors of the West. ..."
"... There is another, perhaps even darker, result of the undoing of thought. The disintegration of faith in reason and common humanity leads not only to a destruction of standards, but also involves a crisis of courage. ..."
"... As the impassioned proponents of "diversity" meet the postmodern apostles of acquiescence, fanaticism mixes with apathy to challenge the commitment required to preserve freedom. ..."
"... Communism may have been effectively discredited. But "what is dying along with it is not the totalitarian cast of mind, but the idea of a world common to all men." ..."
On the abandonment of Enlightenment intellectualism, and the emergence of a new form of Volksgeist.
When hatred of culture becomes itself a part of culture, the life of the mind loses all meaning. -- Alain Finkielkraut,
The Undoing of Thought
Today we are trying to spread knowledge everywhere. Who knows if in centuries to come there will not be universities
for re-establishing our former ignorance? -- Georg Christoph Lichtenberg (1742-1799)
I n 1927, the French essayist Julien Benda published his famous attack on the intellectual corruption of the age, La Trahison
des clercs. I said "famous," but perhaps "once famous" would have been more accurate. For today, in the United States anyway,
only the title of the book, not its argument, enjoys much currency. "La trahison des clercs": it is one of those memorable phrases
that bristles with hints and associations without stating anything definite. Benda tells us that he uses the term "clerc" in "the
medieval sense," i.e., to mean "scribe," someone we would now call a member of the intelligentsia. Academics and journalists, pundits,
moralists, and pontificators of all varieties are in this sense clercs . The English translation, The Treason of the Intellectuals
,
1 sums it up neatly.
The "treason" in question was the betrayal by the "clerks" of their vocation as intellectuals. From the time of the pre-Socratics,
intellectuals, considered in their role as intellectuals, had been a breed apart. In Benda's terms, they were understood to
be "all those whose activity essentially is not the pursuit of practical aims, all those who seek their joy in the practice
of an art or a science or a metaphysical speculation, in short in the possession of non-material advantages." Thanks to such men,
Benda wrote, "humanity did evil for two thousand years, but honored good. This contradiction was an honor to the human species, and
formed the rift whereby civilization slipped into the world."
According to Benda, however, this situation was changing. More and more, intellectuals were abandoning their attachment to
the traditional panoply of philosophical and scholarly ideals. One clear sign of the change was the attack on the Enlightenment ideal
of universal humanity and the concomitant glorification of various particularisms. The attack on the universal went forward
in social and political life as well as in the refined precincts of epistemology and metaphysics: "Those who for centuries had exhorted
men, at least theoretically, to deaden the feeling of their differences have now come to praise them, according to where the sermon
is given, for their 'fidelity to the French soul,' 'the immutability of their German consciousness,' for the 'fervor of their Italian
hearts.'" In short, intellectuals began to immerse themselves in the unsettlingly practical and material world of political passions:
precisely those passions, Benda observed, "owing to which men rise up against other men, the chief of which are racial passions,
class passions and national passions." The "rift" into which civilization had been wont to slip narrowed and threatened to close
altogether.
Writing at a moment when ethnic and nationalistic hatreds were beginning to tear Europe asunder, Benda's diagnosis assumed the
lineaments of a prophecy -- a prophecy that continues to have deep resonance today. "Our age is indeed the age of the intellectual
organization of political hatreds ," he wrote near the beginning of the book. "It will be one of its chief claims to notice in
the moral history of humanity." There was no need to add that its place in moral history would be as a cautionary tale. In little
more than a decade, Benda's prediction that, because of the "great betrayal" of the intellectuals, humanity was "heading for the
greatest and most perfect war ever seen in the world," would achieve a terrifying corroboration.
J ulien Benda was not so naïve as to believe that intellectuals as a class had ever entirely abstained from political involvement,
or, indeed, from involvement in the realm of practical affairs. Nor did he believe that intellectuals, as citizens, necessarily
should abstain from political commitment or practical affairs. The "treason" or betrayal he sought to publish concerned the
way that intellectuals had lately allowed political commitment to insinuate itself into their understanding of the intellectual vocation
as such. Increasingly, Benda claimed, politics was "mingled with their work as artists, as men of learning, as philosophers." The
ideal of disinterestedness, the universality of truth: such guiding principles were contemptuously deployed as masks when they were
not jettisoned altogether. It was in this sense that he castigated the " desire to abase the values of knowledge before the values
of action ."
In its crassest but perhaps also most powerful form, this desire led to that familiar phenomenon Benda dubbed "the cult of success."
It is summed up, he writes, in "the teaching that says that when a will is successful that fact alone gives it a moral value, whereas
the will which fails is for that reason alone deserving of contempt." In itself, this idea is hardly novel, as history from the Greek
sophists on down reminds us. In Plato's Gorgias , for instance, the sophist Callicles expresses his contempt for Socrates'
devotion to philosophy: "I feel toward philosophers very much as I do toward those who lisp and play the child." Callicles taunts
Socrates with the idea that "the more powerful, the better, and the stronger" are simply different words for the same thing. Successfully
pursued, he insists, "luxury and intemperance are virtue and happiness, and all the rest is tinsel." How contemporary Callicles
sounds!
In Benda's formula, this boils down to the conviction that "politics decides morality." To be sure, the cynicism that Callicles
espoused is perennial: like the poor, it will be always with us. What Benda found novel was the accreditation of such cynicism
by intellectuals. "It is true indeed that these new 'clerks' declare that they do not know what is meant by justice, truth, and other
'metaphysical fogs,' that for them the true is determined by the useful, the just by circumstances," he noted. "All these things
were taught by Callicles, but with this difference; he revolted all the important thinkers of his time."
In other words, the real treason of the intellectuals was not that they countenanced Callicles but that they championed him.
To appreciate the force of Benda's thesis one need only think of that most influential modern Callicles, Friedrich Nietzsche.
His doctrine of "the will to power," his contempt for the "slave morality" of Christianity, his plea for an ethic "beyond good and
evil," his infatuation with violence -- all epitomize the disastrous "pragmatism" that marks the intellectual's "treason." The real
problem was not the unattainability but the disintegration of ideals, an event that Nietzsche hailed as the "transvaluation of all
values." "Formerly," Benda observed, "leaders of States practiced realism, but did not honor it; With them morality was violated
but moral notions remained intact, and that is why, in spite of all their violence, they did not disturb civilization ."
Benda understood that the stakes were high: the treason of the intellectuals signaled not simply the corruption of a bunch of
scribblers but a fundamental betrayal of culture. By embracing the ethic of Callicles, intellectuals had, Benda reckoned, precipitated
"one of the most remarkable turning points in the moral history of the human species. It is impossible," he continued,
to exaggerate the importance of a movement whereby those who for twenty centuries taught Man that the criterion of the morality
of an act is its disinterestedness, that good is a decree of his reason insofar as it is universal, that his will is only moral
if it seeks its law outside its objects, should begin to teach him that the moral act is the act whereby he secures his existence
against an environment which disputes it, that his will is moral insofar as it is a will "to power," that the part of his soul
which determines what is good is its "will to live" wherein it is most "hostile to all reason," that the morality of an act is
measured by its adaptation to its end, and that the only morality is the morality of circumstances. The educators of the human
mind now take sides with Callicles against Socrates, a revolution which I dare to say seems to me more important than all political
upheavals.
The Treason of the Intellectuals is an energetic hodgepodge of a book. The philosopher Jean-François Revel recently
described it as "one of the fussiest pleas on behalf of the necessary independence of intellectuals." Certainly it is rich, quirky,
erudite, digressive, and polemical: more an exclamation than an analysis. Partisan in its claims for disinterestedness, it is ruthless
in its defense of intellectual high-mindedness. Yet given the horrific events that unfolded in the decades following its publication,
Benda's unremitting attack on the politicization of the intellect and ethnic separatism cannot but strike us as prescient. And given
the continuing echo in our own time of the problems he anatomized, the relevance of his observations to our situation can hardly
be doubted. From the savage flowering of ethnic hatreds in Eastern Europe and the former Soviet Union to the mendacious demands
for political correctness and multiculturalism on college campuses across America and Europe, the treason of the intellectuals continues
to play out its unedifying drama. Benda spoke of "a cataclysm in the moral notions of those who educate the world." That cataclysm
is erupting in every corner of cultural life today.
In 1988, the young French philosopher and cultural critic Alain Finkielkraut took up where Benda left off, producing a brief
but searching inventory of our contemporary cataclysms. Entitled La Défaite de la pensée
2 ("The 'Defeat' or 'Undoing' of Thought"), his essay is in part an updated taxonomy of intellectual betrayals. In this
sense, the book is a trahison des clercs for the post-Communist world, a world dominated as much by the leveling imperatives
of pop culture as by resurgent nationalism and ethnic separatism. Beginning with Benda, Finkielkraut catalogues several prominent
strategies that contemporary intellectuals have employed to retreat from the universal. A frequent point of reference is the eighteenth-century
German Romantic philosopher Johann Gottfried Herder. "From the beginning, or to be more precise, from the time of Plato until that
of Voltaire," he writes, "human diversity had come before the tribunal of universal values; with Herder the eternal values were condemned
by the court of diversity."
Finkielkraut focuses especially on Herder's definitively anti-Enlightenment idea of the Volksgeist or "national spirit."
Quoting the French historian Joseph Renan, he describes the idea as "the most dangerous explosive of modern times." "Nothing," he
writes, "can stop a state that has become prey to the Volksgeist ." It is one of Finkielkraut's leitmotifs that today's multiculturalists
are in many respects Herder's (generally unwitting) heirs.
True, Herder's emphasis on history and language did much to temper the tendency to abstraction that one finds in some expressions
of the Enlightenment. Ernst Cassirer even remarked that "Herder's achievement is one of the greatest intellectual triumphs of the
philosophy of the Enlightenment."
Nevertheless, the multiculturalists' obsession with "diversity" and ethnic origins is in many ways a contemporary redaction
of Herder's elevation of racial particularism over the universalizing mandate of reason. Finkielkraut opposes this just as the
mature Goethe once took issue with Herder's adoration of the Volksgeist. Finkielkraut concedes that we all "relate to a particular
tradition" and are "shaped by our national identity." But, unlike the multiculturalists, he soberly insists that "this reality merit[s]
some recognition, not idolatry."
In Goethe's words, "A generalized tolerance will be best achieved if we leave undisturbed whatever it is which constitutes
the special character of particular individuals and peoples, whilst at the same time we retain the conviction that the distinctive
worth of anything with true merit lies in its belonging to all humanity."
The Undoing of Thought resembles The Treason of the Intellectuals stylistically as well as thematically. Both
books are sometimes breathless congeries of sources and aperçus. And Finkielkraut, like Benda (and, indeed, like Montaigne), tends
to proceed more by collage than by demonstration. But he does not simply recapitulate Benda's argument.
The geography of intellectual betrayal has changed dramatically in the last sixty-odd years. In 1927, intellectuals still
had something definite to betray. In today's "postmodernist" world, the terrain is far mushier: the claims of tradition are much
attenuated and betrayal is often only a matter of acquiescence. Finkielkraut's distinctive contribution is to have taken the
measure of the cultural swamp that surrounds us, to have delineated the links joining the politicization of the intellect and its
current forms of debasement.
In the broadest terms, The Undoing of Thought is a brief for the principles of the Enlightenment. Among other things,
this means that it is a brief for the idea that mankind is united by a common humanity that transcends ethnic, racial, and sexual
divisions.
The humanizing "reason" that Enlightenment champions is a universal reason, sharable, in principle, by all. Such ideals have not
fared well in the twentieth century: Herder's progeny have labored hard to discredit them. Granted, the belief that there is
"Jewish thinking" or "Soviet science" or "Aryan art" is no longer as widespread as it once was. But the dispersal of these particular
chimeras has provided no inoculation against kindred fabrications: "African knowledge," "female language," "Eurocentric science":
these are among today's talismanic fetishes.
Then, too, one finds a stunning array of anti-Enlightenment phantasmagoria congregated under the banner of "anti-positivism."
The idea that history is a "myth," that the truths of science are merely "fictions" dressed up in forbidding clothes, that reason
and language are powerless to discover the truth -- more, that truth itself is a deceitful ideological construct: these and other
absurdities are now part of the standard intellectual diet of Western intellectuals. The Frankfurt School Marxists Max Horkheimer
and Theodor Adorno gave an exemplary but by no means uncharacteristic demonstration of one strain of this brand of anti-rational
animus in the mid-1940s.
Safely ensconced in Los Angeles, these refugees from Hitler's Reich published an influential essay on the concept of Enlightenment.
Among much else, they assured readers that "Enlightenment is totalitarian." Never mind that at that very moment the Nazi war machine
-- what one might be forgiven for calling real totalitarianism -- was busy liquidating millions of people in order to fulfill
another set of anti-Enlightenment fantasies inspired by devotion to the Volksgeist .
The diatribe that Horkheimer and Adorno mounted against the concept of Enlightenment reminds us of an important peculiarity about
the history of Enlightenment: namely, that it is a movement of thought that began as a reaction against tradition and has now emerged
as one of tradition's most important safeguards. Historically, the Enlightenment arose as a deeply anti-clerical and, perforce,
anti-traditional movement. Its goal, in Kant's famous phrase, was to release man from his "self-imposed immaturity."
The chief enemy of Enlightenment was "superstition," an omnibus term that included all manner of religious, philosophical, and
moral ideas. But as the sociologist Edward Shils has noted, although the Enlightenment was in important respects "antithetical to
tradition" in its origins, its success was due in large part "to the fact that it was promulgated and pursued in a society in which
substantive traditions were rather strong." "It was successful against its enemies," Shils notes in his book Tradition (1981),
because the enemies were strong enough to resist its complete victory over them. Living on a soil of substantive traditionality,
the ideas of the Enlightenment advanced without undoing themselves. As long as respect for authority on the one side and self-confidence
in those exercising authority on the other persisted, the Enlightenment's ideal of emancipation through the exercise of reason
went forward. It did not ravage society as it would have done had society lost all legitimacy.
It is this mature form of Enlightenment, championing reason but respectful of tradition, that Finkielkraut holds up as an ideal.
W hat Finkielkraut calls "the undoing of thought" flows from the widespread disintegration of a faith. At the center of that faith
is the assumption that the life of thought is "the higher life" and that culture -- what the Germans call Bildung -- is its
end or goal.
The process of disintegration has lately become an explicit attack on culture. This is not simply to say that there are many
anti-intellectual elements in society: that has always been the case. "Non-thought," in Finkielkraut's phrase, has always co-existed
with the life of the mind. The innovation of contemporary culture is to have obliterated the distinction between the two. "It
is," he writes, "the first time in European history that non-thought has donned the same label and enjoyed the same status as thought
itself, and the first time that those who, in the name of 'high culture,' dare to call this non-thought by its name, are dismissed
as racists and reactionaries." The attack is perpetrated not from outside, by uncomprehending barbarians, but chiefly from inside,
by a new class of barbarians, the self-made barbarians of the intelligentsia. This is the undoing of thought. This is the new "treason
of the intellectuals."
There are many sides to this phenomenon. What Finkielkraut has given us is not a systematic dissection but a kind of pathologist's
scrapbook. He reminds us, for example, that the multiculturalists' demand for "diversity" requires the eclipse of the individual
in favor of the group . "Their most extraordinary feat," he observes, "is to have put forward as the ultimate individual liberty
the unconditional primacy of the collective." Western rationalism and individualism are rejected in the name of a more "authentic"
cult.
One example: Finkielkraut quotes a champion of multiculturalism who maintains that "to help immigrants means first of all respecting
them for what they are, respecting whatever they aspire to in their national life, in their distinctive culture and in their attachment
to their spiritual and religious roots." Would this, Finkielkraut asks, include "respecting" those religious codes which demanded
that the barren woman be cast out and the adulteress be punished with death?
What about those cultures in which the testimony of one man counts for that of two women? In which female circumcision is practiced?
In which slavery flourishes? In which mixed marriages are forbidden and polygamy encouraged? Multiculturalism, as Finkielkraut points
out, requires that we respect such practices. To criticize them is to be dismissed as "racist" and "ethnocentric." In this secular
age, "cultural identity" steps in where the transcendent once was: "Fanaticism is indefensible when it appeals to heaven, but beyond
reproach when it is grounded in antiquity and cultural distinctiveness."
To a large extent, the abdication of reason demanded by multiculturalism has been the result of what we might call the subjection
of culture to anthropology. Finkielkraut speaks in this context of a "cheerful confusion which raises everyday anthropological
practices to the pinnacle of the human race's greatest achievements." This process began in the nineteenth century, but it has been
greatly accelerated in our own age. One thinks, for example, of the tireless campaigning of that great anthropological leveler, Claude
Lévi-Strauss. Lévi-Strauss is assuredly a brilliant writer, but he has also been an extraordinarily baneful influence. Already in
the early 1950s, when he was pontificating for UNESCO , he was urging all and sundry to "fight against ranking cultural differences
hierarchically." In La Pensée sauvage (1961), he warned against the "false antinomy between logical and prelogical mentality"
and was careful in his descriptions of natives to refer to "so-called primitive thought." "So-called" indeed. In a famous article
on race and history, Lévi-Strauss maintained that the barbarian was not the opposite of the civilized man but "first of all the man
who believes there is such a thing as barbarism." That of course is good to know. It helps one to appreciate Lévi-Strauss's claim,
in Tristes Tropiques (1955), that the "true purpose of civilization" is to produce "inertia." As one ruminates on the proposition
that cultures should not be ranked hierarchically, it is also well to consider what Lévi-Strauss coyly refers to as "the positive
forms of cannibalism." For Lévi-Strauss, cannibalism has been unfairly stigmatized in the "so-called" civilized West. In fact, he
explains, cannibalism was "often observed with great discretion, the vital mouthful being made up of a small quantity of organic
matter mixed, on occasion, with other forms of food." What, merely a "vital mouthful"? Not to worry! Only an ignoramus who believed
that there were important distinctions, qualitative distinctions, between the barbarian and the civilized man could possibly
think of objecting.
Of course, the attack on distinctions that Finkielkraut castigates takes place not only among cultures but also within a given
culture. Here again, the anthropological imperative has played a major role. "Under the equalizing eye of social science," he writes,
hierarchies are abolished, and all the criteria of taste are exposed as arbitrary. From now on no rigid division separates masterpieces
from run-of-the mill works. The same fundamental structure, the same general and elemental traits are common to the "great" novels
(whose excellence will henceforth be demystified by the accompanying quotation marks) and plebian types of narrative activity.
F or confirmation of this, one need only glance at the pronouncements of our critics. Whether working in the academy or other
cultural institutions, they bring us the same news: there is "no such thing" as intrinsic merit, "quality" is an only ideological
construction, aesthetic value is a distillation of social power, etc., etc.
In describing this process of leveling, Finkielkraut distinguishes between those who wish to obliterate distinctions in the
name of politics and those who do so out of a kind of narcissism. The multiculturalists wave the standard of radical politics and
say (in the words of a nineteenth-century Russian populist slogan that Finkielkraut quotes): "A pair of boots is worth more than
Shakespeare."
Those whom Finkielkraut calls "postmodernists," waving the standard of radical chic, declare that Shakespeare is no better than
the latest fashion -- no better, say, than the newest item offered by Calvin Klein. The litany that Finkielkraut recites is familiar:
A comic which combines exciting intrigue and some pretty pictures is just as good as a Nabokov novel. What little Lolitas read
is as good as Lolita . An effective publicity slogan counts for as much as a poem by Apollinaire or Francis Ponge . The
footballer and the choreographer, the painter and the couturier, the writer and the ad-man, the musician and the rock-and-roller,
are all the same: creators. We must scrap the prejudice which restricts that title to certain people and regards others as sub-cultural.
The upshot is not only that Shakespeare is downgraded, but also that the bootmaker is elevated. "It is not just that high
culture must be demystified; sport, fashion and leisure now lay claim to high cultural status." A grotesque fantasy? Anyone
who thinks so should take a moment to recall the major exhibition called "High & Low: Modern Art and Popular Culture" that the Museum
of Modern Art mounted a few years ago: it might have been called "Krazy Kat Meets Picasso." Few events can have so consummately summed
up the corrosive trivialization of culture now perpetrated by those entrusted with preserving it. Among other things, that exhibition
demonstrated the extent to which the apotheosis of popular culture undermines the very possibility of appreciating high art on its
own terms.
When the distinction between culture and entertainment is obliterated, high art is orphaned, exiled from the only context in which
its distinctive meaning can manifest itself: Picasso becomes a kind of cartoon. This, more than any elitism or obscurity,
is the real threat to culture today. As Hannah Arendt once observed, "there are many great authors of the past who have survived
centuries of oblivion and neglect, but it is still an open question whether they will be able to survive an entertaining version
of what they have to say."
And this brings us to the question of freedom. Finkielkraut notes that the rhetoric of postmodernism is in some ways similar
to the rhetoric of Enlightenment. Both look forward to releasing man from his "self-imposed immaturity." But there is this difference:
Enlightenment looks to culture as a repository of values that transcend the self, postmodernism looks to the fleeting desires of
the isolated self as the only legitimate source of value.
For the postmodernist, then, "culture is no longer seen as a means of emancipation, but as one of the élitist obstacles to this."
The products of culture are valuable only as a source of amusement or distraction. In order to realize the freedom that postmodernism
promises, culture must be transformed into a field of arbitrary "options." "The post-modern individual," Finkielkraut writes, "is
a free and easy bundle of fleeting and contingent appetites. He has forgotten that liberty involves more than the ability to change
one's chains, and that culture itself is more than a satiated whim."
What Finkielkraut has understood with admirable clarity is that modern attacks on elitism represent not the extension but the
destruction of culture. "Democracy," he writes, "once implied access to culture for everybody. From now on it is going to mean everyone's
right to the culture of his choice." This may sound marvelous -- it is after all the slogan one hears shouted in academic and cultural
institutions across the country -- but the result is precisely the opposite of what was intended.
"'All cultures are equally legitimate and everything is cultural,' is the common cry of affluent society's spoiled children
and of the detractors of the West." The irony, alas, is that by removing standards and declaring that "anything goes," one does
not get more culture, one gets more and more debased imitations of culture. This fraud is the dirty secret that our cultural commissars
refuse to acknowledge.
There is another, perhaps even darker, result of the undoing of thought. The disintegration of faith in reason and common
humanity leads not only to a destruction of standards, but also involves a crisis of courage. "A careless indifference to grand
causes," Finkielkraut warns, "has its counterpart in abdication in the face of force." As the impassioned proponents of "diversity"
meet the postmodern apostles of acquiescence, fanaticism mixes with apathy to challenge the commitment required to preserve freedom.
Communism may have been effectively discredited. But "what is dying along with it is not the totalitarian cast of mind, but
the idea of a world common to all men."
Julien Benda took his epigraph for La Trahison des clercs from the nineteenth-century French philosopher Charles Renouvier:
Le monde souffre du manque de foi en une vérité transcendante : "The world suffers from lack of faith in a transcendent truth."
Without some such faith, we are powerless against the depredations of intellectuals who have embraced the nihilism of Callicles as
their truth.
1The Treason of the Intellectuals, by Julien Benda, translated by Richard Aldington, was first published in 1928.
This translation is still in print from Norton.
2La Défaite de la pensée , by Alain Finkielkraut; Gallimard, 162 pages, 72 FF . It is available in English, in
a translation by Dennis O'Keeffe, as The Undoing of Thought (The Claridge Press [London], 133 pages, £6.95 paper).
Roger Kimball is Editor and Publisher of The New Criterion and President and Publisher of Encounter Books. His latest book
is The Fortunes of Permanence: Culture and Anarchy in an Age of Amnesia (St. Augustine's Press)
During the time I am away, KS does both a book review and coverage of Nina Khrushcheva? ))
Dr. Khrushcheva maintains a WordPress blog , which also doubles as her
official webpage for the New School. It is amusing?
Once, still in grad school and a misanthropic Russian to boot (given our totalitarian
history most Russians are unhappy), I wrote a very sad novel Small World, published in
Moscow and quickly out of print. But that was a fluke, living in New York I am much happier
now. And all in all, my favorite theme is political culture in Russia and America.
Politicians lie all the time, but culture never lies about politics. Culture and politics
are symbiotically linked like the famous double-headed Russian eagle that used to be on the
front of the Bolshoi Theater in Moscow and now is rotting in the backyard of the city's
museum of architecture. It is the perfect symbol of Russia's former political and cultural
grandeur and current decay. American eagle is just one-headed, of course, yet this country
is no less interesting in its own idiosyncratic relations between culture and politics.
I (with the architect colleague Srdjan Jovanovic Weiss) have curated an exhibition
titled Romancing True Power: D20. It ran February 12-26, 2015 at Parsons The New School for
Design, 66 Fifth Avenue (between 12th and 13th St). In the meantime my amazing research
assistant and student Yiqing Wang (who really should be running not-a-small country) and I
have produced a supplement to the exhibition, a D20 Journal, in which we put together
thoughts on true power, dicktatroship, dicktatorial fashion, economics, philosophy, body
count and other stats.
D20 (modeled on G20, group of most industrialized nations) is a selective list of leaders
from present and recent past across continents and different political systems. Romancing
True Power investigates an idea of power: autocratic, authoritarian and dictatorial. This
type of power–the Dick power–could be found in both dictatorships and
democracies. The exhibition looks at dicktatorial construct, its typology and trappings.
What constitutes a "strong leader"? Why does the public often prefer one? Since everyone's
list of dicktators is subjective, at the show visitors were invited to PYOD (Pick Your Own
Dick). For the Dick winners and more information check out the D20 Facebook page.
Other topics I am fond of include politics, and mostly Russian politics, and, of course,
movies. But whatever I do, all fits neatly into the last line of Billy Wilder's 1959
classic Some Like it Hot, the best ever, "Nobody's perfect."
(source: see hyperlink above)
I do not intend to slam the IMO legitimate topic – only the content and tone of this
"analysis." You have a PhD in Comp Lit (Princeton, 1998). You shouldn't be writing like a
second-year undergrad.
Hey, JT – welcome back, where you been? Yes, that attitude is familiar among the emigre
Russian Jews, the too-smart-to-believe Ashkenazim that make American jaws drop with their
brilliance: Russians in Russia are miserable and always unhappy, but put them in America and
they shine like diamonds, they're so fucking hap-hap-happy you'd better just get out of the
way. I don't believe Khrushchev was Jewish, but the complaining sounds just like all the
Jewish 'refugees' like Miriam Elder and Julia Ioffe; Russia was a drag, man – but New
Yawk, Dahling, now there's a city! It's almost as if they feel denigrating the country of
their birth is the price of acceptance. Perhaps it is – for a people who snap to
attention whenever they see the American flag, Americans are awfully smitten with Russians
who dump on Russia, as if it affirms their own beliefs.
Khrushcheva seems very stuck on herself, but perhaps she simply believes all the hype. For
my part, I find her mean-spirited and shallow, prone to go for the cheap laugh, and most
comfortable in a crowd of like-minded 'free thinkers'. It amazes me that anyone who
classified him/herself as a free thinker could see American-style democracy as the last word
in human development, but perhaps I'm just thick.
Between a
lecture Dr. Khruscheva gave at my university a year or so ago and an attempted reading of
her book, In Putin's Footsteps , I have concluded that she is the kind of writer who
takes advantage of an absence of consistent critical voices to let her opinions run wild,
untethered from factual backing, theory, or academic standards.
She lectured at my university with the backing of some powerful people within
"Russia-Watching" (quite literally in this case, as one sat behind her while she lectured).
Although she made her argument sloppily, painting in broad brushstrokes, no one challenged
the argument during Q&A.
Read the preview
of In Putin's Footsteps on A'zon. It's ridiculous. The same generalizing commentary as
before but sprinkled on what reads like an extended TripAdvisor review.
For whatever reason, academia and editors give her a free pass. The resulting writing,
while insightful re: how she thinks, is not useful [to me] in any professional sense.
--
Hey, JT – welcome back, where you been?
Haha I've been doing the blog equivalent of breathing into a brown paper bag. Now that I'm
back at uni with a capstone/distinction project, Russia Reviewed will hopefully regain its
previous sense of direction.
Yes, Russians are so miserable, never smile and are permanently depressed at thought of their
misfortune of having been born in Russia and, therefore, condemned to a life of woe under an
authoritarian regime.
I mean, just look at all those sad bastards who have been celebrating "Moskva Day" since
Thursday, 5 September this year.
I wish I could send you some clips that my permanently depressed because he is a Russian
son sent me late yesterday evening from Red Square: a big firework display and sad looking
Russians pretending to be enjoying themselves.
Most of them, I am sure, had been ordered to go to Tversksya Street and walk down to Red
Square.
Tverskaya has been closed to traffic since Thursday (the bogus celebrations end this
evening) and along its length are the usual Soviet-style distractions that the oppressed
multitudes pretend are so much fun.
Since 5 September until the 8th inclusive the city is celebrating the founding of Moskva
in 1147.
Well, not its founding, really, but the earliest date that they have a written record of a
place called "Moskva" – in a letter from the Prince of the city of Vladimir, Yuri
Dolgoruki, to his brother, inviting him to visit him in Moskva. (Remember, this was when Kiev
was the centre of world civilisation.)
It was during the first of these "Moskva Day" celebrations, held 22 years ago, when on 7
September 1997 I asked Mrs. Exile if she wished to marry me.
It was our first date.
I don't like to waste time over important matters.
She jumped at the offer, of course.
No holding her back!
Luckiest break she's ever had, I reckon, for my ebullient presence in her life has most
certainly rescued her from the pit of permanent gloom that would most certainly have
accompanied her living under this regime and from the likelihood of her being wed to a brute
of a balalaika strumming, vodka swilling Russian husband.
Limp-wristed, tea sipping Englishmen are much more preferable!
"... A kreakl is a Russian liberal, often the child or grandchild of Soviet-era intellectuals who believed they knew better than anyone else how the country should be run. ..."
"... "Continuing street protests in Hong Kong and Moscow have no doubt spooked the authoritarian duo of Chinese President Xi Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Moscow protests, the largest in many years, must be keeping Mr. Putin up at night, or they wouldn't be dispersed with such unabated brutality." ..."
"... "This loss of nuclear competence is being cited by nuclear and national security experts in both the U.S. and in Europe's nuclear weapons states as a threat to their military nuclear programs. The White House cited this nuclear nexus in a May memo instructing Rick Perry, the Secretary of Energy, to force utilities to buy power from unprofitable nuclear and coal plants. The memo states that the "entire US nuclear enterprise" including nuclear weapons and naval propulsion, "depends on a robust civilian nuclear industry." ..."
Nina Khrushcheva is a kreakl. We use that word here a lot, and perhaps not all the readers
know what it means. It is a portmanteau of "Creative Class", but makes use of the letter 'k',
because the letter 'c' in Russian has a soft 's' sound, so we use the hard 'k'. The Creative
Class, or so they styled themselves, were the intelligentsia of Soviet times; the free-thinking
liberals who were convinced Russia's best course lay in accommodating the west no matter its
demands, in hope that it would then bless Russia with its secrets for prosperity and all the
fruits of the American Dream.
A kreakl is a Russian liberal, often the child or grandchild of Soviet-era intellectuals
who believed they knew better than anyone else how the country should be run. They express
their disapproval of the current government in the most contemptuous way, interpret its defense
of family values as homophobia, and consider its leadership – uniformly described by the
west as 'authoritarian' – to be stifling their freedom. My position is that their often
privileged upbringing insulates them from appreciating the value of hard work, and lets them
sneer at patriotism, as they often consider themselves global citizens with a worldly grasp of
foreign affairs far greater that of their groveling, sweaty countrymen. Their university
educations allow them to rub shoulders with other pampered scions of post-Soviet affluence, and
even worse are those who are sent abroad to attend western universities, where they internalize
the notion that everyone in America and the UK lives like Skip and Buffy and their other
college friends.
Not everyone who attends university or college turns out a snobbish brat, of course, and in
Russia, at least, not everyone who gets the benefit of a superior education comes from wealth.
A significant number are on scholarships, as both my nieces were. Some western students are in
university or college on scholarships as well, and there are a good many in both places who are
higher-education students because it was their parents dream that they would be, and they saved
all their lives to make it happen.
But many of the Russian loudmouths are those who learned at their daddy's knee that he
coulda been a contendah, if only the money-grubbing, soulless monsters in the government hadn't
kept him down – could have been wealthy if it were not for the money pit of communism,
could have taken a leadership role which would have moved the country forward had the leader
who usurped power not filled all the seats with his cronies and sycophants.
Khrushcheva is somewhat an exception to the rule there, because her grandpa actually was the
leader of the Soviet Union – First Secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union
Nikita Khrushchev. It was he who oversaw the transfer of Crimea to the Ukrainian SSR in 1954,
the same year the Soviet Union
applied to join NATO . Some references consider Khrushchev her grandfather, and some her
great-grandfather; it's complicated. Julia – Khrushcheva's mother – was the
daughter of Leonid, who was a fighter pilot in World War II and the son of Khrushchev. When he
was shot down in the war and did not return, Khrushchev adopted Julia. Nina Khrushcheva is
therefore his biological great-granddaughter, but his adoptive granddaughter.
Now, she's Professor of International Affairs at The New School, New York, USA, and a Senior
Fellow of the World Policy Institute, New York. As you might imagine, The New School is a
hotbed of liberal intellectualism; as its Wiki entry announces, " dedicated to academic freedom
and intellectual inquiry and a home for progressive thinkers". So let's see what a liberal and
progressive thinker thinks about the current state of affairs vis-a-vis Russia and China, and
their western opponents.
You sort of get an early feel for it from the title: "
Putin and Xi are Gambling with their Countries' Futures ". I sort of suspected, even before
I read it, that it was not going to be a story about what a great job Putin and Xi are doing as
leaders of their respective countries.
Just before we get into that a little deeper – what is the purpose of an 'Opinion'
section in a newspaper? If it was 'Facts', then it would be news, because the reporter could
substantiate it. As I best understand it, people read newspapers to learn about news –
things that happened, to who, and where, when and why, documented by someone who either saw
them happen, interviewed someone who did, or otherwise has researched the issue. 'Opinion'
sections, then, allow partisans for various philosophies to present their conclusions as if
they were facts, or to introduce disputed incidents from a standpoint which implies they are
resolved and that the author's view represents fact.
Well, hey; here's an example, in the first paragraph – "Continuing street protests
in Hong Kong and Moscow have no doubt spooked the authoritarian duo of Chinese President Xi
Jinping and Russian President Vladimir Putin. The Moscow protests, the largest in many years,
must be keeping Mr. Putin up at night, or they wouldn't be dispersed with such unabated
brutality."
I suppose they have their fingers on the world's pulse at The New School, but I haven't seen
any indication at all, anywhere, that either Mr. Putin or Mr. Xi are 'spooked' about anything.
The protests in Hong Kong appear to be instigated at the urging of the USA – as usual
– with reports that the protesters are
receiving western funding , and photographs showing protest leaders apparently
meeting with the US Consul-General . Nonetheless, despite the aggressive violence displayed
by the protesters, who are certainly not peaceful, the issue seems to be mostly confined to
Hong Kong, and there have been no indications I have seen that Beijing is 'spooked' about it at
all. In fact, the position of the Chinese government seems fairly reasonable – it does
not want to see Chinese criminals escape justice by fleeing to Hong Kong.
As to whether either protests are representative of a large number of people, it is
difficult to say: organizers of the Hong Kong protests claim almost 2 million, while the police
– responsible for crowd control – say there were no more than a tenth of that
number. And if the Moscow protests really were the largest in years, those hoping to see Putin
overthrown might want to keep quiet about that; organizers claim about 50,000 people, and
organizers usually overestimate the crowd for their own reasons. Moscow is a city of over 13
million just within the city limits. So the massive crowd represents less than half of one
percent of the city's population. Polling of the protest crowd suggested more than half of them
were from outside Moscow, where who is on the city council is no concern of theirs, since they
cannot vote. And in an echo of the iconic Tahrir Square protests, an element of the 'Arab
Spring' – probably the first mass demonstrations managed by social media – the
Moscow protests appear to be
managed and directed via social media links, where it is possible to exercise
disproportionate influence on a targeted crowd of restless youth who have little or no personal
investment in the country, and just want to be part of what's cool.
Let's move on. According to Khrushcheva, the protests are 'being dispersed with unabated
brutality'. That so? Show me. Bear in mind that all these protests are unauthorized, and those
participating in them are breaking the law and in breach of the public peace. Flash violence is
an objective of the demonstrations, because otherwise their numbers are insignificant, and if
they play it by the book nobody pays them any mind. I've seen loads of pictures of the
protesters in Moscow being hauled away to the paddywagons, and nobody is bloody or has their
clothing ripped. Here are some examples (thanks, Moscow Exile).
None of those adolescents looks old enough to vote. A video clip of a Chinese policeman
using his beanbag gun to disperse protesters has been edited to omit the part where he was
swarmed by protesters who were punching him. No citizens who are in high dudgeon at what they
are being told is 'unabated brutality' would tolerate unauthorized protests by young hooligans
in their own towns for a second, and would scorn any suggestion that they are pursuing noble
goals such as freedom and democracy. Fellow demonstrators in these photos seem far more
interested in capturing every bit of the action on their phones than in assisting their
captured co-demonstrators.
By way of contrast, check out this clip of US police officers in New Jersey arresting a young woman on the
beach because there was alcohol – apparently unopened – on the same beach
blanket, which she claimed belonged to her aunt. A pretty small-potatoes issue, you would
think, compared with the fearless defense of freedom and democracy. Yet the police officers,
viewed here on their own body cameras, throw her to the ground and punch her in front of her
child although she is obviously not drunk and their breathalyzer test does not register any
alcohol on her breath. Bystanders gratuitously and repeatedly advise her, "Stop resisting".
People who complain about the way the girl is being handled are told, "Back off, or you'll be
locked up, too". For what? Which of these looks like a police state, to you? Nina Lvovna? I'm
talking to you.
The demonstrations, we are told, are a poignant sign of Putin's declining popularity. Yes,
poor old chap. In fact, Putin's approval
rating in 2019 was 64%; it was 70% in 2000, nearly 20 years ago. Just for info, Donald
Trump, the Leader Of The Free World, had an approval rating with his own voters of 44% in 2018,
and Macron was even worse at 26%. I guess a little Macron goes a long way – his
current approval rating is only 28%. His fortunes have not improved much, you might say.
Boris Johnson has not yet even properly taken the reins in the UK, but his people do not appear
optimistic; about 35% speculate
he is or will be a capable leader , while only 23% rate him more honest than most
politicians. Enjoy those, BoJo; they represent a zenith born of unreasonable hope –
The Economist describes these ratings as 'surprisingly high'. In 2018, the
Netherlands' Mark Rutte
had only 10% approval – and that was the highest of the ministers – while 34%
disapproved. Apparently about half just didn't care.
Look; Khrushcheva is talking out her ass. There just is no way to sugar-coat it. In 2015,
Vladimir Putin was
the most popular leader in the world with national voters. I daresay he is now, as well;
with the state of the world, I find it hard to imagine any other leader has an approval rating
higher than 64%. But feel free to look. Polling agencies carefully parse their questions so as
to push the results in the direction they'd like to see, but when the question is reduced to a
basic "Do you trust Putin? Yes or No?", his approval rating goes higher than it is right now.
Please note, that's the reference supplied by Khrushcheva to substantiate her statement that
fewer and fewer Russians now conflate their nation with its leader.
I don't personally recall Putin ever saying he hoped Trump would improve relations with
Russia, although it would not be an unreasonable wish had he said it. I think he was probably
glad Hillary Clinton did not win, considering her shrill Russophobic rhetoric and fondness for
military solutions to all problems, but Khrushcheva makes him sound like a doddering old fool
who barely knows what century he is living in. I think Russia always hoped for better relations
with America, because when any country's relations with America are very bad, that country
would be wise to prepare for war. Because that's how America solves its problems with other
countries. Washington already had a go at strangling Russia economically, and it failed
spectacularly, and we're getting down to the bottom of the toolbox.
Next, Khrushcheva informs us that Russia is in as weak a position to defeat the USA in a
nuclear war as it was when it was the USSR. That's true, in a roundabout way. For one, there
would be no victors or defeated in a nuclear war. It would quickly escalate to a full-on
exchange, and much of the planet would become uninhabitable. For another, Russia was always in
a pretty good position to wax America's ass in a nuclear exchange and it still is. Russia
still has about
6,800 nuclear weapons to the USA's 6,500 , and has continued to modernize and update its
nuclear arsenal through the years. A Russian strike would be concentrated on a country about a
third its size. If I were a betting man, I wouldn't like those odds. Mind you, if I were a
free-thinking liberal professor who did not have a clue what I was talking about, I would laugh
at the odds – ignorance seasoned with a superiority complex tends to make you act that
way. Just as well that betting men mostly run the world, and not jackhole liberal
professors.
The recent explosion at what was believed to be development of a new nuclear weapon in
Russia is assessed by Khrushcheva to be a clear sign of incompetence, which is quite a
diagnosis considering no investigation has even started yet. Somehow she missed the dramatic explosion of
Elon Musk's SpaceX Falcon 9 rocket, together with its multi-million-dollar satellite payload,
back in 2016. Oh, never mind – Musk quickly explained that it was 'an anomaly'. Well,
that clears it all up. Must have; the US government has continued to throw money at Musk as if
he were embarrassingly naked or something, and nobody seems prepared to suggest it was
incompetent. While we're on that subject, the whole reason SpaceX even exists is because the
USA continues to use Russian RD-180 rockets developed in the 1960s to launch its satellites and
space packages into orbit, because it doesn't have anything better. I'd be careful where I
tossed that 'incompetent' word around. Cheer up, though the news isn't all bad: just a bit more
than a year ago, the most advanced commercial reactor designs from Europe and the United States
just delivered their first megawatt-hours of electricity within one day of each other. Oh,
wait. It is bad news. Because
that took place in China . You know, that place where Xi in his unabated brutality is
trampling upon the fair face of democracy. In fact, according to nuclear energy consultant
Mycle Schneider, principal author of the annual World Nuclear Industry Status Report, "The
Chinese have a very large workforce that they move from one project to another, so their skills
are actually getting better, whereas European and North American companies haven't completed
reactors in decades".
Is that bad? Gee; it might be. "This loss of nuclear competence is being cited by
nuclear and national security experts in both the U.S. and in Europe's nuclear weapons states
as a threat to their military nuclear programs. The White House cited this nuclear nexus in a
May memo instructing Rick Perry, the Secretary of Energy, to force utilities to buy power from
unprofitable nuclear and coal plants. The memo states that the "entire US nuclear enterprise"
including nuclear weapons and naval propulsion, "depends on a robust civilian nuclear
industry." You see, Ninushka, competence in nuclear weapons is directly related to
competence in nuclear engineering as a whole.
I hope she knows more about Russia than she does about China – in a single paragraph
she has the Chinese government threatening to send in the army to crush protests, and standing
aside while thugs beat up protesters – and both are bad. And of course, this threatened
action/inaction had to have been sanctioned by Xi's government. Why? Well, because everyone in
Hong Kong knows it. Much of the rest of her reasoning – free thinking, I guess I should
call it – on China is what Xi 'might be contemplating' or 'could be considering'.
Supported by nothing, apparently, except the liberal free-thinker's gift of clairvoyance.
Hong Kong was always Chinese. The Qing dynasty ceded it to the British Empire in the Treaty
of Nanjing, and it became a British Crown Colony. Britain was back for Kowloon in 1860, and
leased what came to be known as The New Territories for 99 years, ending in 1997. Time's up.
The people of Hong Kong are Chinese; it's not like they are some different and precious race
that China aims to extinguish. I was there a decade after it returned to Chinese control, and
it was largely independent; it had its own flag, the British street names were retained, and
you can probably still stop on Gloucester Road and buy a Jaguar, if you have that kind of
money. To a very large degree, China left it alone and minded its own business, but like I
said; it's Chinese. These ridiculous western attempts to split it off and make an independent
nation of it are only making trouble for the people of Hong Kong and, as usual, appeal mostly
to students who have never run anything much bigger than a bake sale, and 'free-thinking
liberals'.
China is not 'isolated diplomatically'. Beijing is host city to 167
foreign embassies . There are only 10 more in Washington, which considers itself the Center
of the Universe. Lately China has been spreading itself a little,
muscling into Latin America , right in Uncle Sam's backyard. Foreign Direct Investment into
China increased3.6 percent
year-on-year to $78.8 billion USD in January-July 2019, and has increased steadily since
that time, when it fell dramatically owing to Trump's trade war. That has proved far more
disastrous to the USA than to China, which is rapidly sourcing its imports from other suppliers
and establishing new trading relationships which exclude the United States, probably for the
long term. "China is isolated diplomatically" is precisely the sort of inane bibble-babble
liberal free-thinkers tell each other because they want to believe it is true. It is not.
Similarly – and, I would have thought, obviously – China is also not 'increasingly
regarded as an international pariah'. That's another place she's thinking
of.
There is nothing Russia or China could do to please the United States and its increasingly
lunatic governing administration, short of plucking out its eye and offering it for a bauble,
like Benton Wolf in The Age of Miracles. The type of 'reforms' demanded by the US State
Department suggest its current state is delusion, since they are patently designed to weaken
the government and empower dissident groups – is that the essence of democracy? It sure
as fuck is not. You can kind of tell by the way Washington pounces on its own dissident groups
like Mike Pompeo on a jelly roll; the FBI investigated
the Occupy Wall Street movement as a terrorist threat. Russia got a prescient preview of
the kind of treatment it could expect from the west when it applied to join NATO, as I
mentioned at the beginning of this post. The acceptance of the Soviet Union "would be
incompatible with its democratic and defensive aims."
So as most ordinary thinkers could have told you would happen, America's
hold-my-beer-and-watch-this hillbilly moves to split Russia and China apart have succeeded in
driving them closer together; the world's manufacturing and commercial giant and a major energy
producer – a great mix, unless you are the enemy. The rest of the world is kind of
watching America with its pants around its ankles, wondering what it will do next. It failed to
wreck the Russian economy, failed to depose and replace Bashar al-Assad in Syria, failed to
depose and replace Nicolas Maduro in Venezuela, and it will fail to prevent a Sino-Russian axis
which will reshape global trade to its own advantage at the expense of America. Because
whenever it has an opportunity to seize upon a lucid moment, to turn away from its destructive
course, it chooses instead to bullshit itself some more. To whisper what it wishes were true
into its own ear.
Slavery had some good aspects for those chaps who had it rather good. A colonial setup is
the next best thing to slavery, and it also holds its attraction for people who knew how to
place themselves just below the sahibs and above the run-of-the-mill natives. The Hong Kong
revolt is the mutiny of wannabe house niggers who feel that the gap between them and the
natives is rapidly vanishing. Once, a HK resident was head and shoulders above the miserable
mainland coolies; he spoke English, he had smart devices, he had his place in the tentacle
sucking wealth out of the mainland, and some of that wealth stuck to his sweaty hands. But now
he has no advantage compared to the people of Shanghai or Beijing. There is huge swelling of
wealth in the big cities of Red China. The Chinese dress well, travel abroad, and they do not
need HK mediation for dealing with the West. Beijing had offered HK a fair deal of [relative]
equality; nothing would be taken from them, but the shrinking gap is not only unavoidable, but
desirable, too.
However, HK had been the imperial bridgehead in China for too long. Its people were
complicit, nay, willing partners in every Western crime against China, beginning with dumping
opium and sucking out Chinese wealth. Millions of opium addicts, of ruined families and
households nearly destroyed the Middle Kingdom, and each of them added to HK prosperity. The
blood, sweat and labour of all China abundantly supplied the island. HK was the first of the
Treaty Ports, and the last to return home. Its populace was not thoroughly detoxed; they
weren't ideologically prepared for a new life as equals.
Chairman Mao harboured hard suspicions against comprador cities, the cities and the people
who prospered due to their collaboration with the imperialist enemy. He cleansed them with
communist and patriotic re-education; recalcitrant compradors were sent to help peasants in
far-away villages in order to reconnect with the people. Mao's successors had a strong if
misplaced belief in Chinese nationalism as a universal remedy; they thought the Chinese of HK,
Macau and Taiwan would join them the moment the colonial yoke failed. This was an
over-optimistic assessment. The imperialist forces didn't give up on their former house slaves,
and the moment they needed to activate them against independent China they knew where to
look.
Their time came as the trade conflict between the US and China warmed up. The secret
government of the West aka Deep State came to the conclusion that China is getting way too big
for its boots. It is not satisfied with making cheap gadgets for Walmart customers. It is
producing state-of-art devices that compete with American goods and, what's worse, their
devices are not accessible for NSA surveillance. The Chinese company Huawei came under attack;
sanctions and custom duties followed in train. When the Yuan eased under the strain, the
Chinese were accused of manipulating their currency. It is a strong charge: when Japan was
attacked by the West in the 1990s and the Yen had eased as expected, this claim forced Tokyo to
keep the Yen high and take Japan into a twenty-year-long slump. But China did not retreat.
Then the supreme power unleashed its well-practiced weapon: they turned to foment unrest in
China and gave it a lot of space in the media. At first, they played up the fate of the Uygur
Islamists, but it had little success. The Uygur are not numerous, they are not even a majority
in their traditional area; their influence in China is limited. Despite headlines in the
liberal Western media proclaiming that millions of Uygur are locked up in concentration camps,
the impact was nil. No important Muslim state took up this cause.
The anniversary of Tiananmen came (in beginning of June) and went without a hitch. For good
reason: the alleged 'massacre' is a myth, as the Chinese always knew and we know now for
certain thanks to publication of a relevant US Embassy cable by Wikileaks.
There were no thousands of students flattened by tanks. A very few died fighting the army, but
China had evaded the bitter fate of the USSR. In China proper the event had been almost
forgotten. A few participants retell of their experiences to Western audiences, but the desired
turmoil did not materialise.
And then came the time for HK. It is an autonomous part of China; it had not been
re-educated; there are enough people who remember the good days of colonial slavery. The actual
spark for the mutiny, the planned extradition treaty, was exceedingly weak. For the last
decade, HK became the chosen place of refuge for mainland criminals, for HK had extradition
treaties with the US and Britain, but not with the mainland. This had to be remedied.
[The extradition treaty had played an important role in the Snowden case. An ex-CIA spy
Edward Snowden decided to reveal to the world the extent of the NSA surveillance we all are
subjects of. He chose the Guardian newspaper for his revelations, probably because of
the Wikileaks precedent. When he gave an extended interview to the Guardian in HK, his
identity had been revealed. The arrival of the US extradition request was imminent. The Chinese
authorities told Snowden that they would have to send him to a US jail, to torture and death;
that the extradition treaty left them no option in his case. Only the fast footwork of Julian
Assange's brave assistant Sarah Harrison prevented this grim finale and delivered Snowden to
safe Moscow.]
ORDER IT NOW
While HK authorities were obliged to extradite Snowden, they weren't and couldn't extradite
numerous criminals from the mainland. This was an obvious wrong that had to be urgently
corrected, in the face of rising tension. And then the sleeping agents of the West woke up and
activated their networks. They had practically unlimited funds, not only from the West, but
also from the criminals who weren't particularly impecunious and were afraid of extradition.
After the demonstrations started, the Western media gave them maximum coverage, magnifying and
encouraging the mutineers.
Hundreds of articles, leading stories and editorials in important newspapers cheered and
encouraged the HK rebels. The People's War Is Coming in Hong Kong , editorialised the
New
York Times today. An amazing fact (that is if you are a fresh arrival from Mars): the same
newspaper and its numerous sisters paid no attention to the real People's War raging in France,
where the Gilets Jaunes have continued to fight for forty weeks against the austerity-imposing
Macron regime. 11 people were killed and 2,500 injured in France, but the Western media just
mumbled about the GJ antisemitism. Nothing new, indeed. The same media did not notice the
one-million-strong
demonstration against the US war on Iraq, paid little attention to Occupy Wall Street,
disregarded protests against US wars and interventions. One hundred thousand people marching in
New York would get no coverage if their purpose did not agree with the desires of the Real
Government; and alternatively, three thousand protesters in Moscow with its 12 million
population would be presented as the voice of the people challenging Vlad the Tyrant.
In its peculiar way, the media fulfills its purpose of keeping us informed. If mainstream
media reports on something, it usually lies; but if media keeps mum, you can bet it is
important and you are not encouraged to learn of it. It is especially true in case of popular
protests. How do you know they are lying? – Their lips are moving.
The biggest lie is calling the HK rebels marching under the Union Jack, "pro-democracy".
These guys wish to restore colonial rule, to be governed by their strict but fair round-eyed
overlords. It could be a bad or a good idea, but democracy it ain't. The second biggest lie is
the slogan Make Hong Kong Great Britain Again.
Hong Kong was never a part of Great Britain. This was never on offer, so it can't become
that again. Even the most adventure- and diversity-prone British politician won't make seven
million Chinese in a far-away territory British citizens with full rights, members of an
imperfect but real British democracy. HK was a colony; this is what the marchers aspire to, to
make HK colony again.
With all these differences taken into account, this is as true for Moscow demos as well.
Moscow protesters dream of a Russia occupied by NATO forces, not of democracy. They believe
that they, pro-Western, educated, entrepreneurial, would form the comprador class and prosper
at the expense of hoi polloi. Mercifully, they aren't plentiful: the Russians already tried to
live under benign Western occupation between 1991 and 2000, when the IMF directed their
finances and American advisers from Harvard ran the state machinery. Smart and ruthless Jews
like Bill Browder , Boris
Berezovsky, Roman Abramovich made their fortunes, but Russia was ruined and its people were
reduced to poverty.
Not many Russians would like to return to the Roaring Nineties, but some would. It is a
matter for the majority to prevent this aspiring minority to achieve its aspirations. Those who
can't take it will flee to Israel, as young Mr Yablonsky
who discovered his Jewish roots after two nights of police detention. He landed in jail for
violently fighting erection of a church in his town.
The Chinese will likewise sort out their HK affliction. It can be done if the government
does not promise to restrict its counteractions to painless and bloodless measures. Only the
real and imminent threat of painful and bloody suppression can make such measures unnecessary.
Likewise, only the imminent threat of no-deal Brexit could bring some sense into the stubborn
heads of the EU leaders. A state that is not ready to use force will necessarily fail, as did
the Ukrainian state under Mr Yanukowych in 2014. Blood will be shed and the state will be
ruined, if its rulers are too squeamish to stop the rebellion.
We can distinguish a real people's rising and foreign-inspired interventions on behalf of
the compradors. The first one will be silenced while the second will be glorified by the New
York Times. It is that simple.
I would not worry overmuch for China. The Chinese leaders knew how to deal with Tiananmen,
they knew how to deal with minority unrest, without unnecessary cruelty and without hesitation
and prevarication. They weren't dilly-dallying when the US tried to
send to HK its warships , but flatly denied them the pleasure. They will overcome.
China should do a 'Kashmir' on Hong Kong. Open it fully to all the Chinese. Let Chinese go
there and march against Hong Kong snobs and wanna-be-whites.
That said, let's cut the Anglos some slack. Brit empire did lots of bad things but also
lots of good things. While HK was set up as colonial outpost and cooperated in terrible opium
trade, it was also a center of innovation and change that introduced all of China to new
ideas. Also, the trajectory of Chinese history since the 80s shows that it had much to learn
from Hong Kong and Singapore. Maoism was a disaster, and it also spawned Khmer Rouge that was
worse than French imperialism(that wasn't so bad). Also, back then, it was obvious that the
West was indeed far freer and saner than communist China. HK and Singapore set the template
for big China to follow.
But that was then, this is now. West is free? UK imprisons people for tweets. The West is
sane? France and UK welcome African invaders while banning people like Jared Taylor who stand
for survival of the West. Also, the West, under Jewish power, has moved into neo-imperialist
mode against Russia, Iran, and Middle East. And US media are not free. It is controlled by
Zionist oligarchs who impose a certain narrative, even utterly bogus ones like Russia
Collusion while working with other monopoly capitalists to shut down alternative news
sites.
And when globo-homo-mania is the highest 'spiritual' expression of the current West, it is
now crazy land.
This is why China must now crush Hong Kong. Don't send in the tanks. Just open the gates
and send 10 million mainlanders to march down the streets accusing HK snobs of being
comprador a-holes. That will do the trick. Turn Hong Kong into No-Bull House.
And what happened to Taiwan under globo-homo regime? It has 'gay marriage'. Chinese need
to go there and use maximum force to wipe out the decadent scum.
Some in the West complain about China's social credit system, and I agree it's bad, but we
got the same shit here. Ask Laura Loomer and Jared Taylor. 1/4 of corporations will not hire
people based on their support of Trump. Also, Chinese term for people with bad social credit
is mild compared to what Jewish elites call dissident Americans: 'deplorables', 'white
supremacist scum', 'white trash', 'neo nazi', etc. It's all very ironic since globalist Jews
are the new nazis who spread wars for Israel to destroy millions of lives.
I saw Bannon on TV recently around the time of the Tiananmen anniversary. He said that 75,000
people were killed in the Tiananmen incident. This tells you something about his lack of
sophistication or credibility. I was a Visiting Professor at the Peking Union Medical College
in 1989 and I always assumed that the numbers of dead and injured were greatly exaggerated. I
asked many fellow Professors and students in Beijing for their opinions over the years. Many
of these were working in the local hospitals at the time. On average the response to me was
between 300-500 dead and injured. I have never had any reason to question this estimate. The
Wikileaks memo confirms this.
I saw Bannon on TV recently around the time of the Tiananmen anniversary. He said that
75,000 people were killed in the Tiananmen incident. This tells you something about his
lack of sophistication or credibility.
Actually, the dishonesty or incompetence of our MSM is *vastly* greater than you're making
it out to be.
Over twenty years ago, the Beijing bureau chief of the Washington Post published a long
piece in the Columbia Journalism Review publicly admitted that the supposed "Tiananmen Square
Massacre" was just a media hoax/error, and that the claims of the PRC government were
probably correct:
Under the circumstances, it's difficult to believe that most MSM journalists interested in
the subject aren't well aware of the truth, and I've noticed that they usually choose their
words very carefully to avoid outright lies, but still implying something that is totally
incorrect. I'd assume that these implied falsehoods are then wildly exaggerated by ignorant
demagogues such as Bannon.
It's really astonishing that our MSM still continues to promote this "Big Lie" more than
two decades after the CJR admission ran.
Everyone knows that large numbers of people, including some PRC soldiers, were killed or
injured in the violent urban riots elsewhere in Beijing. I think the official death toll
claimed by the PRC government at the time was something like 300 killed, which seems pretty
plausible to me.
So if I'm reading this article right–Communist China so gooooood– how about those
65,000,000 Mao and his "Leaders" er, basically sort of er, murdered? Lets hear what they have
to say about the great China "leaders"? Oh yeah, we can't they killed them . Is this the take
away quote from Mr. Shamir?: "I would not worry overmuch for China. The Chinese leaders knew
how to deal with Tiananmen, they knew how to deal with minority unrest, without unnecessary
cruelty and without hesitation and prevarication." Yes, they do know "how to deal with
minority unrest" historically–65,000, 000 corpses is some real "dealing" -- no
"unnecessary cruelty"? (I also read recently of the sexual torture of Falun Gong
practitioners–brutal gang rapes and with instruments of torture–this is recent
and well, happening now I read– Is this also how to deal with "minority
unrest"–Do we cheer on China for this too? No "unnecessary cruelty" at work here
either? I mean you could point out that yes, there is definitely some of the Colonial
backlash he cites as to Hong Kong at work without praising how great China is at "dealing
with minorites" I think, that would have played a bit better, to me anyway . https://www.heritage.org/asia/commentary/the-legacy-mao-zedong-mass-murder
https://www.theepochtimes.com/sexual-torture-of-detained-falun-dafa-adherents-rampant-rights-lawyer_2807772.html
Interviews of actual Hong Kongers suggest that their principal objection to extradition is
that residents of HK would then be subject to People's Courts rather than to the British
style courts of HK with all the legal trappings of the Foreign Devils (presumption of
innocence, rules of evidence, no hearsay, no secret trials, no anonymous accusers – all
that folderol).
@getaclue China's not
a communist country except in name. The Epoch Times is a Falun Gong mouthpiece that makes
stuff up. I don't support Mao but he is irrelevant today.
The reasons you list might motivate some of the protesters, but it can't be responsible for
this many of them. There IS a homegrown problem here and China would be foolish to ignore it.
The protester's motivations and their implications, as I see it:
1. Loss of prestige – Irrelevant, they'll get used to it
2. Colonial nostalgia – Dead end, open to mockery
3. Housing/economic issues – Manageable with subsidies and regulations, but
HK will have to give up some autonomy
4. Regional tribalism/xenophobia – Manageable, not unique to HK
5. US intervention – Dangerous but manageable with better PR & soft
power
6. Genuine belief in liberal democracy – Very dangerous, will cause national
decline similar to the West
@Brabantian They are
the ideal rat traps.
Even if Wikileaks wasn't a set-up, undoubtably they would be under close surveillance and/or
be infiltrated and compromised.
Snowden has been suspect in my mind when he purportedly left so much info to just one
journalist belonging to a sketchy outfit, and only a trickle of info came forth, while he's
celebrated all over. Many of us already knew about such program from good people like William
Binney.
As you say, there are real whisleblowers, and they are ignored, jailed or dead.
Goddamn Israel, this is an excellent piece of writing. You hit every nail on the head when it
comes to explaining why the troublemakers in Hong Kong are a bunch of useful idiots being
used by imperialist powers. These bastards really are house niggers, the kind of people who
would side with a distant foreign power over their own countrymen. Hats off to you good sir,
thank you for your clarity of thought.
@Commentator Mike
Exactly. The Chinese use the deep state to keep order and suppress crime; Washington uses it
to spread disorder (Antifa) and protect crime (BLM). There is a difference, you see!
I see no real difference between the English colonies and the previous Chinese colonies in
Asia this would be "the pot calling the kettle black", just the usual hypocrisy of state
actors.
The local HK people who live on the edge of these power structures are not the seeming
profiteers of any of this they exist in frameworks they can neither control nor escape escape
from so blaming them for being in a place not of their choosing is being disingenuous.
All I read is someone blaming children for the sins of the father.
On HK riots, there are some interesting writers giving some insight into US gov, CIA, UK gov,
MI6, Canada, Germany involvement in collabration with treason HKies.
The ZUS has started to purge & shut down pro-China-Russia Truth teller in FB,
tweeters, Google,
Those can read HKies Cantonese writing, here's one site where these HK rioters recruit,
organize & discuss where to meet, how to attack police, activities, and payment. https://lihkg.com/category/1?order=now
This is the truth of white shirt(local residents West called mobsters) vs black
shirt(rioters West called peaceful protestors). The residents of Yuan Lan district demanded
the rioters not to mess up their place. The black shirt challenge white shirt for fight by
spraying fire host and hurling vulgarity, ended get beaten up.
Any way, I was permanent banned from Quora, FB, even I am not related to China, just
because I exposed some of ZUS-India axis evils & lies with evidences in other topics.
Censorship is fully in placed.
HK was a colony; this is what the marchers aspire to, to make HK colony again.
I haven't followed this closely, but – why? Why would so many Chinese want that? I
understand a couple of tycoons, but why would ethnic Chinese want a foreign rule?
Perhaps they- just speculating – don't care about full democracy, but are scared of
China's Big Brother policy of complete surveillance & a zombie slavery society. No one
with a functioning mind- and the Chinese, whatever one thinks of their hyper-nationalism
& a streak of robotic- groupthink- conformist culture – wants to live in a chaos;
but also, no one wants to live in a dystopian nightmare which is the fundamental social
project of the new China.
The latest, apaprently, from The Mouth (Sauron .):
.Four police officers were filmed drawing their guns after demonstrators were seen
chasing them with metal pipes .
.senior police officials, who spoke on condition of anonymity, said this week that
officers had been targeted and exposed online even while there was temporary peace on the
streets. The police said officers' personal data, contact information, home addresses, and
more had been shared online, and accused protesters of threatening officers' families .
Is anyone there thinking that as soon as they "neutralize" the LOCAL police force
SOMETHING else will come into the fray?
Probably not. Feels good.
This time it won't be Communist era conscripts of the regular Army.
I'd say good luck to those protesters but really can't. Wouldn't make any sense.
A state that is not ready to use force will necessarily fail, as did the Ukrainian state
under Mr Yanukowych in 2014. Blood will be shed and the state will be ruined, if its rulers
are too squeamish to stop the rebellion.
Thank you, Me Shamir.
Your analogy of the house nigger is spot on and a accurate portrayal of the slave
mentality held by these protestors. It is the epitome of shamelessness and insanity to beg to
be enslaved. As a Hker, I am happy to say none of the people I associate with support the
protestors and these British house niggers are the filth of HK society.
You are absolutely right to point out a state that is not ready to use force will fail and
I think the situation have reached a critical point where some blood must be shed and some
examples to be made. There is a Chinese saying " People don't cry until they see the coffin."
Time to bring it on.
I never understood Mao and why he had to kill all those millions of people, I do now
The protests are also driven by personal autonomy desires.
Look at the micro level. My sister teaches English in Chengdu. Google, Gmail, You Tube,
What's App and Facebook are all blocked in China.
You have to download a VPN before you land to use any of these sites.
Everything online in China is done by WeChat. *Everything* . From video calls to pay your
utilities to banking. It's an open joke that WeChat is heavily monitored by the Party. It's
the meat of your social credit score- WeChat data.
However, in HK, there are servers where you can hop on FB, Google products and the
like.
HK has a more laisse faire vibe that huge enormous China. If you have never been, that
point can't be overstated. To make blanket statements about anything in China is
misleading.
Because China is another planet. HK was/ is a cosmopolitan outpost that had its own
identity- It does not want to be swallowed up by clodhopper spitting burping mainlanders
completely.
Most comments are idiotic (as is the article). True, Western players certainly have fomented
much of this; true, many (most?) protesters are violent & obnoxius; true, Chinese
national identity planners want to unify, step by step, all mainland (and not only them) Han
Chinese under one rule, fearing of some disintegration in the future.
But, having in mind what kind of society mainland China was & has become, Wittfogel's
remark on oriental despotism becomes pertinent .
The good citizens of classical Greece drew strength from the determination of two of their
countrymen, Sperthias and Bulis, to resist the lure of total power. On their way to Suza, the
Spartan envoys were met by Hydarnes, a high Persian official, who offered to make them mighty
in their homeland, if only they would attach themselves to the Great King, his despotic
master. To the benefit of Greece-and to the benefit of all free men-Herodotus has preserved
their answer. "Hydarnes," they said, "thou art a one-sided counselor. Thou hast experience of
half the matter; but the other half is beyond thy knowledge. A slave's life thou
understandest; but, never having tasted liberty, thou canst not tell whether it be sweet or
no. Ah! hadst thou known what freedom is, thou wouldst have bidden us fight for it, not with
the spear only. but with the battle-axe."
"Once, a HK resident was head and shoulders above the miserable mainland coolies; he spoke
English, he had smart devices, he had his place in the tentacle sucking wealth out of the
mainland, and some of that wealth stuck to his sweaty hands."
HK is having trouble competing with it's closest peer competitor Singapore. Some of the
reason for that is a legal framework that disadvantages HK. The basis of HK real estate
market attractiveness over other locations in China and the world is a legal framework
separate from China. While the extraction treaty seems reasonable at first, remember HK's
extradition treaties have to compete with Singaporean, Taiwanese, and Australian extradition
treaties. A curiosity of the extradition treaty is HK is already in China, so why the need to
extradite people to somewhere else in China?
China might or might not be able to industrialize its economy through central planning.
But one industry they have not been able to centrally plan is movies and entertainment. How
is it that in the past with nothing HK had a top tier movie industry, Bruce Lee, but now
seems to have nothing.
IMO, mainland Chinese authorities just don't understand the HK economy and are mostly
chosing policies they consider convenient.
"Smart and ruthless Jews like Bill Browder, Boris Berezovsky, Roman Abramovich made their
fortunes, but Russia was ruined and its people were reduced to poverty."
That is the way the WASP Empire, the Anglo-Zionist Empire, provides freedom.
Send your money to VDARE so it can call for more WASP Empire – which the WASP and
Jewish Elites will fill with as many non-whites as they can entice in order to smash the
white trash down forever, so that even more Jews become multi-billionaires. And we all can
delight in speaking English, the language of international Jewry since WW2.
@Wally "HK was taken
from China, China has the right to take it back."
Yes, but not until 2047, apparently:
"One country, two systems" is a constitutional principle formulated by Deng Xiaoping, the
Paramount Leader of the People's Republic of China (PRC), for the reunification of China
during the early 1980s. He suggested that there would be only one China, but distinct Chinese
regions such as Hong Kong and Macau could retain their own economic and administrative
systems, while the rest of the PRC (or "Mainland China") uses the socialism with Chinese
characteristics system. Under the principle, each of the two regions could continue to have
its own governmental system, legal, economic and financial affairs, including trade relations
with foreign countries, all of which are independent from those of the Mainland ."
" .Hong Kong was a colony of the United Kingdom, ruled by a governor appointed by the
monarchy of the United Kingdom, for 156 years from 1841 (except for four years of Japanese
occupation during WWII) until 1997, when it was returned to Chinese sovereignty. China agreed
to accept some conditions, as is stipulated in the Sino-British Joint Declaration, such as
the drafting and adoption of Hong Kong's "mini-constitution" Basic Law before its return. The
Hong Kong Basic Law ensured that Hong Kong will retain its capitalist economic system and own
currency (the Hong Kong Dollar), legal system, legislative system, and people's rights and
freedom for fifty years, as a special administrative region (SAR) of China for 50 years.
Set to expire in 2047, the current arrangement has permitted Hong Kong to function as its
own entity under the name "Hong Kong, China" in many international settings ."
Its, "interesting" that[ unless I somehow missed it], this important detail was completely
omitted from this very poorly written article, and from [at least] the first 56 comments in
the thread.
From the comments so far, I notice that the usual Zionist, pro-Jewish, pro-Israeli crew
around here (PeterAUS, Corvinus, Bardon Kaldian, TKK) also all happen to be virulently
anti-China.
Quite an interesting correlation. It seems to suggest something
We can distinguish a real people's rising and foreign-inspired interventions on behalf
of the compradors. The first one will be silenced while the second will be glorified by the
New York Times. It is that simple.
Well put Sir.
And spot on true.
It is really the perfect metric for understanding the underlying motivations and relative
merit, (or lack there of) for any geopolitical event or movement.
Should the people of Crimea be able to determine their own destiny?
Just look to the NYT to understand the nuances of that region and conflict. If they say
Crimea is foundering under Russian tyranny, then you can be 100% certain the opposite is the
truth.
Did the US foment democracy in (Yats is the guy) Ukraine? Read the NYT, and it all gets
spelled out. Assad's chemical attacks, moderate rebels.. From MH17 to 'Russian aggression',
you can find 'all the truth that's fit to print'. Only inversed.
Hong Kong, Donbas, Iran, Syria, Yemen, Charlottesville, Yellow Vests, Gaza, Russian
hacking and collusion.. and on and on and on. It's an invaluable tool for understanding our
times and the motivations and principles (or lack there of) being brought to bear.
And as you mention, for the really salient things, (like serial aggressive wars
based on lies, treasonous atrocities writ large, and assorted war crimes, DNC corruption, GOP
corruption, et al ad nauseam), one must listen to the crickets, who speak thunderously
of these things, with their telling silence.
Rampant white supremacists shooting people right and left, are bull-horned by the
screeching -silence over every POC who's a mass-shooter'.
By carefully not reporting some things, and outright lies and distortions with others, the
NYT has become an invaluable tool for glimmering the ((moral abomination)) of our times.
We should all be very grateful for their solid and predictable efforts.
– That agreement does not give complete independence & sovereignty to HK.
– That agreement does not allow rioters to engage in destructive, disruptive, violent
actions.
– That agreement mandates that the HK administration maintain order, which heretofore
they have not.
– Therefore that agreement has been violated, invalidated by the HK administration.
China has the right & responsibility to maintain order in HK. HK is theirs, they are
rightfully taking it back.
This is anold, 2015 article that is still rrrelenet today. Well written overview of British policies toward Russia
Notable quotes:
"... Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the intention of coming out on top is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and its entire system is coming down. ..."
"... EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putin's bid for the Presidency, and throwing Russia into deadly political turmoil. ..."
"... In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against the Russian government as "authoritarian," "dictators," and so forth. She said, "The trend lines for freedom and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since Vladimir Putin took power and set about the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state." She announced at that point that the elections would be illegitimate: "[T]he current regime will likely use the upcoming parliamentary elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March 2012 with the inevitable falsifications and manipulations, to claim the continued legitimacy of its rule." ..."
"... The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy, from which perch she has spread "Cold War" venom against Putin and the Russian government. ..."
"... Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08. ..."
"... NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online "anti-corruption" activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations. Addressing crowds on the street, Navalny sounds more like Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic. Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration in Moscow. ..."
January 9, 2012 -Organizers of the December 2011 "anti-vote-fraud" demonstrations in Moscow have announced Feb. 4 as the date
of their next street action, planned as a march around the city's Garden Ring Road on the 22nd anniversary of a mass demonstration
which paved the way to the end of the Soviet Union. While there is a fluid situation within both the Russian extraparliamentary opposition
layers, and the ruling circles and other Duma parties, including a process of "dialogue" between them, in which ex-Finance Minister
Alexei Kudrin is playing a role, it is clear that British imperial interests are intent on-if not actually destroying Prime Minister
Vladimir Putin's bid for reelection as Russia's President in the March 4 elections-casting Russia into ongoing, destructive political
turmoil.
Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the intention of coming out on top
is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and its entire system is coming down.
Review of the events leading up to the Dec. 4, 2011 Duma elections, which the street demonstrators demanded be cancelled for fraud,
shows that not only agent-of-British-influence Mikhail Gorbachov, the ex-Soviet President, but also the vast Project Democracy apparatus
inside the United States, exposed by EIR in the 1980s as part of an unconstitutional "secret government,"[1]
have been on full mobilization to block the current Russian leadership from continuing in power.
Project Democracy
Typical is the testimony of Nadia Diuk, vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy (NED), before the Subcommittee
on Europe and Eurasia of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs last July 26. The NED is the umbrella of Project Democracy;
it functions, inclusively, through the International Republican Institute (IRI, linked with the Republican Party) and the National
Democratic Institute (NDI, linked with the Democratic Party, and currently headed by Madeleine Albright).
Diuk was educated at the U.K.'s Unversity of Sussex Russian studies program, and then taught at Oxford University, before coming
to the U.S.A. to head up the NED's programs in Eastern Europe and Russia beginning 1990. She is married to her frequent co-author,
Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic Institute, who headed up the private intelligence outfit Freedom House[2]
for 12 years. Her role is typical of British outsourcing of key strategic operations to U.S. institutions.
EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putin's bid for the Presidency, and throwing Russia
into deadly political turmoil.
In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against the Russian government as "authoritarian,"
"dictators," and so forth. She said, "The trend lines for freedom and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since
Vladimir Putin took power and set about the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state." She
announced at that point that the elections would be illegitimate: "[T]he current regime will likely use the upcoming parliamentary
elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March 2012 with the inevitable falsifications and manipulations, to claim
the continued legitimacy of its rule."
Diuk expressed renewed hope that the disastrous 2004 Orange Revolution experiment in Ukraine could be replicated in Russia, claiming
that "when the protests against authoritarian rule during Ukraine's Orange Revolution brought down the government in 2004, Russian
citizens saw a vision across the border of an alternative future for themselves as a Slavic nation." She then detailed what she claimed
were the Kremlin's reactions to the events in Ukraine, charging that "the leaders in the Kremlin-always the most creative innovators
in the club of authoritarians-have also taken active measures to promote support of the government and undermine the democratic opposition...."
Holos Ameryky
The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy, from which perch she has spread
"Cold War" venom against Putin and the Russian government.
While lauding "the democratic breakthroughs in the Middle East" in 2011, Diuk called on the Congress to "look to [Eastern Europe]
as the source of a great wealth of experience on how the enemies of freedom are ever on the alert to assert their dominance, but
also how the forces for freedom and democracy will always find a way to push back in a struggle that demands our support."
In September, Diuk chaired an NED event featuring a representative of the NED-funded Levada Center Russian polling organization,
who gave an overview of the then-upcoming December 4 Duma election. Also speaking there was Russian liberal politician Vladimir Kara-Murza,
who predicted in the nastiest tones that Putin will suffer the fate of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In this same September period,
Mikhail Gorbachov, too, was already forecasting voting irregularities and a challenge to Putin's dominance.
The NED, which has an annual budget of $100 million, sponsors dozens of "civil society" groups in Russia. Golos, the supposedly
independent vote-monitoring group that declared there would be vote fraud even before the elections took place, has received NED
money through the NDI since 2000. Golos had a piecework program, paying its observers a set amount of money for each reported voting
irregularity. NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny-the online anti-corruption activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations-since
2006, when he and Maria Gaidar (daughter of the late London-trained shock therapy Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar) launched a youth debating
project called "DA!" (meaning "Yes!" or standing for "Democratic Alternative"). Gorbachov's close ally Vladimir Ryzhkov, currently
negotiating with Kudrin on terms of a "dialogue between the authorities and the opposition," also received NED grants to his World
Movement for Democracy.
Besides George Soros's Open Society Foundations (formerly, Open Society Institute, OSI), the biggest source of funds for this
meddling, including funding which was channeled through the NDI and the IRI, is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID).
Officially, USAID has spent $2.6 billion on programs in Russia since 1992. The current acknowledged level is around $70 million annually,
of which nearly half is for "Governing Justly & Democratically" programs, another 30% for "Information" programs, and only a small
fraction for things like combatting HIV and TB. On Dec. 15, Assistant Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs
Philip Gordon announced that the Obama Administration would seek Congressional approval to step up this funding, with "an initiative
to create a new fund to support Russian non-governmental organizations that are committed to a more pluralistic and open society."
Awaiting McFaul
White House/Pete Souza
The impending arrival in Moscow of Michael McFaul (shown here with his boss in the Oval Office), as U.S. Ambassador to Russia,
is seen by many there as an escalation of Project Democracy efforts to destabilize the country.
People from various parts of the political spectrum in Russia see the impending arrival of Michael McFaul as U.S. Ambassador to
Russia as an escalation in Project Democracy efforts to destabilize Russia. McFaul, who has been Barack Obama's National Security
Council official for Russia, has been working this beat since the early 1990s, when he represented the NDI in Russia at the end of
the Soviet period, and headed its office there.
As a Russia specialist at Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Hoover Institution, as well as the
Carnegie Endowment, and an array of other Russian studies think tanks, McFaul has stuck closely to the Project Democracy agenda.
Financing for his research has come from the NED, the OSI, and the Smith-Richardson Foundation (another notorious agency of financier
interests within the U.S. establishment). He was an editor of the 2006 book Revolution in Orange: The Origins of Ukraine's Democratic
Breakthrough, containing chapters by Diuk and Karatnycky.
In his own contribution to a 2010 book titled After Putin's Russia,[3]
McFaul hailed the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine-which was notoriously funded and manipulated from abroad-as a triumph of "people's
political power from below to resist and eventually overturn a fraudulent election."
Before coming to the NSC, one of McFaul's many positions at Stanford was co-director of the Iran Democracy Project. He has also
been active in such projects as the British Henry Jackson Society which is active in the drive to overthrow the government of Syria.
The Internet Dimension
The December 2011 street demonstrations in Moscow were organized largely online. Participation rose from a few hundred on Dec.
5, the day after the election, to an estimated 20,000 people on Bolotnaya Square Dec. 10, and somewhere in the wide range of 30,000
to 120,000 on Academician Sakharov Prospect Dec. 24.
Headlong expansion of Internet access and online social networking over the past three to five years has opened up a new dimension
of political-cultural warfare in Russia. An EIR investigation finds that British intelligence agencies involved in the current
attempts to destabilize Russia and, in their maximum version, overthrow Putin, have been working intensively to profile online activity
in Russia and find ways to expand and exploit it. Some of these projects are outsourced to think tanks in the U.S.A. and Canada,
but their center is Cambridge University in the U.K.-the heart of the British Empire, home of Bertrand Russell's systems analysis
and related ventures of the Cambridge Apostles.[4]
The scope of the projects goes beyond profiling, as can be seen in the Cambridge-centered network's interaction with Russian anti-corruption
crusader Alexei Navalny, a central figure in the December protest rallies.
While George Soros and his OSI prioritized building Internet access in the former Soviet Union starting two decades ago, as recently
as in 2008 British cyberspace specialists were complaining that the Internet was not yet efficient for political purposes in Russia.
Oxford University's Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism produced a Soros-funded report in 2008, titled "The Web that Failed:
How opposition politics and independent initiatives are failing on the Internet in Russia." The Oxford-Reuters authors regretted
that processes like the Orange Revolution, in which online connections were crucial, had not gotten a toehold in Russia. But they
quoted a 2007 report by Andrew Kuchins of the Moscow Carnegie Center, who found reason for optimism in the seven-fold increase in
Russian Internet (Runet) use from 2000 to 2007. They also cited Robert Orttung of American University and the Resource Security Institute,
on how Russian blogs were reaching "the most dynamic members of the youth generation" and could be used by "members of civil society"
to mobilize "liberal opposition groups and nationalists."
Scarcely a year later, a report by the digital marketing firm comScore crowed that booming Internet access had led to Russia's
having "the world's most engaged social networking audience." Russian Facebook use rose by 277% from 2008 to 2009. The Russia-based
social networking outfit Vkontakte.ru (like Facebook) had 14.3 million visitors in 2009; Odnoklassniki.ru (like Classmates.com) had
7.8 million; and Mail.ru-My World had 6.3 million. All three of these social networking sites are part of the Mail.ru/Digital Sky
Technologies empire of Yuri Milner,[5]
with the individual companies registered in the British Virgin Islands and other offshore locations.
The Cambridge Security Programme
Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that the Runet grew five times faster
than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08.
Two top profilers of the Runet are Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski, who assessed its status in their essay "Control and Subversion
in Russian Cyberspace."[6] At
the University of Toronto, Deibert is a colleague of Barry Wellman, co-founder of the International Network of Social Network Analysis
(INSNA).[7] Rohozinski is a
cyber-warfare specialist who ran the Advanced Network Research Group of the Cambridge Security Programme (CSP) at Cambridge University
in 2002-07. Nominally ending its work, the CSP handed off its projects to an array of organizations in the OpenNet Initiative (ONI),
including Rohozinski's SecDev Group consulting firm, which issues the Information Warfare Monitor.
The ONI, formally dedicated to mapping and circumventing Internet surveillance and filtering by governments, is a joint project
of Cambridge (Rohozinski), the Oxford Internet Institute, the Berkman Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, and
the University of Toronto.
Deibert and Rohozinski noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East,
in 2000-08. They cited official estimates that 38 million Russians were going online as of 2010, of whom 60 had broadband access
from home; the forecast number of Russia-based Runet users by 2012 was 80 million, out of a population of 140 million. Qualitatively,
the ONI authors welcomed what they called "the rise of the Internet to the center of Russian culture and politics." On the political
side, they asserted that "the Internet has eclipsed all the mass media in terms of its reach, readership, and especially in the degree
of free speech and opportunity to mobilize that it provides."
This notion of an Internet-savvy core of the population becoming the focal point of Russian society is now being hyped by those
who want to push the December demonstrations into a full-scale political crisis. Such writers call this segment of the population
"the creative class," or "the active creative minority," which can override an inert majority of the population. The Dec. 30 issue
of Vedomosti, a financial daily co-owned by the Financial Times of London, featured an article by sociologist Natalya
Zubarevich, which was then publicized in "Window on Eurasia" by Paul Goble, a State Department veteran who has concentrated for decades
on the potential for Russia to split along ethnic or other lines.
Zubarevich proposed that the 31% of the Russian population living in the 14 largest cities, of which 9 have undergone "post-industrial
transformation," constitute a special, influential class, as against the inhabitants of rural areas (38%) and mid-sized industrial
cities with an uncertain future (25%). Goble defined the big-city population as a target: "It is in this Russia that the 35 million
domestic users of the Internet and those who want a more open society are concentrated."
The Case of Alexei Navalny
In the "The Web that Failed" study, Oxford-Reuters authors Floriana Fossato, John Lloyd, and Alexander Verkhovsky delved into
the missing elements, in their view, of the Russian Internet. What would it take, they asked, for Runet participants to be able to
"orchestrate motivation and meaningful commitments"? They quoted Julia Minder of the Russian portal Rambler, who said about the potential
for "mobilization": "Blogs are at the moment the answer, but the issue is how to find a leading blogger who wants to meet people
on the Internet several hours per day. Leading bloggers need to be entertaining.... The potential is there, but more often than not
it is not used."
NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online "anti-corruption" activist and cult figure of the December
demonstrations. Addressing crowds on the street, Navalny sounds more like Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist
found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic. Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration
in Moscow.
It is difficult not to wonder if Alexei Navalny is a test-tube creation intended to fill the missing niche. This would not be
the first time in recent Russian history that such a thing happened. In 1990, future neoliberal "young reformers" Anatoli Chubais
and Sergei Vasilyev wrote a paper under International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) auspices, on the priorities
for reform in the Soviet Union. They stated that a certain personality was missing on the Soviet scene at that time: the wealthy
businessman. In their IIASA paper, Chubais and Vasilyev wrote: "We now see a figure, arising from historical non-existence: the figure
of a businessman-entrepreneur, who has enough capital to bear the investment responsibility, and enough technological knowledge and
willingness to support innovation."[8]
This type of person was subsequently brought into existence through the corrupt post-Soviet privatization process in Russia, becoming
known as "the oligarchs." Was Navalny, similarly, synthesized as a charismatic blogger to fill the British subversive need for "mobilization"?
Online celebrity Navalny's arrest in Moscow on Dec. 5, and his speech at the Academician Sakharov Prospect rally on Dec. 24 were
highlights of last month's turmoil in the Russian capital. Now 35 years old, Navalny grew up in a Soviet/Russian military family
and was educated as a lawyer. In 2006, he began to be financed by NED for the DA! project (see above). Along the way-maybe through
doing online day-trading, as some biographies suggest, or maybe from unknown benefactors-Navalny acquired enough money to be able
to spend $40,000 (his figure) on a few shares in each of several major Russian companies with a high percentage of state ownership.
This gave him minority-shareholder status, as a platform for his anti-corruption probes.
It must be understood that the web of "corruption" in Russia is the system of managing cash flows through payoffs, string-pulling,
and criminal extortion, which arose out of the boost that Gorbachov's perestroika policy gave to pre-existing Soviet criminal networks
in the 1980s. It then experienced a boom under darlings of London like Gaidar, who oversaw the privatization process known as the
Great Criminal Revolution in the 1990s. As Russia has been integrated into an international financial order, which itself relies
on criminal money flows from the dope trade and strategically motivated scams like Britain's BAE operations in the Persian Gulf,
the preponderance of shady activity in the Russian economy has only increased.
Putin's governments inherited this system, and it can be ended when the commitment to monetarism, which LaRouche has identified
as a fatal flaw even among genuinely pro-development Russians, is broken in Russia and worldwide. The current bankruptcy of the Trans-Atlantic
City of London-Eurozone-Wall Street system means that now is the time for this to happen!
Yale Fellows
In 2010, Navalny was accepted to the Yale World Fellows Program, as one of fewer than 20 approved candidates out of over a thousand
applicants. As EIR has reported, the Yale Fellows are instructed by the likes of British Foreign Office veteran Lord Mark
Malloch-Brown and representatives of Soros's Open Society Foundations.[9]
What's more, the World Fellows Program is funded by The Starr Foundation of Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg, former chairman and CEO
of insurance giant American International Group (AIG), the recipient of enormous Bush Jr.-Obama bailout largesse in 2008-09; Greenberg
and his C.V. Starr company have a long record of facilitating "regime change" (aka coups), going back to the 1986 overthrow of President
Ferdinand Marcos in the Philippines. Navalny reports that Maria Gaidar told him to try for the program, and he enjoyed recommendations
from top professors at the New Economic School in Moscow, a hotbed of neoliberalism and mathematical economics. It was from
New Haven that Navalny launched his anti-corruption campaign against Transneft, the Russian national oil pipeline company, specifically
in relation to money movements around the new East Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline. The ESPO has just finished the first year of operation
of its spur supplying Russian oil to China.
Navalny presents a split personality to the public. Online he is "Mr. Openness." He posts the full legal documentation of his
corruption exposés. When his e-mail account was hacked, and his correspondence with U.S. Embassy and NED officials about funding
him was made public, Navalny acknowledged that the e-mails were genuine. He tries to disarm interviewers with questions like, "Do
you think I'm an American project, or a Kremlin one?"
During the early-January 2012 holiday lull in Russia, Navalny engaged in a lengthy, oh-so-civilized dialogue in Live Journal with
Boris Akunin (real name, Grigori Chkhartishvili), a famous detective-story author and liberal activist who was another leader of
the December demonstrations, about whether Navalny's commitment to the slogan "Russia for the Russians" marks him as a bigot who
is unfit to lead. Addressing crowds on the street, however, Navalny sounds like Mussolini. Prominent Russian columnist Maxim Sokolov,
writing in Izvestia, found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic.
Navalny may well end up being expendable in the view of his sponsors. In the meantime, it is clear that he is working from the
playbook of Gene Sharp, whose neurolinguistic programming and advertising techniques were employed in Ukraine's Orange Revolution
in 2004.[10] Sharp, a veteran
of "advanced studies" at Oxford and 30 years at Harvard's Center for International Affairs, is the author of The Politics of Nonviolent
Action: Power and Struggle, which advises the use of symbolic colors, short slogans, and so forth.
While at Yale, Navalny also served as an informant and advisor for a two-year study conducted at Harvard's Berkman Center for
Internet and Society, one of the institutions participating in the OpenNet Initiative, launched out of Cambridge University in the
U.K. The study produced a profile titled "Mapping the Russian Blogosphere," which detailed the different sections of the Runet: liberal,
nationalist, cultural, foreign-based, etc., looking at their potential social impact.
Allen Douglas, Gabrielle Peut, David Christie, and Dorothea Bunnell did research for this article.
[1] "Project Democracy:
The 'parallel government' behind the Iran-Contra affair," Washington, D.C.: EIR Research, Inc., 1987. This 341-page special report
explored the connection between the National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the illegal gun-running operations of Col. Oliver
North, et al., which had been mentioned in cursory fashion in the Tower Commission report on that "Iran-Contra" scandal. Lyndon
H. LaRouche, Jr.'s introduction to the report identified the roots of North's "Irangate" gun-running in Henry A. Kissinger's reorganization
of U.S. intelligence under President Richard M. Nixon, in the wake of post-Watergate findings by the 1975 Senate Select Committee
to Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (Church Committee). The process of replacing traditional
intelligence functions of government with National Security Council-centered operations, often cloaked as promoting ``democracy''
worldwide, was continued under the Trilateral Commission-created Administration of Jimmy Carter. Supporting ``democracy''--often
measured by such criteria as economic deregulation and extreme free-market programs, which ravage the populations that are supposedly
being democratized--became an axiom of U.S. foreign policy. The NED itself was founded in 1983.
[2] "Profile:
'Get
LaRouche' Taskforce: Train Salon's Cold War Propaganda Apparat,"EIR, Sept. 29, 2006, reviews the Truman-era roots
of relations among Anglo-American intelligence figures John Train, James Jesus Angleton, Jay Lovestone, and Leo Cherne, all of
whom were later active against LaRouche and his influence. Cherne's International Rescue Committee (IRC) was described by Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, its one-time director of public relations, as an instrument of "psychological warfare." The closely related
Freedom House project was directed by Cherne for many years. Geostrategists such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has written that
Russia is destined to fragment as the Soviet Union did, have sat on its board.
[3] Stephen K. Wegren,
Dale Roy Herspring (eds.), After Putin's Russia: Past Imperfect, Future Uncertain, Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010,
p. 118.
[4] Craig Isherwood,
"Universal Principles vs. Sense Certainty," The New Citizen, October/November 2011, p. 12 (http://cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/cv7n6_pages12to14.pdf).
Founded as the Cambridge Conversazione Society in 1820, by Cambridge University professor and advisor to the British East India
Company, the Rev. Charles Simeon, the Apostles are a secret society limited to 12 members at a time. Its veterans have held strategic
intelligence posts for the British Empire, both in the heyday of overt colonialism, and in the continuing financial empire and
anti-science "empire of the mind," for nearly two centuries, during which Cambridge was the elite university in Britain, Trinity
College was the elite college within Cambridge, and the Apostles were the elite within Trinity. Isherwood reported, "Among other
doctrines, the Apostles founded: Fabian socialism; logical positivism specifically against physical chemistry; most of modern
psychoanalysis; all modern economic doctrines, including Keynesianism and post-World War II 'mathematical economics'; modern digital
computers and 'information theory'; and systems analysis. They also founded the world-famous Cavendish Laboratory as the controlling
priesthood for science, to attack Leibniz, Gauss, and Riemann, in particular.... John Maynard Keynes, a leader of the Apostles,
... traced the intellectual traditions of the Apostles back to John Locke and Isaac Newton, and through Newton back to the ancient
priesthood of Babylon." The group's abiding focus on influencing Russia is exemplified by not only Bertrand Russell himself, but
also the involvement of several members of the Apostles, including Lord Victor Rothschild of the banking family, and future Keeper
of the Queen's Pictures Sir Anthony Blunt, in the Anglo-Soviet spy rings of the mid-20th Century.
[5] Billionaire Milner
is a self-described failed physicist. He worked for the World Bank on Russian banking issues in the 1990s, before making his fortune
as one of Russia's newly minted "oligarchs"-a business partner of now-jailed Mikhail Khodorkovsky in the Menatep banking group,
among other projects.
[6] In Access Controlled:
The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace, an OpenNet Initiative (ONI) book, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2010.
[8] Anatoliy Chubais
and Sergei A. Vasiliev, "Privatization in the USSR: Necessary for Structural Change," in Economic Reform and Integration: Proceedings
of 1-3 March 1990 Meeting, Laxenberg, Austria: IIASA, July 1990. The authors' notion of a charismatic businessman-entrepreneur
comes straight from Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter who coined the term Unternehmergeist, or "entrepreneur-spirit,"
to describe people he called agents of "creative destruction."
Actually, I think that in the end Russia has to thank the British for sending a great message
to her traitors and gangsters. Apart from the Skripal case, the UK seems up to confiscate the
wealth Russian expats in the UK looted back home. On the one hand, it's ~ $10bn worth that
will be definitely lost for Russia, on the other if the UK's treatment of Skripal and runaway
oligarchs won't heal Russian traitors and gangsters from their blissful enamourment with
England's climate, I don't know what will.
@Mike
P I can't find the comment because the comment archive is down -- I think it was
annamaria who reported that the British were holding assets of Russian oligarchs and that
Russia wanted the funds back. The speculation was that Teresa May would take possession of
the assets.
As these two articles state, most of the Russian billionaire oligarchs are Jewish
So at least (conspiracy theory) part of the Skripal scheme is for Teresa May to be an
angel and return their assets to the Jewish billionaires who stole Russian wealth fair and
square.
Who from Russian elite look west? Can you tell names? Who in Russian elite speak English
except for Minister of foreign affair? Putin doesn't speak English. Some rich Russians have
houses in foreign countries though it is 6th or 7th houses after few houses in Russia. If you
speak about modern European culture than it has nothing similar with Russian culture. I have
seen that Americans don't know Russia at all again.
Not really. Google up the eternal 'zapadniki' vs 'slavophiles' split among Russian
cultural elites. This argument is about 2 centuries old, if you start counting from Pushkin
times - i.e. early 1800's. It never gets resolved, but the 'zapadniki' which is loosely
translated as 'western oriented' always have been a minority. And with China's geopolitical
star rising as quickly as it is, I see no reason for our 'zapadniki' not to become
'vostochniki'.
Yes, if african albinois owned media, had access to billions upon billions of dollars and
the full support of the entire NATO propaganda apparatus and used to rule Russia with an iron
fist driving it into the mud.
Pro-western parties have no 5% supporting for being in Russian parliament. Moreover they
have no 3%. Russian media regularly show western russophobs. Then more disgusting their lie
about Russia in western media than less Russians like west. They can spend any money while
westerners lie about Russia, Russian atlantists are like albinos.
I had an account in a Russian bank (MosOblBank). The owner of the bank ran to UK with
money of depositors. He has announced that he was under political pressure and UK don't give
him to Russia though he is a just thief. I returned my money because it was insured by the
government. What could I and few dozen of thousands depositors think about UK after it? A guy
like this one is not Russian elite. It is Russian garbage. Majority of Russians consider that
Russians living in London are thieves or LGBT.
On Thanksgiving eve some Russian oppositionists decided to personally thank the US authorities for the sanctions against
Russia. They met them in Washington, but instead of the traditional turkey, the guests offered senators and State Department
officials to check out their lists of Russians who deserve to be sanctioned.
The New Times has dodged almost certain closure this week by crowdfunding some 25 million
rubles to pay off a government fine after an unprecedented show of support.
The online magazine was handed a crippling fine in late October by the Russian media
watchdog Roskomnadzor for failing to disclose foreign financing.
"Russian people are very sensitive to injustice, we are a nation of survivors", the
magazine's chief editor Yevgenia Albats said.
So despite the fact that nobody reads it, 20 thousand people, according to another Western
organ that nobody reads (see link below), stumped up the dosh for Albat's electronic rag.
Probably from the same place that funds her publication and which she hasn't revealed for
the past 2 years, something that she legally has to, her electronic publication being classed
as an NGO.
That's why she got whacked with a fine.
Political persecution, I call it!
Off to the ECHR with you, Yevgenia! You know they'll find in your favour.
A few days ago, it became known that the notorious blogger Aleksei Navalny had set the bar higher for the heads of his regional
headquarters as regards number of "anti-corruption investigations" they were to undertake and if they were not undertaken, then
the headquarters would be deprived of funding.
Well, taking into account the fact that until today the video clips from the regional offices have been filled with, to
put it mildly, a lot of inconsistencies and unreliable facts: so far, nothing good has come out of this.
Suffice it to recall how the staff of the Omsk headquarters once made a false accusation of corruption against the superintendant
of the Soviet District of Omsk tax Inspectorate, Anatoly Chekmaryov. The investigation said that for a person not of the highest
position, the official had a very luxurious house, which, according to them, was not on the land register, meaning that Chekmaryov
allegedly did not pay property tax on it. As it turned out, the information was refuted, and the Navalny headquarters staff had
to make a public apology to the official.
A similar story happened in Volgograd, where the "Navalnyites" tried to slander the local authorities, accusing them of
buying too expensive cars. However, the auction, on the basis of which this "investigation" was built, had not taken place, and
accordingly, no procurement had been made.
In Ivanovo, "The City of Brides" [a textile town with a large female population, hence its nickname -- ME] , the
staff of the Navalny headquarters have also distinguished themselves. There, the entire city administration was immediately accused
of corruption, which, in the opinion of the Navalny HQ staff, spent too much money on the purchase of software for state institutions.
In the end it turned out that the prices were fully consistent with market prices
The number of false accusations made by the Navalnyites can go on endlessly because they have never really bothered to double-check
the facts and search for proof. Obviously, following their being put under such pressure by Aleksei, the quality of these "investigations"
made by his HQ staff will not only not improve, but vice versa. For the sake of fulfilling the plan and maintaining their salaries,
HQ staffs will simply make up new accusations, which even a naive schoolchild would hardly believe. And all in order to help Navalny
organize hype around himself and to create some sort of illusion about his popularity.
It's really little wonder that Washington is so paternally fond of Navalny and considers him such a stout chap; their methods
are similar. Make a nuisance of yourself until the other fellow swings for you, and then there will be a big fight and it's all
his fault because he swung first – you were therefore only defending yourself against aggression. It is in this manner that Navalny
tries to get noticed and become such a pain in the ass that the authorities must recognize him and talk about him. That's probably
why Putin's refusal to name him in public generates such a buzz of excitement among the hamsters. Alexei's tactics are working!!!
In much the same fashion, Washington hopes that its sanctions will so damage and complicate the life of ordinary Russians that
they must acknowledge it is a great and mighty power, and beg for relief from their torment. Both are fantasizing about what a
big noise they are.
"... There are many modern myths. One of them is about the events of 1989 as being the culmination of a grand historical struggle for freedom and liberty. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For years prior to 1989 the West through a combination of both legal business and criminal activity had interpenetrated the Communist elites with lucrative deals and promises of all kinds. ..."
Why, man, he doth bestride the narrow world
Like a Colossus, and we petty men
Walk under his huge legs and peep about
To find ourselves dishonorable graves.
-- Shakespeare, "Julius Caesar"
There are many modern myths. One of them is about the events of 1989 as being the
culmination of a grand historical struggle for freedom and liberty. Nothing could be farther from the truth. For years prior to 1989 the West through a combination of both legal business and criminal
activity had interpenetrated the Communist elites with lucrative deals and promises of all
kinds.
This situation was even more pronounced in "non-aligned" Yugoslavia who for years had
maintained CIA and American and West European business contacts.
In effect, the "cold war" witnessed a rapid convergence between the economic and power
interests of both Western and Communist elites.
The "Communists" (in name only of course) quickly realized the economic benefits available
to them through at times open at times clandestine cooperation with Western business/criminal
interests.
Eventually, Communist elites realized that they had an unprecedented economic opportunity on
their hands: state privatization made possible, in part, with active Western participation.
For them, "Freedom" meant the freedom to get rich beyond their wildest dreams.
And the 1990's were just that. A paradise for thieving on an unimaginable scale all under
the rubric of the rebirth of "capitalism and freedom".
The true outcome of that decade was that the old communist elites not only retained their
social and political power behind the scenes; they also were able to enrich themselves beyond
anything the communist dictatorships could ever hope to offer them in the past.
Yes, the price was to give up imperial, national, and ideological ambitions. But it was a
very small price to pay; since the East European elites had ceased to believe in any of those
things years earlier.
The only firm belief they still held was the economic betterment of themselves and their
families through the acquisition by any means of as many asset classes as possible. In effect,
they became the mirror image of their "enemy" the "imperialist capitalist West".
This was not a case of historical dialectics but historical convergence. What appeared as a
world divided was actually a world waiting to be made whole through the basest of criminal
business activity.
But being clever thieves they knew how to hide themselves and their doings behind
superficially morally impeccable figures such as Vaclav Havel and Lech Wałęsa, to
name just a few. These "dissidents" would be the faces they would use to make a good part of
the world believe that 1989 was a narrative of freedom and not outright pubic theft which it
was.
Yes, people in the east, even in Russia, are freer now than they were. But it should never
be forgotten that the events of 1989/1990 were not even remotely about those revolutionary
dreams.
It was about something much more mundane and sordid. It was about greed. It was about the
maintenance of power. And finally it was about money.
How deep has the Western nexus of power and wealth gone into the heart of the East? So far
indeed that one can easily question to what extent a country like Russia is truly a "national"
state anymore and rather just a territory open to exploitation by both local and global
elites.
For that matter, we can ask the same question about the USA.
Quite a few grant-eating "liberals" inside Russia speak the language, but this does not
make them any more competent. Basically, they illustrate the saying that "he, who pays the
musicians, calls the tune". The same applies to "Russia scholars" residing in the US,
regardless of their language proficiency.
Here, I have to politely disagree since Russian "liberals" both grant-supported and ones
that are not is a separate animal altogether. Firs, most of them, grants or no grants, are
the real deal, they got grants because they are the real deal, not the other way around, and
causality in this case really matters. I don't need even to know if Mr. Nekrasov or Gozman
are grant-eaters, their hatred of everything Russian is palpable. The only weaker feeling
than hatred they have is contempt. This cannot be hidden -- it shines through. They do it for
the idea and grants are just a bonus. It all goes back to Russian "Westerners" and liberals
about whom Tyutchev (IIRC) left a profound paragraph.
I guess we have to agree to disagree on this. My point is, all these "ideological
Russia-haters" eat at least three times a day, and they are used to eating well (no McDonalds
burgers for them, they prefer filet mignon). Yes, there is a long history of fights between
"Westerners" and "Slavophiles" in Russia, going even before Tyutchev. However, being a
"Westerner" one does not have to be a traitor. For example, Peter the Great was a
"Westerner", yet he was clearly a Russian patriot (even though he was not quite Russian by
blood). Whereas all this scum are traitors. In the US they would be compelled by the law to
register as foreign agents.
We are talking about the same thing with different words. My point is simply that there
are whores who do it for money and there are whores who do it for both money and
pleasure.
The problem is that there is no clear alternative to neoliberalism. Russian foreign policy is
clearly anti-neoliberal. So in a way, Russia represent another example of National neoliberalism
along with Trump "national neoliberalism".
Notable quotes:
"... I believe most of the confusing and seemingly contradictory actions of Putin can be explained if we assume Putin himself as a neo-liberal. It appears he genuinely believes that he can both retain Russian sovereignty and integrate with the west on a neo-liberal framework. My view is that his reluctance with purging Kremlin's 5th column operators come from his belief that their differences are not reconcilable and that a grand bargain with the western elites is possible where they would consider Russia's elites as equal partners. ..."
Following the re-appointment of Medvedev and his more or less reshuffled government, the
public opinion in Russia and abroad was split on whether this was a good sign of continuity and
unity amongst the Russian leadership or whether this was a confirmation that there was a 5
th column inside the Kremlin working against President Putin and trying to impose
neo-liberal and pro-western policies on the Russian people. Today I want to take a quick look
at what is taking place inside Russia because I believe that the Russian foreign policy is
still predominantly controlled by what I call the "Eurasian Sovereignists" and that to detect
the activities of the "Atlantic Integrationist" types we need to look at what is taking place
inside Russia.
The Russian 5 th column and its typical operations
First, I want to begin by sharing with you a short video translated by the Saker Community
of one of the most astute Russian analysts, Ruslan Ostashko, who wonders how it is that a
rabidly pro-western and vociferously anti-Putin radio station named "Ekho Moskvy" manages not
only to elude normal Russian legislation, but even gets money from the gaz giant Gazprom, which
is majority owned by the Russian state. Ekho Moskvy is also so pro-Israeli that it has earned
the nickname "Ekho Matsy" (Ekho Moskvy means "Echo of Moscow" whereas "Ekho Matsy" means "Echo
of the Matzo"). Needless to say, that radio has the unwavering and total support of the US
Embassy. It would not be an exaggeration to say Ekho Moskvy serves as in incubator for
russophobic journalists and that most the liberal pro-western reporters in the Russian media
have been, at one time or another, associated with this propaganda outfit. In spite of this or,
more accurately, because of this, Ekho Moskvy has been bankrupt for quite a while already, and
yet – it continues to exist. Just listen to Ostashko's explanations ( and make sure to
press the 'cc' button to see the English language captions):
Interesting, no? The state giant Gazprom is doing all it can to keep Ekho Moskvy afloat and
above the law. In fact, Gazprom has been financing Ekho Moskvy for years! According to the
hyper-politically-correct Wikipedia , "As of
2005 Echo of Moscow was majority owned by Gazprom Media which holds 66% of its shares".
If Gazprom is majority owned by the Russian state, and Ekho Moskvy is majority owned by
Gazprom, then does that not mean that Ekho Moskvy is basically financed by the Kremlin? The
reality is even worse, as Ostashko point out, Ekho Moskvy is the most visible case, but there
are are quite a few pro-western media outlets in Russia which are financed, directly and
indirectly, by the Russian state.
So let me ask you a simple question: do you really think that Ostashko is better informed
than the Russian authorities, including Putin himself?
Of course not! So what is going on here?
Before attempting to answer this question, let's look at another interesting news item from
Russia, the recent article " Pension reform as a fifth column tool to overthrow Putin "
(original title "About a fair pension system") by Mikhail Khazin translated by Ollie Richardson
and Angelina Siard from the Stalker Zone blog (and cross-posted here
and here ).
Please read the full article as it sheds a very interesting light on what the Medvedev
government has been up to since it was reappointed. What I want to quote here are Mikhail
Khazin's conclusions: (emphasis added)
In other words, all of this reform is frank poppycock, a political joke aimed at
destroying relations between the People (society) and the Authorities. The specific aim of
this is to overthrow Putin, as our liberals are commanded to do by their senior partners from
the "Western" global project . And it is precisely like this that we should treat this
reform. It has no relation to economic reforms – neither good, nor bad. It not an
economic reform, but a political plot! And it is from here that we have to proceed.
Having explained what is really going on, Khazin then goes on the openly state how such an
operation is even possible:
Now concerning the media. It should be understood that at the end of the 90's-beginning of
the 2000's practically all non-liberal media died. Completely. And of course, practically all
non-liberal journalists definitely died (only a few dozen mastodons from the times of
socialism remain). And the youth that grew from the faculty of journalism are in general
totally liberal. They were a little bit suppressed in the middle of the 2000's, but after
Medvedev's arrival to the president's post they again blossomed. But then the attack of the
State on everything that doesn't reflect "the policies of the party and the government"
began.
And then it so happened that now there are many "patriotic" publications in Russia that
employ mainly liberal journalists. An enchanting sight. These journalists (in full
accordance with the ideas of Lenin that they didn't read) see their main task as supporting
"theirs" – i.e., liberal-financiers, Nemtsov, Navalny and, so on, and to sully the
"bloody KayGeeBee"! And it is this that they are involved in, meaning that, propagandising as
much as possible the policies of the government, they optimally irritate the population by
using Putin personally. There is just a need every time to act out some disgusting story (how
an elderly man died on the way to the polyclinic or hospital, how children were taken away
from a large family, how an official or a priest hit a pregnant woman and/or juvenile
children with their chic car), to explain that this isn't just the result of the policies of
the liberal power, but the concrete fault of the President, who put on their posts the very
ministers and law enforcement officers who encourage all of this.
Amazing, no? This is an attempt to overthrow Putin and it is covered-up by the (pseudo)
patriotic press. What about Putin himself? Why does he not take action? Khazin even explains
that:
Of course, the President is guilty, first of all, because he understands that if he starts
to cleanse this "Augean stable", then he will be obliged to shed blood , because
they won't voluntarily give back their privileges . But the most important thing, and
this is the essence: the liberal Russian elite today set for itself the political task of
removing Putin. Why it decided to do this is an interesting question: if Putin himself and
a liberal are flesh from flesh, then this task is stupid and senseless. Not to mention
suicidal. But if he isn't a liberal (it is probably correct to say not a political liberal)
then, of course, this activity makes sense . But at the same time, for purely propaganda
reasons – because people hate liberals, there is a need to hang the label of political
liberal on him.
Now let's connect all the dots: there is a pro-western (in realty, western-controlled)
faction inside the government which is financing those who are attempting to overthrow Putin by
making him unpopular with the Russian general public (which overwhelmingly opposes "liberal"
economic policies and which despises the Russian liberal elites) by constantly forcing him into
liberal economic policies which he clearly does not like (
he declared himself categorically opposed to such policies in 2005 ) and the so-called
"patriotic media" is covering it all up. And Putin cannot change this without shedding
blood.
"it is quite clear to me that a new type of Russian opposition is slowly forming. Well, it
always existed, really – I am talking about people who supported Putin and the Russian
foreign policy and who disliked Medvedev and the Russian internal policies. Now the voice of
those who say that Putin is way too soft in his stance towards the Empire will only get
stronger. As will the voices of those who speak of a truly toxic degree of nepotism and
patronage in the Kremlin (again, Mutko being the perfect example). When such accusations came
from rabid pro-western liberals, they had very little traction, but when they come from
patriotic and even nationalist politicians (Nikolai Starikov for example) they start taking
on a different dimension. For example, while the court jester Zhirinovskii and his LDPR party
loyally supported Medvedev, the Communist and the Just Russia parties did not. Unless the
political tension around figures like Kudrin and Medvedev is somehow resolved (maybe a timely
scandal?), we might witness the growth of a real opposition movement in Russia, and not one
run by the Empire. It will be interesting to see if Putin's personal ratings will begin to go
down and what he will have to do in order to react to the emergence of such a real
opposition"
Those who vehemently denied that there as a real 5 th column problem inside the
Kremlin are going to have a painful wake-up call when they realize that thanks to the actions
of these "liberals" a patriotic opposition is gradually emerging, not so much against Putin
himself as against the policies of the Medvedev government. Why not against Putin?
Because most Russian instinctively feel what is going on and understand not only the
anti-Putin dynamics at work, but also how and why this situation was created. Furthermore,
unlike most westerners, most Russians remember what took place in the crucial and formative
1990s.
The historical roots of the problem (very rough summary)
It all began in the late 1980s when the Soviet elites realized that they were losing control
of the situation and that something had to be done. To really summarize what they did, I would
say that these elites first broke up the country into 15 individual fiefdoms each run by
gang/clan composed of these Soviet elites, then they mercilessly grabbed everything of any
value, became overnight billionaires and concealed their money in the West. Being fabulously
rich in a completely ruined country gave them fantastic political power and influence to
further exploit and rob the country of all its resources. Russia herself (and the other 14
ex-Soviet republics) suffered an unspeakable nightmare comparable to a major war and by the
1990s Russia almost broke-up into many more even smaller pieces (Chechnia, Tatarstan, etc.). By
then, Russia was subserviently executing all the economic policies recommended by a myriad of
US 'advisors' (hundreds of them with offices inside the offices of many key ministries and
various state agencies, just like today in the Ukraine), she adopted a Constitution drafted by
pro-US elements and all the key positions in the state were occupied by what I can only call
western agents. At the very top, President Eltisn was mostly drunk while the country was run by
7 bankers the so-called "oligarchs" (6 of which were Jews): the " Semibankirshchina ".
This is the time when the Russian security services successfully tricked these oligarchs
into believing that Putin, who has a law degree and who had worked for the (very liberal) Mayor
of Saint Petersburg (Anatolii Sobchack) was just a petty bureaucrat who would restore a
semblance of order while not presenting any real threat to the oligarchs. The ploy worked, but
the business elites demanded that "their" guy, Medvedev, be put in charge of the government so
as to preserve their interests. What they overlooked was two things: Putin was a truly
brilliant officer of the very elite First Chief Directorate (Foreign Intelligence) of the KGB
and a real patriot. Furthermore, the Constitution which was passed to support the Eltsin regime
could now be used by Putin. But more than anything else, they never predicted that a little guy
in an ill-fitting suit would transform himself into one of the most popular leaders on the
planet. As I have written many times, while the initial power base of Putin was in the security
services and the armed forces and while his legal authority stems from the Constitution, is
real power comes from the immense support he has from the Russian people who, for the first
time in very long time felt that the man at the top truly represented their interests.
Putin then did what Donald Trump could have done as soon as he entered the White House: he
cleaned house. He began by immediately tackling the oligarchs, he put an end to the
Semibankirshchina , and he stopped the massive export of money and resources out of
Russia. The then proceeded to rebuilt the "vertical of power" (the Kremlin's control over the
country) and began rebuilding all of Russia from the foundations (regions) up. But while Putin
was tremendously successful, he simply could not fight on all the fronts and the same time and
win.
Truth be told, he did eventually win most of the battles which he chose to fight, but some
battles he simply could not wage not because of a lack of courage or will on his part, but
because the objective reality is that Putin inherited and extremely bad system fully controlled
by some extremely dangerous foes . Remember the words of Khazin above: " if he starts to
cleanse this "Augean stable", then he will be obliged to shed blood, because they won't
voluntarily give back their privileges". So, in a typically Putin fashion, he made a number
of deals.
For example, those oligarchs who agreed to stop meddling in Russian politics and who would,
from now on, pay taxes and generally abide by the law were not be jailed or expropriated: those
who got the message were allowed to continue to work as normal businessmen (Oleg Deripaska) and
those who did not were either jailed or exiled (Khodorkovski, Berezovski). But if we look just
below the level of these well-known and notorious oligarchs, what we find as a much deeper
"swamp" (to use the US expression): an entire class of people who made their fortunes in the
1990s, who are now extremely influential and control most of the key positions in the economy,
finance and business and who absolutely hate and fear Putin. They even have their agents inside
the armed forces and security services because their weapon of choice is, of course, corruption
and influence. And, of course, they have people representing their interests inside the Russian
government: pretty much the entire "economic block" of the Medvedev government.
Is it really any surprise at all that these people also have their paid representatives
inside the Russian media, including the so-called "pro-Russian" or "patriotic" media? (I have
been warning about
this since at least 2015)
Just like in the West, in Russia the media depends first and foremost on money and big
financial interests are very good at using the media to promote their agenda, deny or obfuscate
some topics while pushing others. This is why you often see the Russian media backing
WTO/WB/IMF/etc policies to the hilt while never criticizing Israel or, God forbid, rabidly
pro-Israeli propagandists on mainstream TV (guys like Vladimir Soloviev, Evgenii Satanovsky,
Iakov Kedmi, Avigdor Eskin and many others). This is the same media which will gladly criticize
Iran and Hezbollah but never wonder why the Russian main TV stations are spewing pro-Israeli
propaganda on a daily basis.
And, of course, they will all mantrically repeat the same chant: "there is no 5
th column in Russia!! None!! Never!!"
This is no different than the paid for corporate media in the US which denies the existence
of a "deep state" or the US "Israel Lobby".
And yet, many (most?) people in the US and Russia realize at an almost gut-level that they
are being lied to and that, in reality, a hostile power is ruling over them.
Putin's options and possible outcomes
Sadly, in the US, Trump proved to be a disaster who totally caved in to the Neocons and
their demands. In Russia, the situation is far more complex. So far, Putin has very skillfully
avoided associating himself with the Atlantic Integrationists. Furthermore, the biggest crises
of the past decade or so were all associated with foreign policy issues and those are still
controlled by the Eurasian Sovereignists. Finally, while the Russian government clearly
committed some mistakes or promoted some unpopular policies (such has healthcare reform for
example), they also had their undeniable successes. As for Putin, he continued to consolidate
his power and he gradually removed some of the most notorious individuals from their positions.
In theory, Putin could probably have most top Atlantic Integrationists arrested on corruption
charges, but short of engaging in a massive and bloody purge, he cannot get rid of an entire
social class which is not only large but powerful.
Some of my contacts in Russia expected a purge of Atlantic Integrationists right after the
election, the logic here was "enough is enough" and that once Putin got a strong mandate from
the people, he would finally kick Medvedev and his gang out of the Kremlin and replace them
with popular patriots. That obviously did not happen. But if this pension reform program
continues to further trigger protests or if a major war blows up in the Middle-East or in the
Ukraine, then the pro-western forces inside the Kremlin will come under great pressure to
further yield control of the country to Eurasian Sovereignists.
Putin is an exceedingly patient man and, at least so far, he won most, if not all, of his
battles. I don't believe that anybody can predict for sure how things will play out, but what
is certain is that trying to understand Russia without being aware of the internal conflicts
and the interests groups fighting for power is futile. In her 1000 year long history, internal
enemies have always been far more dangerous for Russia than external ones. This is unlikely to
change in the future.
Since "The Saker" does not approve difference of opinion or dissent on his own site i will
post my response here.
This is yet another episode of "doom & gloom" articles of his in a series that started
almost a year ago. If you have read one, you have read them all. Since then a quite 180
degree different and depression-ridden "The Saker" or whatever is hiding under that name has
produced articles to the effect that "Putin has surrendered", "the end is nigh" or "it's all
over". Hi's sudden embrace of "Paul Craig Roberts" views of all things Russian further
confirms that.
The content aren't necessarily wrong and incorrect but the message is very far from what
the author initially conveyed. The impression is now that things definitely doesn't bode well
for Russia and there's nothing Russians or anyone can do about it, move on. "The Saker" is
now using the encouraging confidence he built up with his "community",that has grown
significantly over the years, to tear it apart it seems.
President Putin has himself categorically stated that "there is no such thing as any "5th
column". When asked about the presence of Kudrin and a few like him, VP said, "it's useful to
hear different points of view, but to suggest they are some sort of 5th column is
nonsense"
I think I would trust his word – he has never been known to lie and he has no reason to
do so.
He gave his reasons for retaining Medvedev plus a few others – good solid rational
reasons. No-body in Russia is doubting them.
Can it be forgotten by this writer, that Medvedev is an appointed position – by the
President. Putin can remove him in an instant any time he likes: he holds the strings, and is
under thrall to no-one.
As for the article the writer refers to in "The Saker", the provenance of the authors shows
how much value to put on it.
The writer – not mentioned here – is one Vadim Potapenko who gives details of
himself as living in Cyprus, and working as a Development Manager – Slotegrator :
Gambling & Casinos.!!
What a young man working in the ethically questionable world of casinos knows about pension
reform and retirement age needs I dont know. He does deal in risk analysis of simplistic
systems I guess, but an expert in the complexities of Government policy he can't be.
The second author is Mikhail Khazin – a man who claims to an economist and publicist,
and states that "Putin is following the ideas of Andropov. They didn t' work then and they
dont now: Putin by his very personality has polarised views in Russia, because some love him
and some hate him"
This about a President with an 80% approval rating, a 77% voter return rate, and who is so
far from any USSR person it's unbelievable. The mans' complete inability to understand the
first thing about Putin, who he is, what he believes in, and the route he is following shows
he is the last person whose views should be even listened to.
This brings me to the finale – more and more it seems "The Saker" wants people to
believe that there are dark forces at work in the Kremlin, that Putin is either too weak and
stupid to deal with them or even worse, is working in with them. In other words, he effects
to support the Russian President but calls him a weakling or a traitor!!
Better to read work by qualified people and investigate Russia for yourself – dont be
led into thinking Russia would be a cakewalk for anyone thinking of invading and making war
on her, because she has a weak and divided leadership. She doesn't have – and waging
war on Russia would have only one end, and it's not pretty.
I believe most of the confusing and seemingly contradictory actions of Putin can be
explained if we assume Putin himself as a neo-liberal. It appears he genuinely believes that
he can both retain Russian sovereignty and integrate with the west on a neo-liberal
framework. My view is that his reluctance with purging Kremlin's 5th column operators come
from his belief that their differences are not reconcilable and that a grand bargain with the
western elites is possible where they would consider Russia's elites as equal partners.
I think this is not a sustainable position, even if western elites were willing to play
ball with Putin and Russia's elites. Because in a neo-liberal world nations cannot retain
their sovereignty and that an international cabal of ultra-rich treat the peoples of the
world as properties of their own. The best that could have happened would be that Russian
elites would be partying with their western fellow billionaires on the corpses of the poor
nations of the world. That part, I am convinced, is not acceptable for Putin (i.e. giving up
sovereignty in return for a seat on the dinner table but I have serious doubts about
anti-imperialism part)
Fortunately for Russia, the same cabal still cannot get over the fact that they lost the
opportunity to rape Russia ad infinitum and still looking for holes in the Russian resolve.
This will force Russia to take a clear anti-imperialist stand sooner or later, and on a war
footing will have to purge all of the (would be) collaborators.
On a second note, it is indeed possible that Putin might have decided to postpone the
decision for the purge after the world cup but I will not believe before I see Medvedev and
Nabiullina be fired.
The Kremlin is financing the craziest knee-jerk Russophobes to discredit liberalism. The
two exist in a comfy symbiotic relationship. What is so difficult about that?
Now let's connect all the dots: there is a pro-western (in realty, western-controlled)
faction inside the government which is financing those who are attempting to overthrow
Putin by making him unpopular with the Russian general public (which overwhelmingly opposes
"liberal" economic policies and which despises the Russian liberal elites) by constantly
forcing him into liberal economic policies which he clearly does not like (he declared
himself categorically opposed to such policies in 2005) and the so-called "patriotic media"
is covering it all up.
The same "fifth column" that has over the past 18 years also forced Putin into adopting a
flat tax, liberalizing land sales, monetizing benefits, and now pensions reform.
If Putin still hasn't managed to get rid of them, then what the hell is he good for?
At least, that's would I'd be asking – if I was the sort to rail against neoliberal
fifth columns.
Reality is, all of those were great successes. Putin is an economic neoliberal and that
is a good thing .
Even if this was the case, surely he must be aware that 92% of Russians oppose this
so-called "reform".
Where on Earth do people support raising the pension age? Thankfully, many
countries (including Russia) have safeguards against demotic idiocy.
As a direct result from these plans, the Communist Party of Russia is launching a
referendum against this project while the "Just Russia" Party is now collecting signatures
to dismiss the entire government.
The business elites are not in a position to demand anything. Medvedev is there as a
whipping boy to protect Putin's ratings. He is very good at that, and that, too, is a good
thing.
This is the same media which will gladly criticize Iran and Hezbollah but never wonder
why the Russian main TV stations are spewing pro-Israeli propaganda on a daily basis.
The author's anti-Israel crusade is not Russia's. That Russia is not to Iran, Palestine,
or Hezbollah what the US is to Israel (a slavish sponsor) is also a good thing.
The same "fifth column" that has over the past 18 years also forced Putin into adopting
a flat tax, liberalizing land sales, monetizing benefits, and now pensions reform.
If Putin still hasn't managed to get rid of them, then what the hell is he good for?
Reality is, all of those were great successes. Putin is an economic neoliberal and that
is a good thing .
Even if Bershidsky gets it, however in the field which doesn't require any serious skills,
except for good accounting. Now, you don't want me to refer to Russia's actual industries,
especially hi-tech, which are nationalized, do you? Does the title Rostec ring a bell? What
is remarkable, founding of Rostec somehow coincided with Putin's Munich Speech–both
events are hardly any evidence of neoliberalism. Is Putin a liberal? Yes, but to a degree and
political mostly–his progression from liberal economic model to a mixed model since
2014 is visible to people with even rudimentary knowledge of Russia. This is not to mention
that Russia, quoting even Wiki:
Russia has an upper-middle income mixed economy with state ownership in strategic areas
of the economy.
Some private bank is not a "strategic" area, nor is "liberalization" of land sales,
resources and real hi-tech sector, however, together with agriculture, are. Since the start
of Putin's tenure, Russia re-nationalized, that is returned to the state control or
ownership, an enormous number of truly strategic companies. In fact, whole industries. Putin
recently himself clearly stated that, especially pointing out a bonanza Russian State got
from 2008 collapse and from sanctions. These are hardly signs of neoliberalism, not to
mention that Russia, rightly so, is considered one of the most protectionist nations in the
world. This is if to discount all this theoretical and metaphysical mambo-jumbo on the
obvious fact that neoliberalism is dead, together with its founding Free Trade gospel, and
stinks to heaven, poisoning surroundings. And, yes, I am sure Russian State has no control
over Novatek (it is a bad joke).
At the very top, President Eltisn was mostly drunk while the country was run by 7
bankers the so-called "oligarchs" ( 6 of which were Jews ): the
"Semibankirshchina".
I think Putin today is in a similar situation as Stalin was in the late 1940s regarding
Jewish political activism and assertiveness, etc.
Despite Stalin's willingness to support Israel early on, various historians suppose that
antisemitism in the late 1940s and early 1950s was motivated by Stalin's possible
perception of Jews as a potential "fifth column" in light of a pro-Western Israel in
the Middle East.
[...] I think increasing the Jewish (and general) death toll in World War II and decreasing
the "official" Jewish population of the Soviet Union served two purposes for
Stalin.
Firstly, for propaganda purposes against the Germans higher death tolls were useful,
and secondly lower "official" numbers of Jews in the Soviet Union were likely intended to
discourage and prevent Jewish empowerment and organizing
[...]
Jeffrey Veidlinger writes that "By October 1948, it was obvious that Mikhoels was by no
means the sole advocate of Zionism among Soviet Jews. The revival of Jewish cultural
expression during the war had fostered a general sense of boldness among the Jewish
masses.
This is slightly off-topic, but I just commented on this subject matter in another
comments thread, which has to do with the fact that many more persons of Jewish origin live
in Russia and the former Soviet states than is commonly known or reported:
Here the original in Russian: http://tavrio.ru/index.php/politics/nazpol/42-skolko-evreev-pf
Archived link: http://archive.is/EDYeZ
[...] And I believe that today, after a great aliyah, the number of halachic Jews in the
countries of the former USSR is about four million. And six million more are those who know
about their Jewish origin.
[...]
Half of the top 25 billionaires in Russia, I believe, come from a Jewish background. I know
strong Jewish ethnic and religious networking, nepotism, etc. exists, but to achieve such a
high billionaire density even the Jewish population has to be at least 2% of the Russian
population (about 3 million at least out of the 150 million Russian population) like it is
the case in the U.S. (about 6 million Jews out of a 300 million U.S. population).
Not just 400,000 (which would be 0.3% of the Russian population) or even lower
estimates, like some sources claim. Wikipedia for example puts the number of Jews in
Russia, at the moment, at a laughable: 179,500
[...]
, which would be about o.15% of the Russian population, but Jews are half of the top 25
billionaires in Russia?
Something does not quite compute here, to put it mildly
Putin might know how many Jews really died in the Holocaust and in World War II,
and this is his way of telegraphing it and signalling to the Jewish Russian community that
they should not get too uppity and bold?
'Holocaust on ice' dance by wife of Putin official causes uproar
Putin has ensured that foreign interests have been prevented from taking over vital
Russian industries such as Oil,Gas, Minerals, Banking and Defence. At best, foreign companies
can only get limited concessions under conditions that suit the Russian State, eg BP.
Putin isn't a Neoliberal, he's a pragmatist. This is a very good thing.
But you are of course correct. Russia is of course not neoliberal so far as Putin's
kleptocratic chums are concerned.
Exactly, nor do you have any qualifications nor skills to write about Russia since, and I
quote Margo Simonyan describing your kind.
Maybe you will finally understand that you do not believe us not because we lie, but
because you know horseradish (dick) about surrounding world, because you are badly
educated, do not read much and when do, do not read what is needed, you visit all the wrong
places and communicate with the same small bunch of prejudiced and/or mental people, who
only reinforce your condescending ignorance.
The picture is mixed. The Federal Antimonopoly Service has been given real teeth since its
humiliation by the Customs Service under Medvedev. It goes beyond antimonopoly. For example,
it reviews incoming foreign investment in the 42 strategic industries. This was originally a
protectionist committee. It gave Pepsico a hard time for buying Wimm-Bill-Dann, clearly a
military asset. These days its approach to foreigners is "how can I help you? Do you want
money?" It is frequently chaired by Putin.
Kudrin's audit committee looks like being FAS Mark 2. He has been given the tools to take
Sechin and other state moguls apart. Will he get to the Rotenbergs/Gazprom? Their behaviour
is outrageous. Certainly not the kind of corporate governance required for a competitive
market. e.g. Gazprom Bank has a Rotenberg son in charge of loans. Gazprom lent another
Rotenberg son the money to build Aviapark. No Rotenberg capital at risk during the whole
process. Now a $1 Bn asset. Kudrin has a target rich environment. Will he settle out of court
or make some high level examples?
I judge a wo/man not on his/her words, but his/her deeds. Suffice to say, the difference
between Russia in 2000 and Russia today, speaks volumes all by itself and is fully self
explanatory as well.
One day the world will realize how close we've come to WW III in the period between
2015/2020. An extended version of the Cuban missile crisis, if you will, but this time with
only one statesman participating in this conundrum, the president of the Russian Federation,
H.E. Mr. V.V. Putin.
Much blood has been shed in Syria, including Russian, so it would be unfair to single out
one particular country, but I know if it hand't been for Russia stepping up to the plate in
2015, the political landscape [in the M.E. and beyond] would be littered with the corpses of
liberty, freedom and unity and the dust wouldn't settle down for decades to come.
The Russian military went in, turned the tide and most of the temporary influx is
retreating back to the motherland as we speak. That's how a 'job' is done properly.
Kudrin has a target rich environment. Will he settle out of court or make some high
level examples?
Read by letters: F-S-B (Operational Technical Departments–Operativno-Technicheskie
Otdely). And then there is always G(R)U. Sure, those boys such as Ulyukaev or Kudrin who saw
so "much" in their lives are real "contenders". I am sure Naryshkin knows what color of stool
Siluanov is having every day. The same goes for Kudrin. But he is a smart boy–he knows
the routine. You obviously missed the revelation of the actual Putin's position in
KGB/SVR–it was all over Russia's TV. Other than that–I agree, it is a "target
rich" environment and yes, Kudrin is perfect for this job.
Hi Daniel – so good to see you again, I was wondering recently where you might
be.
I agree with you – the "proof of the pudding" says it all. One has only to look at
the last 18 years, at where Russia and Russians were back then, and look at her now, all
under Putins' direction and overall management. You do that, then read this sort of stuff and
wonder just what is going on in some people's minds. It makes less than no sense –
which means one has to start looking at premises one would not like to think about.
As for expecting some publicist who thinks Putin is a follower of Andropov as a person worth
printing and quoting – words fail me.
Good to hear from you Daniel – take care mi amigo.
"Since "The Saker" does not approve difference of opinion or dissent on his own site i
will post my response here."
Exactly what brought me here to comment, not on The Saker's own site.
Because I am being critical of the articles' thesis, and because I have criticised the
provenance of the two writers of the article on pension reform, I knew it would not be
published on his site.
I even had a comment I made, refusing to accept a pathetic reference for supposedly "proving"
that V.V. promised to never raise the retirement age, redacted. There's an unfortunate aspect
to the Saker site that puts one off making useful critical comment – the "mods" can
redact your work – or even ditch the entire piece – and leave a vague comment
insulting to your own probity, leaving it looking as though you are some foul mouthed abuser,
yet because you wont be published you can't defend yourself.
I do have to commend "Unz" for it's freedom of expression.
Oh – I agree with your take on the article too – so much of Saker has become a
doom laden cry that denigrates and decries Putin – which seems very odd.
Some more background information on how the Soviet internal passport registration system
worked, for anyone interested:
In the Soviet Union, when someone with parents of two nationalities received identity
papers at age 16, he could pick which nationality to list. A child of a Jewish father and
non-Jewish mother could put down "Jew [ or not ]." The religious principle of
matrilineal descent was irrelevant.
[...]
Persecution of Jews in the Soviet Union started with a policy Joseph Stalin initiated in
1937. Every Soviet citizen was required to carry an internal passport and under
"nationality," Jews were required to list "Jewish." Beckerman says this policy actually may
have been a tough decision for Stalin.
"On the one hand, he followed this Leninist principle [that] all Soviet citizens should
just melt into one general populace that doesn't have any distinctions for nationality," he
says. " But on the other hand, he wanted to control this population and Jews always had
kind of a strange place in the Russian society psyche, so he wanted to know who the Jews
were. "
Following the firsthand account of discrimination experienced by Jews in the Soviet
Union due to having their "nationality" registered as Jewish in their internal passports. I
believe this lends credence to the assumption that most (half-)Jews with just one Jewish
parent likely opted to be identified/registered by the nationality of their non-Jewish
parent, and further strengthens my hypothesis that Holocaust and Jewish World War II
casualties might have been significantly lower than what is generally accepted by
mainstream and anti-revisionist Holocaust and World War II historians and researchers
National identity in USSR was important. Well, it is always important and yes, there was
latent antisemitism (or whatever it is called) in some spheres of Soviet life. Not as big,
though, as Jewish dissidents love to present to those who are ready to listen.
Not as big, though, as Jewish dissidents love to present to those who are ready to
listen.
Hahahaha I agree
Do you happen to know if Andrey Illarionov comes from a Jewish background? I know he is a
dissident now, but I'm not sure whether he is ethnically Jewish or not.
Auschwitz joke angers Jewish groups
Andrei Illarionov, an economic adviser to the president, made the comparison during a
visit to St Petersburg. He has recommended that Russia should not sign the protocol.
[...]
"Then we realised Gosplan was much more humane and we ought to call the Kyoto Protocol an
international gulag. In the Gulag, though, you got the same ration daily and it didn't get
smaller day by day. In the end, we had to call the Kyoto Protocol an international
Auschwitz."
I missed the revelation. I tend to focus on business rather than politics. Expert is the
only journal I try to read regularly. (I am not fluent but I can usually manage if I
focus).
Soros's newspaper still appears in Russia.
A few days after MH17 the front page text something like 'Sorry, Netherlands', in Dutch.
Just imagine a few days after Sept 11 a USA newspaper with headlines, something like 'sorry,
we had to kill a few thousand Americans in order te get an excuse for wars against
Afghanistan and Iraq' ?
After what happened in the groves at jisr al shughour russia stepped up and did what was
right.in that time in the syrian war they stood the moral high ground.the rest is
history.bear in mind that 100 km away live over million russians and that does not include
cyprus.most support likud.
Well spoken. Analysts like the Saker would have us believe that what is happening in Russia
is not really happening but something else is happening – something hidden, something
powerful, all-pervasive, eating away at Putin's power base and destroying him behind the
scenes – like the john Birch Society – A communist under every bed! From what I
can see, and I do not believe I am alone by any means, is that if there are dark forces at
work in the Kremlin and elsewhere in the media for example, they are profoundly weak and
ineffective in Russia at this point. And whilst they might exist, there is little outward
evidence of their workings except the odd Navalny incident, or the constant drippings from
Western oriented media like the Moscow Times. If you want to see the effects of a REAL,
persistent, powerful, pervasive 5th column, you need look any further than the USA with its
Zionist lobby and MIC influence on politics and policy. Or the EU with its incredibly
powerful bureaucracy and its link to Soros and his ilk. Those are real 5th columns, and by
comparison, Russia has little to worry about.
I have followed the Saker for years now, and I too have seen this gradual transformation
from top notch analyst to conspiracy theorist. His website has become almost cult-like. He
has a few 'moderators' who operate anonymously behind the scenes to filter out unflattering
content – not just the crazy insults and freaks that websites like his attract, but
honest content that seeks to criticise, sometimes sharply, his views. If you read the comment
section, it reads like a religious cult at times, most comments prefaced by the seemingly
obligatory preface like "Great analysis, Saker!" "Well said, Saker!" And always there are the
comments both on the part of the Saker and his 'community' that praises that community for
being 'special', unlike the rubbish of other sites, insightful, and more knowledgeable than
others – heaping praise on themselves at the expense of other site with comments to the
effect of "We should be proud that we are not like other sites.".
I fear the Saker has over time fallen prey to the old devil's trick of taking oneself too
seriously. Someone who is constant the object of unquestioned praise can easily fall into
that trap.
Good to see that freedom of thought and freedom of expression is thriving in Russia. They
have fortunately a long way to go in MSM herd-think before they achieve our oppressive
anti-human intellectual conformity.
I agree in that presenting Mr. Putin and Russia as weak seems to encourage military
action, or a coup, against it, just "NOW", when the US is trying ( or simply, pretending ) an
intend of approach ..This has nothing to do with suppossed "depressive" mood of The Saker
himself ..this is a plan .
Thus I agree with you both in the general tone and confussing meddley of articles at
Saker´s site, and as well with your impression on the last "generation" of mods ( to my
view part of the real staff of this project, The Saker ) who, not only were put in charge of
getting rid ( by using the most dirty tricks ) from the genuine former regular
commenters/moderators who had a very personal view on what a good moderation and avoiding of
harsh censure was, but also have displayed a shameful dictatorial censure and editing which
not only amputates genuine and legitimate oppinions but also, as you notice, try, at the same
time, to discredit you as commenter for the rest, by implying you were being rude and
offensive and moreover denying the right to make things clear by allowing you a response to
such a clear outrage, according with most probably direct guidelines from the people who lead
The Saker from behind .
This tactic, of obliterating your comment and answering you by implying that you were
being offensive, ( and even denigrating ) towards somebody ( mainly the author/ owner of the
site and/or his relatives, coleagues and friends ), is common with other sites, like Pat
Lang´s SST. This is why I think these two sites are "closely" related .being their
paterns so similar also both have military ( more concretely counterintelligence ) background
.have a harsh anti-communist stance . and have a team of attack dogs who try to get you
giving up on posting when what you say is of no convenience for them ( or their editorial
line ) .Then, they use the alibi on your comment not being "intelligent", but then you have
there the ubiquitous one-liner sycophant who says nothing all over these two places
permanently .who are never summoned .
But, Isabella, what you so confidently say about Mr. Andropov´s policies, intrigates
me, since I wonder what idea you have on what the ideas, strategies, tactics and future plans
of Mr. Andropov could be to state that VVP is not following them ..I think it is impossible
for you, or even for Mr. Khazin, to know what the plans of Mr. Andropov would be, since he
was, at different times in the USSR, at the helms of secret security agency and foreign
policy, whose main directives were for sure secret, and not at the hand/knowledge of anybody
but a few under/of his "umbrella"/confidence call them "siloviki" or whatever you want .
Thus, in spite of that VVP moves seem to confirm he is a liberal playing the same play
than the capitalist West, we do not know nothing for sure, since, if this would be obvious
for all us, somebody would not be doing its work rightly, as certain senior strategist told
me at Fort Russ .
The worst side of this secrecy, obviously needed for strategic purposes, is that common
people, as happens to me, could start feeling dissapointed with VVP and discouraged of
continuing supporting him .thus some signs from time to time would be neccessary for the
people to continue trusting .
Zionists are Satanists and undermine governments everywhere that they get a foothold and they
already created a holocaust in Russia with the 1917 overthrow of the czar and the resulting
murder of some 60 million Russians and are now trying to undermine the Russian government
again, this is no surprise as this is what Zionists do ie they are killers and wreckers of
governments and are trying to do the same here in America.
One thing noticeable regarding people who comment Putin's policies from abroad, not from
within Russia: much projection of own prejudices and a lot of wishful thinking.
One thing noticeable regarding Putin's policies: no prejudice, no wishful thinking, just
Russian self-consciousness and pragmatism.
Order is restored. Russia's military might is restored. The economy and the living standard
have improved. Russia masters her destiny. So far, what he does works. What else?
The article is written by Saker without any doubt for it has his imprimatur of length for
readers like me, matzo ball radio says it all. Finally, it seems that Jews and Russians have
a sado masochistic arrangements; one can't do without the other. Qui bono?
There seems to be unanimity on this site condemning the Saker, and those commenting on his
blog. But what if he is simply correct in his suspicions about a fifth column in Russia? Is
that really so strange? Do you really think the Atlantacists and their ilk are nonexistent? I
notice no real proof of the inaccuracy of the Saker's contentions, but a lot of ad hominem
critique of his "mood". Maybe he is dead wrong in all his ideas about Putin's Russia –
but where's the proof?? The commenters here seem in danger of falling into the same baseless
contentions trap they accuse the Saker of.
said:
"Putin might know how many Jews really died in the Holocaust "
Please preset proof that any Jews died in 'the holocau$t' as alleged.
Revisionists are just the messengers, the absurd impossibility of the '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
To think about "Atlanticists" as some kind of coherent group is to submit to Saker's
paranoia. Such paranoia is normal in nationalism. Shades of the John Birch society. If you
look for evidence of conspiracy X you will always find it.
Very well written synopsis of the current situation, and how Russia came to be in this place
at this time. I appreciate the recap of the history from Yeltsin moving forward.
The "atlanticists" are a rampant fifth column throughout Europe. Germany is particularly
badly infested and in need of a thorough cleaning out. Russians will be better off if they
can keep them mostly out of their country.
Die Zeit Die Anstalt Netzwerke Think Tank Josef Joffe
Given Russian life expectancy, Russian pension age was too low. Naturally, raising it
temporarily lowered Putin's popularity, but taking that hit is the essence of
forward-thinking leadership.
You Israeli-First traitors love citing Ezekiel 38 and Isaiah 17 to justify your wicked
warmongering, but in your malice you have been blinded to the fact that Isaiah 17 describes
not only the destruction of Damascus but also the destruction of a wicked faction in Israel:
the Baal-worshipping Zionists whom you think are beyond God's reach.
These are the people who murdered millions and millions under Yeltsin. By "privatizing" and
other wonderful "conservative" "capitalist" policies. Getting rid of Communism by killing all
the people who benefit by it. Brilliant.
So I guess that makes these "5th columnists" good, right? By your lights, anyway.
I'm still puzzled as to why Illarionov https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrey_Illarionov
made that Kyoto Protocol-Auschwitz comparison, and I am still not sure if he is ethnically
Jewish or not. I found some new indicators that point to him having Jewish roots, though.
Either he made the comment in sincerity and not as a joke, or someone (Putin?) told him to
say it that way for propaganda purposes. Maybe being asked/forced to make that comparison
also contributed to him quitting his job some months later?
In a 2005 interview after his resignation from his economic advisory post, he says the
following, which could indicate that the Kyoto Protocol-Auschwitz comparison was not of his
own making, but a talking point given to him by the Kremlin public relations and propaganda
department:
This (gas) war was the last drop in my decision to resign. I was offered to take part
in it as a propagandist who would explain why the price hike and everything else that is
being done in our bilateral relations are liberal economic policies. However, the
factors that led to this decision have nothing in common with liberal economic
policies.
Having outlined all of the problems with the country, he announced who was responsible
– the Jews. "[Yegor] Gaidar [in charge of privatisation under Yeltsin] – he
is a Jew. What good has come in the last 17 years?" He continued, "We are international
communists. Our fight is not with the Chechens or the Georgians. It is with the Jews!"
[...]
The Jewish community in Moscow were equally concerned about Medvedev's ethnicity. One
local Jewish leader was quoted as saying, "I pray it isn't true, because it would only make
trouble, for him and for us".
During his presidency, Vladimir Putin built his popularity on the traditional
ground of national pride and defence of Russia from ill-willed foreigners, but, to his
credit, he has a record of speaking out against antisemitism. His comments that he was
"ashamed" of antisemitism in Russia when he visited Auschwitz in 2005 were seen as
groundbreaking here.
Putin seems to send mixed messages on and to the Jewish community. One to please his
domestic audience of voters who, understandably, are overwhelmingly counter-semitic, because
they blame predominately-Jewish economists and bankers and their radical and failed economic
policies for the many millions of premature deaths during the 1990s economic crisis in
Russia.
An extra 2.5-3 million Russian adults died in middle age in the period 1992-2001
than would have been expected based on 1991 mortality.
And one philo-semitic or semitic-sympathique message to his predominately-Jewish
billionaire/oligarch financial backers to assure them and clam them down that they are safe
with him, unless they turn on him or try to undermine his authority.
Here a video of Illarionov talking about the Russian economy. By the way, he considers
himself to be a libertarian, which could be another indicator that he is Jewish, since
libertarianism is very popular with Jews https://fee.org/articles/libertarianism-rejects-anti-semitism/
Economics in Russia – Andrei Illarionov | Rhodes 2016
The important question: does the truth matter? Most people want the answer they want, not
the truth and should be forced to truthfully answer why. One day that will happen.
With all due respect, I think that seeing Russian politics as eternal fight between Eurasian
Sovereignists (used to be called Slavyanophiles under tsars) and Atlantic Integrationists
(used to be called Westerners in tsarist times) is naïve, maybe even childish. Not to
mention that this does not explain why China is where it is now, and many other obvious
things.
I'd propose an alternative theory. Russian and Chinese elites include people who are OK
being second- or even third-rate in the world elites, and those who want to be first-rate.
The latter are patriotic, because you cannot be first-rate unless you have a strong truly
sovereign country behind you. Apparently, Putin, Xi, and many Russian and Chinese oligarchs
supporting them, want to be seen as first-rate, equals among equals, in contrast to pathetic
nonentities like Ukrainian "president" Poroshenko, most Ukrainian oligarchs, Polish elites,
or elites of vaudeville Baltic statelets.
Thing is, if your country is a poodle of the US, you are second-rate at best (e.g., EU
elites), but when your country is a poodle of the EU, you are no better than third-rate. So,
the whole intrigue in Russian and Chinese politics is essentially the struggle between
ambitious members of the elites (they call themselves patriots, thereby wooing the support of
the populace), and weaker-spirited members, who would rather be third-rate than fight for a
better position (pro-US, or generally pro-Western forces). So far proud patriots are winning
in both Russia and China, but lower grade pro-Western forces won't concede and keep fighting.
As far as pension reform in Russia goes, robbing the public to enrich the elites is in the
interests of both factions. However, I won't be surprised if the patriotic faction blames it
all on pro-Western forces, which Russian and Chinese people do sincerely despise.
That's what Ukies hope for. They were always wrong (Mazepa serving Sweden, some scum
serving Austro-Hungarian Empire, some scum serving Hitler, "holier-than-thou" communists
serving USSR, etc.). They are wrong again. But it's inhumane to say this: you don't want to
shatter pipe dreams of people who have nothing else, and never will.
Lots of people pretended to be persecuted just to get freebees in the US and elsewhere.
Antisemitsm was by ~90% the myth created by these people. One example I know first-hand: in
my year at the school of Biology in the best and most privileged Moscow State University
about 20-25% of students were Jewish or half-Jewish, whereas Jews constituted 2-3% of the
USSR population.
A note for those who know stats: this was a representative sampling: ~ 250 people
graduated from MSU School of Biology in my year, and the picture was pretty much the same in
subsequent years.
The following source claims his mother is Jewish, but I don't know how reliable he is:
As a sidenote, Medvedev's visit is all the more interesting given that he is a Jew, the
son of a Jewish mother and the first Jew to become President of Russia, much less enter the
Kremlin in any capacity besides the following: doctor, scientist, military hero,
foreigner.
I've personally confirmed Medvedev's Jewish identity with former Muscovites, who say
that Medvedev's mother regularly attended the main synagogue in Moscow. The subject has
not been broached much in Russian media, as Medvedev is Putin's man, and, well, Russian
journalists know what's good for them, or they have an accident – there is freedom of
choice in Russia. I wonder if anyone's bothered to tell the Arabs.
You will notice that the comments section at that site is infested with leftist dinosaurs.
Maybe they have a certain influence on the analyses.
Ozymandias
You are spot on. I, too, have noticed a change toward the negative on The Saker's part. A
bit befuddling. Seems that Russia and Putin have been doing well on numerous fronts, in spite
of Western attempts to the contrary. Difficulties may often exist, but I just don't see 5th
column doom and gloom.
Putin is perhaps the most rational, level headed, intelligent leader whom I've seen in my
lifetime. Wish we had his equivalent in the USA.
Paul Craig Roberts is right about dominance of neoliberal economics in Russia. But what is the alternative?
Notable quotes:
"... If the neoconservatives had self-restraint, they would sit back and let America's Fifth Column -- Neoliberal Economics -- finish off Russia for them. Russia is doomed, because the country's economists were brainwashed during the Yeltsin years by American neoliberal economists. It was easy enough for the Americans to do. Communist economics had come to naught, the Russian economy was broken, Russians were experiencing widespread hardship, and successful America was there with a helping hand. ..."
"... For example, neoliberal economics exposes Russia's currency to speculation, manipulation, and destabilization. Capital inflows can be used to drive up the value of the ruble, and then at the opportune time, the capital can be pulled out, dropping the ruble's value and driving up domestic inflation with higher import prices, delivering a hit to Russian living standards. Washington has always used these kind of manipulations to destabilize governments. ..."
"... Neo-liberal economics has also brainwashed the Russian central bank with the belief that Russian economic development depends on foreign investment in Russia. This erroneous belief threatens the very sovereignty of Russia. The Russian central bank could easily finance all internal economic development by creating money, but the brainwashed central bank does not realize this. The bank thinks that if the bank finances internal development the result would be inflation and depreciation of the ruble. So the central bank is guided by American neoliberal economics to borrow abroad money it does not need in order to burden Russia with foreign debt that requires a diversion of Russian resources into interest payments to the West. ..."
"... As Michael Hudson and I explained to the Russians two years ago, when Russia borrows from the West, the US for example, and in flow the dollars, what happens to the dollars? Russia cannot spend them domestically to finance development projects, so where do the dollars go? They go into Russia's foreign exchange holdings and accrue interest for the lender. The central bank then creates the ruble equivalent of the borrowed and idle dollars and finances the project. So why borrow the dollars? The only possible reason is so the US can use the dollar debt to exercise control over Russian decision making. In other words, Russia delivers herself into the hands of her enemies. ..."
"... Putin is struggling to have Russia integrated into the Western economic system while retaining Russia's sovereignty (an unrealistic goal), because Putin has been convinced by the element in the Russian elite, which had rather be Western than Russian, that Russia's economic development depends on being integrated into the Western economy. As the neoliberal economic elite control Russia's economic and financial policy, Putin believes that he has to accept Western provocations or forfeit his hopes for Russian economic development. ..."
This is the lecture I would have given if I had been able to accept the invitation to
address the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum in Russia this weekend.
Executive Summary:
From the standpoint of Russia's dilemma, this is an important column.
Putin's partial impotence via-a-vis Washington is due to the grip that neoliberal economics
exercises over the Russian government. Putin cannot break with the West, because he believes
that Russian economic development is dependent on Russia's integration within the Western
economy. That is what neoliberal economics tells the Russian economic and financial
establishment.
Everyone should understand that I am not a pro-Russian anti-American. I am anti-war,
especially nuclear war. My concern is that the inability of the Russian government to put its
foot down is due to its belief that Russian development, despite all the talk about the
Eurasian partnership and the Silk Road, is dependent on being integrated with the West. This
totally erroneous belief prevents the Russian government from any decisive break with the West.
Consequently, Putin continues to accept provocations in order to avoid a decisive break that
would cut Russia off from the West. In Washington and the UK this is interpreted as a lack of
resolve on Putin's part and encourages an escalation in provocations that will intensify until
Russia's only option is surrender or war.
If the Russian government did not believe that it needed the West, the government could
give stronger responses to provocations that would make clear that there are limits to what
Russia will tolerate. It would also make Europe aware that its existence hangs in the balance.
The combination of Trump abusing Europe and Europe's recognition of the threat to its own
existence of its alignment with an aggressive Washington would break the Western alliance and
NATO. But Putin cannot bring this about because he erroneously believes that Russia needs the
West.
If the neoconservatives had self-restraint, they would sit back and let America's Fifth
Column -- Neoliberal Economics -- finish off Russia for them. Russia is doomed, because the
country's economists were brainwashed during the Yeltsin years by American neoliberal
economists. It was easy enough for the Americans to do. Communist economics had come to naught,
the Russian economy was broken, Russians were experiencing widespread hardship, and successful
America was there with a helping hand.
In reality the helping hand was a grasping hand. The hand grasped Russian resources through
privatization and gave control to American-friendly oligarchs. Russian economists had no clue
about how financial capitalism in its neoliberal guise strips economies of their assets while
loading them up with debt.
But worse happened. Russia's economists were brainwashed into an economic way of thinking
that serves Western imperialism.
For example, neoliberal economics exposes Russia's currency to speculation, manipulation,
and destabilization. Capital inflows can be used to drive up the value of the ruble, and then
at the opportune time, the capital can be pulled out, dropping the ruble's value and driving up
domestic inflation with higher import prices, delivering a hit to Russian living standards.
Washington has always used these kind of manipulations to destabilize governments.
Neo-liberal economics has also brainwashed the Russian central bank with the belief that
Russian economic development depends on foreign investment in Russia. This erroneous belief
threatens the very sovereignty of Russia. The Russian central bank could easily finance all
internal economic development by creating money, but the brainwashed central bank does not
realize this. The bank thinks that if the bank finances internal development the result would
be inflation and depreciation of the ruble. So the central bank is guided by American
neoliberal economics to borrow abroad money it does not need in order to burden Russia with
foreign debt that requires a diversion of Russian resources into interest payments to the
West.
As Michael Hudson and I explained to the Russians two years ago, when Russia borrows from
the West, the US for example, and in flow the dollars, what happens to the dollars? Russia
cannot spend them domestically to finance development projects, so where do the dollars go?
They go into Russia's foreign exchange holdings and accrue interest for the lender. The central
bank then creates the ruble equivalent of the borrowed and idle dollars and finances the
project. So why borrow the dollars? The only possible reason is so the US can use the dollar
debt to exercise control over Russian decision making. In other words, Russia delivers herself
into the hands of her enemies.
Indeed, it is the Russian government's mistaken belief that Russian economic development is
dependent on Russia being included as part of the West that has caused Putin to accept the
provocations and humiliations that the West has heaped upon Russia. The lack of response to
these provocations will eventually cause the Russian government to lose the support of the
nationalist elements in Russia.
Putin is struggling to have Russia integrated into the Western economic system while
retaining Russia's sovereignty (an unrealistic goal), because Putin has been convinced by the
element in the Russian elite, which had rather be Western than Russian, that Russia's economic
development depends on being integrated into the Western economy. As the neoliberal economic
elite control Russia's economic and financial policy, Putin believes that he has to accept
Western provocations or forfeit his hopes for Russian economic development.
Russian economists are so indoctrinated with neoliberal economics that they cannot even look
to America to see how a once great economy has been completely destroyed by neoliberal
economics.
The US has the largest public debt of any country in history. The US has the largest trade
and budget deficits of any country in history. The US has 22 percent unemployment, which it
hides by not counting among the unemployed millions of discouraged workers who, unable to find
jobs, ceased looking for jobs and are arbitrarily excluded from the measure of unemployment.
The US has a retired class that has been stripped of any interest payment on their savings for
a decade, because it was more important to the Federal Reserve to bail out the bad loans of a
handful of "banks too big to fail," banks that became too big to fail because of the
deregulation fostered by neoliberal economics. By misrepresenting "free trade" and "globalism,"
neoliberal economics sent America's manufacturing and tradeable professional skill jobs abroad
where wages were lower, thus boosting the incomes of owners at the expense of the incomes of US
wage-earners, leaving Americans with the lowly paid domestic service jobs of a Third World
country. Real median family income in the US has been stagnant for decades. The Federal Reserve
recently reported that Americans are so poor that 41 percent of the population cannot raise
$400 without selling personal possessions.
Young Americans, if they have university educations, begin life as debt slaves. Currently
there are 44,200,000 Americans with student loan debt totalling $1,048,000,000,000 -- $1.48
trillion! https://studentloanhero.com/student-loan-debt-statistics/
In the US all 50 states have publicly supported universities where tuition is supposed to be
nominal in order to encourage education. When I went to Georgia Tech, a premier engineering
school, my annual tuition was less than $500. Loans were not needed and did not exist.
What happened? Financial capitalism discovered how to turn university students into
indentured servants, and the university administrations cooperated. Tuitions rose and rose and
were increasingly allocated to administration, the cost of which exploded. Today many
university administrations absorb 75% of the annual budget, leaving little for professors' pay
and student aid. An obedient Congress created a loan program that ensnares young American men
and women into huge debt in order to acquire an university education. With so many of the
well-paying jobs moved offshore by neoliberal economics, the jobs available cannot service the
student loan debts. A large percentage of Americans aged 24-34 live at home with parents,
because their jobs do not pay enough to service their student loan debt and pay an apartment
rent. Debt prevents them from living an independent existence.
In America the indebtedness of the population produced by neoliberal economics -- privatize,
privatize, deregulate, deregulate, indebt, indebt -- prevents any economic growth as the
American public has no discretionary income after debt service to drive the economy. In America
the way cars, trucks, and SUVs are sold is via zero downpayment and seven years of loans. From
the minute a vehicle is purchased, the loan obligation exceeds the value of the vehicle.
The Wall Street Journal reports that Mike Meru, a dentist earning $225,000 annually, has
$1,060,945.42 in student loan debt. He pays $1,589.97 monthly, which is not enough to cover the
interest, much less reduce the principal. Consequently, his debt from seven years at the
University of Southern California grows by $130 per day. In two decades, his loan balance will
be $2 million.
https://www.wsj.com/articles/mike-meru-has-1-million-in-student-loans-how-did-that-happen-1527252975
If neoliberal economics does not work for America, why will it work for Russia? Neoliberal
economics only works for oligarchs and their institutions, such as Goldman Sachs, who are
bankrolled by the central bank to keep the economy partially afloat. Washington will agree to
Russia being integrated into the Western system when Putin agrees to resurrect the Yeltsin-era
practice of permitting Western financial institutions to strip Russia of her assets while
loading her up with debt.
I could continue at length about the junk economics, to use Michael Hudson's term, that is
neoliberal economics. The United States is failing because of it, and so will Russia.
John Bolton and the neocons should just relax. Neoliberal economics, which has the Russian
financial interests, the Russian government and apparently Putin himself in its grip, will
destroy Russia without war.
"... if your enemy slaps you in your face, you have to immediately slap him back lest you look weak ..."
"... if your enemy slaps you in the face you step back and plan how to bring him down in the long run because what matters is not the short-lived posturing, which can be even dangerous and counter-productive, but playing the long run and winning ..."
"... good luck to the Americans trying get anything major done on the planet without our support ..."
"... you need us a heck of a lot more than we need you because you need to work with us or else you won't get anything done, we are still willing to work with you, but if you go crazy then your global interests will suffer much more than our ours; for all your hot air, you have been working with us all along and if you go overboard with the nonsense we will first reveal the extend of our collaboration and, if that is not enough to cool you down, we will terminate it ..."
"... what is the Russian share of the gross world product, how many aircraft carriers does Russia have and what is the Russian weight in international financial institutions? And how is your vodka-soaked Ruble doing anyway, buddy?! ..."
"... when is the last time you got anything successfully done, you dumb pompous ass ..."
Two things are noteworthy: first, this list completely ignores one of the most important
realities of Russian politics: that the real, dangerous, opposition to Putin is not from the
people (who support him at anywhere between 60% to 80%+) or from the Russian media (which,
while often critical, does not represent a real threat to him) or even the Duma (whose
opposition parties are critical of the Kremlin, but who are very careful about criticizing
Putin himself lest they lose support from the people) . For years now I have been explaining
that the real opposition to Putin is a) inside the ruling elites, including the Presidential
Administration and the Government and b) big money: banks, oligarchs, etc.
I call this (informal) opposition the " Atlantic Integrationists " because what
these pro-western globalists want is for the AngloZionist Empire to accept Russia as an equal
partner and to have Russia fully integrate the US-controlled international financial and
security structures: WTO, NATO, EU, G7/8, etc. Very roughly speaking you could them of them as
the "Medvedev people" (but you could also say that the Ministers in charge of the Russian
economy all fall into this category, as do almost all the heads of Russian
banks).
Eurasian Sovereignists ". These are the folks who see the future of Russia
in the South, East and even North, who want to pull Russia out of the AngloZionist
international financial and security structures and who want a truly sovereign Russia to
contribute to a new truly multi-polar world in collaboration with countries like China or the
other BRICS countries. Very roughly you could call these people the "Putin people" (but you
could also say that figures such as Ivanov, Rogozin, Shoigu and a few others are key
personalities).
This is important because the this list of (potentially sanctioned) people makes absolutely
no distinctions between these two groups. Check out this article on RT entitled " Major Russian
bank will no longer service defense industry over US sanctions fears ". It quotes the Alfa
Bank CEO Mikhail Fridman whose net worth is estimated at $16.2 billion by Forbes, as saying
that the magazine that Alfa-Bank was cutting ties with the Russia's defense industry, adding, "
What can we do? ". Now look at the list, Appendix II, entry #23. Do you see who is
there? Yup, the very same Mikhail Fridman!
Now let me add this: in the current political climate in Russia, to have bank accounts in
the West is considered shameful and unpatriotic and that is something which even most dishonest
and hypocritical Eurasian Sovereignists can hardly afford for political reasons (that does not
mean that some don't try, they do, but at a great political risk). In contrast, among Atlantic
Integrationists, whose power and influence does not depend on public opinion, having assets
abroad is much less dangerous and, therefore, much more common.
Now that the the US Treasury has released this "list of marked individuals" (and their
families, relatives or associated corporate entities) for potential, unspecified, future
sanction, who do you think will freak out most, the Eurasian Sovereignists or the Atlantic
Integrationists? Then look a step further and forget about the US for a second: Russia is
trying hard to work with the Europeans in many join projects. What do you think the creation of
such a list will have on joint ventures between EU and Russian businessmen? I predict two
things:
It will place a great deal of pressure on EU corporations not to do business when the
Russians and, therefore, it will further place the EU and the US on a collision course.
It will hurt the Atlantic Integrationists were it hurts them the most: in their financial
interests.
Frankly, if I was paid to think long and hard about how to come up with the dumbest and most
self-defeating foreign policy decision for the USA I could never do better than what the Trump
Administration and Congress have just done. This is, by the way, something which all Russian
analysts agree with. What they don't agree with are the reasons for that seemingly completely
and terminally stupid move. Here are the various schools of thought in Russia on that
account:
Group One: "the slap in the face of Russia":
They believe that the sole intention was to insult and humiliate Russia by basically
declaring that all the top Russian people are gangsters. According to them, there ain't much
the US can do to Russia other than to continue a petty war of insults and harassment (like the
expulsion of Russian diplomats and the seizure of Russian consular buildings in the USA).
Group Two: "it's all internal US politics":
That groups says that this has nothing to do with Russia at all. According to them, the US
economy is doing well under Trump, the Democrats have nothing to use against him so all they do
is continue to hammer the "Russian threat" fairytale to which Trump responds with deliberately
ineffective and totally symbolic actions which make it look like he is anti-Russian when in
reality he is quietly sabotaging the Democrats' attempts at truly worsening relations with
Russia and preventing the Democrats from playing the "Russian threat" card against Trump.
Group Three: "Трамп Наш" (Тrump is
ours):
Some even go as far as saying that this list is most damaging to the people opposed to Putin
and that it gives him a pretext to fire them all after the Presidential elections in Russia.
Far from considering Trump a bumbling idiot, this group sees him as a consummate politician who
is actually creating the circumstances to really hurt his (real) enemies and help his (real)
friends.
Group Four: "Наших бьют!" (Our people
are under attack!):
This is the group which doesn't care at all why the US is doing this or that, no matter how
clumsy. All they care about is that this is yet another attack on "our people" (meaning Russian
individuals or corporate entities) and that means that Russians should "circle the wagons" and
come to the rescue of those thus attacked. This group most vociferously demands retaliatory
steps from the Kremlin. They are a vocal minority.
Group Five: "Филькина
Грамота" (Botched document produced by clueless
idiots [ very approximate translation !]) This is the group which basically says that
it is all much more simple and no complex explanations are needed: the Trump Administration and
Congress is composed of clueless idiots who have no idea what the hell they are doing and who
just like to produce some policy decisions just to look like they still matter in world where
they really don't. Putin himself seems to be in this last group as he officially called this
latest US document " complete stupidity
".
Frankly, in my experience the decision making process in the USA is almost never the result
of a efforts of single actor. In fact, US political decisions are the "sum vector" of the
effect of many different vectors acting together to produce a sum vector which sometimes looks
nonsensical but which is still the logical result from the joint effect of all the vectors
which determined it. In other words, all the explanations above could be right, albeit to
various degrees. This being said, I strongly favor the last one as, like Putin, I have come to
the conclusion that the Empire is run by stupid, ignorant ideologues who live in a world
totally detached from reality.
What is absolutely certain is that this latest move by the USA is, again, a dream come true
for Putin and his supporters, especially right before the elections.
First and foremost, this is clearly an attack on "our guy" and even on "all of us" and this
triggers a very strong reaction of support from the people. Furthermore, it separates all
Russians into basically two camps: first, Putin supporters and, second, those who are so
totally sold out to the USA (like Ksenia Sobchak) that they would even hand back Crimea just in
order to be friends with the West. The first group must roughly include, oh, let's say 95%-98%
of the population, the 2nd one about 2%-5%.
Second, it is now clear that every Russian oligarch (along with his family members and
colleagues) has a big bullseye painted on his back and that he now should hurry to place his
assets in the only location were the Empire cannot seize them: inside Russia.
To sum it all up: the latest move is a true blessing for Putin and Russia in both economic
and political terms and the only ones really hurt by all this are the Atlantic Sovereignists
(who are really going through some very bad times anyway).
The paradox: US sanctions – a blessing in disguise?
Let's think about what the USA has been doing over the past couple of years. Officially, the
USA has been trying to "isolate" Russia. But isolate from exactly what? From Peru? Or maybe
from cultural exchanges with Morocco? Hardly. When the USA says that it wants to isolate Russia
it means cut Russia off the western markets (trade), the western financial system (credit) and
the western political elites (fora).
These sanctions were supposed to hurt Russia precisely because Russia was, at least in part,
dependent on trade with the EU, credits from western financial institution and her
participation in G8 (now G7) type of events.
Putin predicted that it would take 2 years for Russia to recover from these sanctions (and
the concomitant drop in energy prices) and he was right: Russia not only created new trade
ties, but also finally began investing in her internal market, she found credits elsewhere
(China) and in terms of fora, it really turned out that the G7 without Russia was more or less
like the Council of Europe or, for that matter, the UN Security Council: useless. Instead,
world leaders began booking flight and visiting Moscow.
Now the latest US sanctions are putting an immense amount of pressure on Russian oligarchs
to bring their money back home. It sure looks to me that US sanctions made it possible for
Putin to do something he might never have been able to do without them: to seriously begin
reforming Russia (which badly needed such reforms). Remember, Eurasian Sovereignists are just
that – sovereignists; whereas Atlantic Integrationists are just that –
integrationists. By "cutting off Russia from the West" – whose agenda did the USA really
hurt, the integrationists or the sovereignists? Could it be that Putin owes his immense
popularity, and Russia her success, at least in part to US sanctions?
The fundamental theory of deterrence hold that "deterrence is in the eye of the beholder".
In other words, I cannot assume that what would deter me would also deter you. In order to
deter you I need to understand what your goals and values are. I submit that when the US elites
decided to sanction Russia (putatively to deter her from further resisting the Empire) they
made a fundamentally wrong assumption: that Russia was ruled by Atlantic Integrationist types
who would be horrified and deterred.
Instead, these sanctions ended being a blessing for the Eurasian Sovereignists who used
these sanctions to paralyze the Atlantic Sovereignists, to push through much needed reforms and
basically eliminate the pro-Western opposition. In so many ways Russia is still a mess and a
struggling country, but thanks to US sanctions none of that will have any impact at all on the
next Presidential elections in Russia and the Eurasian Sovereignists are more powerful than
ever before. Thank you, Uncle Shmuel!
Possible Russian reactions:
Whatever the reasons for all this nonsense, this does beg some kind of reaction from Russia
and I think that judging by all the similar situation in the recent past, the Russian reaction
is fairly easy to predict.
First, there will be no grandiose gesture or loud hyperbolic statements out of the Kremlin.
Putin jokingly deplored that his own name was no on the list, Peskov said that this was a
hostile act, a few Russian Duma members canceled planned trip to the USA and Russian
commentators expressed various degrees of dismay and disgust. But, all in all, this is very,
very little.
As usual, this will be completely misunderstood in the West where the culture is roughly "
if your enemy slaps you in your face, you have to immediately slap him back lest you look
weak ". In most of Asia (and the Middle-East, by the way), the norm is totally different:
" if your enemy slaps you in the face you step back and plan how to bring him down in the
long run because what matters is not the short-lived posturing, which can be even dangerous and
counter-productive, but playing the long run and winning ".
You could say that in the West the attention span and long-term planning is counted in days
or weeks, while in Asia and the Middle-East it is counted in years and decades. So while there
might not be anything particularly photogenic or quote-worthy coming out of the Kremlin, a few
Russians did drop hints of what the Russian policy will be: " good luck to the Americans
trying get anything major done on the planet without our support ".
And just to make that point clear to those who can connect the dots, the Russian ambassador
to the U.S., Anatoly Antonov, speaking on the Russian TV channel Rossiya One, declared that the
Director of the Russian Foreign Intelligence Service (SVR), Sergei Naryshkin, recently traveled
to the USA and met with some high level US personalities (including,
according to US sources , CIA Director Mike Pompeo).
As Newsweek wrote , Naryshkin would be " the Russian spy chief behind 2016 election
hacking campaign " which various nutcases even called an act of war. He is on the very top
of all these sanctions list, but there he is, traveling inside the USA and meeting with top US
officials.
Why did Antonov leak this? Simply to show that for all the huffing and puffing and
hyperbolic grandstanding from the USA, the reality is that the USA and Russia are still very
much working together because they really cannot afford not doing so (as I write these words I
got a link to a
WaPo article now saying that Alexander Bortnikov, the head of the Federal Security Service
(FSB) and even Colonel-General Korobov, the head of the Main Directorate of the General Stuff
(GU GSh), the military intelligence service (ex-GRU) also took part in this trip to the
USA.)
So that is the real Russian message to the USA: you need us a heck of a lot more than we
need you because you need to work with us or else you won't get anything done, we are still
willing to work with you, but if you go crazy then your global interests will suffer much more
than our ours; for all your hot air, you have been working with us all along and if you go
overboard with the nonsense we will first reveal the extend of our collaboration and, if that
is not enough to cool you down, we will terminate it .
There is no doubt in my mind that for most inhabitants of the AngloZionist Empire the notion
of the almighty USA needing the struggling (and economically comparatively small) Russia more
than Russia needs the USA is laughable. These folks would say something like that: " what
is the Russian share of the gross world product, how many aircraft carriers does Russia have
and what is the Russian weight in international financial institutions? And how is your
vodka-soaked Ruble doing anyway, buddy?! "
The Russians wouldn't reply much of anything, most would just smile in contempt and think
something along the lines of " when is the last time you got anything successfully done,
you dumb pompous ass ". That's fundamentally fine since this message is really not
destined to ideological
drones but to those in power in the USA who are aware of the real scorecard of Uncle Sam
and who realize that right now it is the Empire, not Russia, which is almost completely
paralyzed, and isolated (oh irony!) on all levels.
Conclusion one: the Empire's main export is hot air
Many of my friends and readers send me various articles with all sorts of quotes by US
officials and I have a really hard time explaining to them that they should stop listening to
this endless bombastic verbiage. Not only because the vast majority of officials making these
statements are both stupid and ignorant, but because the main export of the AngloZionist Empire
nowadays is hot air.
We saw that recently with the grand statements about Kurdistan or, for that matter, the
plans "A", "B", "C" and "D" about Syria: all delivered with the same final gravitas. This is
counter-intuitive, I will admit that.
After all, when the President of the nuclear superpower, a three star general or any other
senior official takes the floor to make an official statement, we automatically tend to assume
that what they say matters, especially if they are surrounded by flags and many exited
reporters. But it really doesn't. Especially not when the "other guy" (the Russians and the
Chinese) come from a culture which frowns upon loudmouthed histrionics: "make my day, punk" is
just not an (Eur-)Asian way of delivering threats.
I don't mean to suggest that we should ignore the Empire, most definitely not, but we should
look at what the Empire actually does and more or less ignore it's constantly running
narcissistic commentary. When the Empire promises to do something right, it usually lies. When
it promises to do something wrong, these are usually empty threats. So what's the point of
paying so much attention to these promises?
Conclusion two: learning optimism and caution from history
If we look at world history we can always see the same phenomenon taking place: when things
to well, the elites are united, but as soon as things go south, the elites turn on each other.
The reason for this is quite simple: elites are never as united as they pretend to be.
In reality Empires, and any big country, really, are run by a coalition of elites who all
benefit from the established order. They can hate each other, sometimes even kill each other
(SA vs SS, Trotskyists vs Stalinists, etc.), but they will work together just like crime
families do in the mob. But when a real, profound, crisis becomes undeniably apparent, these
ruling elites typically turn on each other and when that happens, nobody is really in charge
until, eventually, the entire system comes tumbling down or a new main ruler/group emerges.
Right now the AngloZionists elites are locked into a huge struggle which is likely to last
for the foreseeable future. However, we need to be aware that such a situation can also be used
be a previously less visible party to make a move and seize power. That is exactly how Putin
came to power, pushed by the Russian security services even while Eltsin was still the nominal
head of state.
This also fully applies to the Ukraine which is also run by a group of people whose main
current contribution to the world scene is hot air. But that could change very, very fast. This
is why while I recommend more or less ignoring the hot air coming out of the top US (or Ukie)
officials, I would keep an attentive eye on the level right below them, especially the US (or
Ukie) military.
Finally, we should never confuse the inability to get anything done with the inability to
make things worse: the latter does not flow from the former. Nazi Germany was basically
defeated in Stalingrad (Feb 1943) but that did not prevent it from murdering millions more
people for another two and a half years before two Soviet soldiers placed the Soviet flag on
top of the Reichstag. We are still far away from such a "Reichstag flag" moment, but we sure
are witnessing the AngloZionist "Stalingrad" taking place before our eyes.
Saker``For years now I have explained that the real opposition to Putin is a) inside
the ruling elites, including the Presidential Administration and the Government and b)
big money: banks, oligarchs, etc.``
Twenty years in power and not cleaned up the fifth column. Why? Or he is a useless coward
or he is a Yeltsin's successor with a pseudo patriotic profile to outsmart the Russian
public opinion. If was a real patriotic leader and not a opposition to the NWO, he
should
1. As he has high popularity will change the Yeltsin's colonial constitution written by
American lawmakers.,with a referendum.
2. Nationalisation the Rothschilds Russian central Bank.
3. Establishment the golden ruble.
4. The foundation of spiritual and moral values: Conscience and Justice. The spiritual is
higher than the material. Total above personal. Justice is above the law. Service is
above possession.
5. Russia's internal goals are to improve the quality of life and create conditions on
the principles of social justice to disclose the creative potential of each person and
the entire Russian society.
6. The economic system of Russia: state strategic planning - a real economy - a variety
of forms of ownership in the priority of public and public property. The prohibition of
usury, the the formation of a sovereign national credit and financial system. Labor is
the foundation of the well-being and social status of a citizen. Natural wealth,
including the territory, and the resources created by our ancestors are the public
property and heritage of our descendants.
7. Change the passive Russian foreign policy.
The short version of your model is EU. Everything shall be regulated to protect water,
frogs, wildlife, equality, security, climate, health, religion, sexlife, quietness after
11 o'clock, traffic security, no-smoking, respect for politicans, fighting racism and
nazism, promote immigration to Europa and development in Africa ... a never ending list
also farmers / restaurant owners have to follow to keep their "farmer licence" / "cafe
license".
Any religion should promote equality and tolerance and respect for animal life ... to be
accepted as official religion, otherwise fined for "discrimination"
(In case of Byzantines rules it will include rules about Jewish ownership of shares, when
that is allowed or not)
- 5. Russia's internal goals are to improve the quality of life and create conditions
on the principles of social justice to disclose the creative potential of each person and
the entire Russian society.
The goal of Trump is to get rid of state officials - using logic tax rules do not
contribute, but strangulate business
Putin will be in same camp - create economic growth. Less rules -> a better world
- So you invented a battery that last twice as long
- Yes
- And how does that improve female emanticiparion?
- Female emanticiparion??
- Yes
- That is not our business
- Don't you have a female emanticiparion policy in "battery business"?
- No
- That we have to correct
Given how many other things Putin has done in Russia's national interest, I'd suggest
that if he considered these in the national interest, he'd have done them but lets take a
look.
1: If it's not broken, don't fix it, clearly Putin and/or enough people in the Russian
government consider that the existing constitution works and that to rewrite it and every
law written in the last 20 years based on it would take excessive time and effort for
little pay off.
2: We've seen what happens to countries that do this sort of thing and Russia has no
interest in being invaded, better to wait for the Rothschild clan to collapse and then
make it look like you're doing them a favour by buying it back.
3: I'm not sure what you mean by "the golden ruble", a quick google search returns
nothing either.
4: It seems to me that the Russian church has taken up this job.
5: Without the "social justice" (which if the west is anything to go by, I hope the
Russians never have to suffer) they are doing that, they were talking a little while back
about special educational programs to give people an outlet for creativity in areas that
haven't had the opportunity before.
Quality of life has also risen significantly since the fall of the Soviet Union and as
the national debt is further reduced more money is freed up to spend on that in the
future but you have to consider that Russia took on most (if not all) the financial
fallout of the Soviet Union and thus had to focus on offsetting that first.
6: State management of the economy has been seen to fail when put under stress, just
as management of the economy by banks has been seen to fail when they aren't properly
regulated.
With that said, the creation of a state financial system for credit/debit transactions
internally is a good idea but state ownership of the majority of industry and finance is
not a good idea, leave that to properly regulated private entities and then tax them,
that way if losses occur then it's not the state that loses money. When deciding whether
or not to run something using state money you have to ask the question of how much money
you are prepared to lose from your annual budget because you can't tax state
expenditure.
7: Russia doesn't have the resources, the inclination or a reason to change the
foreign policy that has worked so well for them, the US also provides an excellent
example of interventionism that gets very costly and buys very few friends. Russia on the
other hand, while she lacks true friends has a lot of respect around the world from
states and peoples alike and not just for her military capability (which is a relatively
recent consideration on the world stage, thanks to Syria) but also for the capability of
her diplomats and politicians to be reasonable and considerate.
According to the Russian constitution, the Russian central bank is independent.That is
the main reason (that`s the Saker in the above article called the fifth column)that
Russia, not development according to its abilities (high rates etc)Elvira Nabiullina the
head of RCB sabotage the Russian economy.
You compare the today's Russian economy with the Yeltsin's era and not with the Soviet
economy which the standard of life was much higher than today. The losses inflicted on
Russia by her own "elite," stooges of their partners, in the 1990s, were comparable to
the losses caused by World War II. Yet, after the 1990s, no Nuremberg trials and no
criminal responsibility were sought or established. This was one of the reasons behind
the Putin-Medvedev tandem. Moreover, the Soviet Union won in World War II. In 1989- and
onwards, Russia lost. Thus, instead of the "winners' justice," Russia was inflicted with
the injustice meted to the defeated.
About Putin's hesitation and passivity, in the foreign and defence policies
On Putin watch, NATO has encroached on to Russia border. Has Troops positioned all along
it from the Baltic to the Black Sea?
On Putin watch US has deployed land base Cruise Missiles AEGIS in Romania in direct
contravention of a historic non-proliferation treaty signed by Regan and Gorbachev.
On Putin watch US deployed THAAD in South Korea that now puts all Russia far Eastern
Bases on US radar.
On Putin watch US financed a coup in Ukraine. A coup in which thousands of ethnic
Russian were brutally murdered by Nazis. Many Russians were beaten to death and set on
Fire and thrown from windows in Odessa. Putin did nothing. His only notable involvement
in Ukraine was to seek safe passage out of the Delatseve cauldron for US/NATO mercenaries
surrounded by DPR forces.
In Syria how many times has Russia been on the brink of defeating ISIS only to
hurriedly declare their mission a success and go home? Strange behavior don't you think.
Even stranger behavior from Putin was when the FSB located the Israeli/US/NATO ISIS
command center in Allepo.Putin generals wanted to level the building. He refused them
permission. A few weeks later he purged his own Generals. Guess who was in that
purge?
PS Golden ruble is the connection ruble with the gold.I BELIEVE that the time is against
Russia and there is no time for long term games ect,I consider all these excuses for
someone who no dare to react.
One can't sensibly compare the Russian economy today against the Soviet economy at
it's height, they are two completely different entities in two very different times. From
what I'm reading, the Russian economy is doing well in spite (or perhaps in thanks) of
the the sanctions with several items previously imported now being manufactured in Russia
and I should expect further developed allowing Russia to further develop it's
technological standards.
With regard to foreign policy, Russia couldn't afford a war when NATO was expanding,
it didn't have the money, the manpower or the friends to fight America and it's vassals,
one could argue that Russia still doesn't although with China at her back it would be
less of a steamroll.
This has been the basic principle behind virtually every foreign action by Russia since
the collapse of the Soviet Union, to avoid war and to sidestep it when America pushes for
it.
America doesn't care about treaties and without an open war or a credible threat of it
America will continue to disregard treaties it doesn't like. What Russia can and appears
to be doing about this (and America's radar coverage) is to deny America access, it's all
well and good having knowledge of the positioning of all the world's military assets but
if you don't have the tools to deal with them, that information is worthless.
You know as well as I do, if Russia had marched on Kiev it would have given NATO the
excuse it needed for a war with Russia, without would have posed an existential threat to
one party and nobody wins in a nuclear exchange.
I do however agree that Russia has prematurely declared victory over ISIS in Syria.
ISIS should hold no territory before a military victory is declared. That said, if you're
going to pedal a narrative that Russia is under threat, then it makes sense to keep as
much of your military at home as is possible without compromising foreign ventures.
It also makes sense to not level the NATO-ISIS command centre when you have an agreement
(however iffy) to not attack positions of the other signatories. I don't however follow
events in Russian politics closely enough to comment on the point regarding generals.
I also agree with the idea of backing the currency with gold (thanks for the
clarification on that), although it could be that they want the currency to remain
relatively weak to encourage foreign partners to buy from them.
Finally, I both agree and disagree that time is against Russia, on the one hand, every
day the Americans grow more desperate for a war to prop up their economy. On the other,
Russia is growing stronger militarily and financially by the day, developing new weapon
systems that are more successful than their American counterparts, further, America's
economy is looking at the possibility of collapse if it continues in it's present
orientation. Therefore, I would suggest that Russia should continue to play the long game
but to be prepared for a major war in the short term.
America's capacity to engineer new wars may be reducing. When people look around they
will see how the former military men are treated. Higher unemployment, more opiod
addicted, more homeless, more suicides.
The penny will drop at some stage that enlisting is throwing your life to the dogs,
and mothers may well talk many out of it. In the UK recruitment is already going
down!!!
Well , some people for many years keep warning, that after all , there are some and
must be , if you read and if there is a little truth what Saker informs ,must be groups
of Russians spies , wreckers and saboteurs in USA.
And they acts.As well.
Most people have a sense of grief when they lose something. There are still some
Germans who want the Eastern parts back. Palestinians despise Germans who refuse to
become violent and say good luck to the Poles and Russians.
But in the cold hard light of the day prickly Ukrainians, Baltic peoples, and - stan
inhabitants are not assets when you do the cost/benefit analysis. Russia has enough
enough land.
The NWO, also called Wolfowitz Doctrine or Full Spectrum Dominance, aims for an
American power monopoly.
An American power monopoly is not to everyone's liking and it would also create global
instability because the 4.3 % of global population = Americans cannot rule the other 95.7
%. Nobody should tolerate that such a small minority should try to dominate the majority
because that is bound to fall in a heap.
William Felix Browder is an American-born British financier. He is the CEO and
co-founder of the Hermitage Capital Management, an investment fund that at one time was
the largest foreign portfolio investor in Russia. Wikipedia
Fuc***those names....nobody can spell my name too.........
He is the chief instigator of Cold War 2,0 (AKA The Magnitsky Act) in which he covers
up his financial and other crimes by weaving jewish tall-tales about his character and
his history.
I see. But I more have the impression that Byzantines is of the nostalgic Russian
creed who also hate Putin. I consider him more of a fan of Igor Strelkov, because his
arguments remember of those at the time when the Ukie-war against Donbass was still
burning high.
What ruined the article for me, was the mention of 5th Column, inside the Kremlin and
Prime Minister Medvedev. He has been with President Putin, since their time at St
Petersburg Univeristy. In fact, there is so much trust betweenthe two men, that they
agreed that one of them could take over the Presidency, in order for the other to come
back. Now that takes serious trust. Gordon Brown and Blair tried to come up with the same
deal, but, look how that worked out. I wonder if John Smith did die of a natural heart
attack or were other factors involved?
At the end of the day, President Putin cleaned out the oligarchs and those loyal to
Russia and became good citizens stayed. Those, who could not do that, went to live in
exile. So if they lose their money, then it only strengthens those that remained true to
their nation. The Kremlin will lose no sleep.
Has anybody seen the latest ravings from insane US Generals, over in Washington
DC?
How did 'Mad Dog' make his name? Many end up in Death Row, with the same qualities,
than an US General of dubious character.
I still can't shake the thought that Trump might just be a brilliant and canny
politician. Steve Bannon, his mentor during the election campaign, once said in an
interview (if only I could find it again) that to bring down the US empire one has to
ignite a major crisis to have it crash and burn. Everything the Trump administration has
done so far served only to isolate the US and to alienate its so-called "allies" in
Europe and Asia, like Germany, France, Japan, or South Korea. I absolutely agree with The
Saker that the neocons, fake-Jews, the Hitlery Democrats, media pundits, and technocrats
of the three-letter-agencies are stupid beyond recognition, so they might not get it, but
maybe - just maybe - Trump is really aiming to destroy the US empire without directly
confronting his adversaries, but instead luring them into a political trap?
I really don't know, but I just find it hard to believe that someone could do so much
stupid stuff, when the results are constantly the opposite. Be that as it may, I am
cheering for Trump because of this.
Maybe Trump has given way to neocon party spoilt demands for yet more jelly, until
they are all sick as dogs.
The US hasn't needed its people so much for a long time. Not only has Trump fought
against a corrupt political system, he also faces a deceitful media empire, a bush cia
empire that has already taken care of one president, an fbi who have forgotten their job
description, a two-tier preferential judicial system, a MIC empire addicted to cash and
conflict anywhere in the world and a congress full of spoilt children.
Here's hoping for the best.
You may be right. Trump's MAGA may be actually a short for 'isolationism'.
I have difficulties to shake off the nagging feeling that the real 'conveyor belt' of
'Russian influence' is no other than the Kushners. Their sudden 'conversion' to Chabad
may be the perfect cover for that. The present Chief Rabbi of Russia, Shlomo Dovber
Pinchas Lazar (born May 19, 1964 in Milan, Italy), better known as Berel Lazar, an
Italian Jewish Orthodox, Chabad-Lubavitch Hasidic rabbi is an intimate friend of Vladimir
Putin, "Putin's Rabbi"!
You think that's fantasy? Think twice:
"Chabad of Port Washington, a Jewish community center on Long Island's Manhasset Bay,
sits in a squat brick edifice across from a Shell gas station and a strip mall. The
center is an unexceptional building on an unexceptional street, save for one thing: Some
of the shortest routes between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin run straight through
it...
Two decades ago, as the Russian president set about consolidating power on one side of
the world, he embarked on a project to supplant his country's existing Jewish civil
society and replace it with a parallel structure loyal to him. On the other side of the
world, the brash Manhattan developer was working to get a piece of the massive flows of
capital that were fleeing the former Soviet Union in search of stable assets in the West,
especially real estate, and seeking partners in New York with ties to the region.
Their respective ambitions led the two men -- along with Trump's future son-in-law, Jared
Kushner -- to build a set of close, overlapping relationships in a small world that
intersects on Chabad, an international Hasidic movement most people have never heard
of.
Starting in 1999, Putin enlisted two of his closest confidants, the oligarchs Lev Leviev
and Roman Abramovich, who would go on to become Chabad's biggest patrons worldwide, to
create the Federation of Jewish Communities of Russia under the leadership of Chabad
rabbi Berel Lazar, who would come to be known as "Putin's rabbi."
There is much more to it, but I can't reproduce the whole article here. You find it
@https://
www.politico.com/magazine/s...
CIA, FBI and other 'agencies' certainly know all that. But who would dare to take on
Chabad?
I believe , that Trump on many pictures looks like and his expression is similar
to The Good Soldier SCHWEIK.
Apparently he was selected with a great care.
Yes and remember... follow the money. when we say the USA and Sanctions...They are not
"American" there is no "American" money. Its the Federal Reserve Petrodollar scam fake
printing money...and who owns and runs that?....not any American it the Rothschild
khazarian mafia Goldman Sachs all central banks.....no goys allowed. So the US does what
its wants? it can't hand out sanctions unless OK's buy there masters you know the
satanics.
America would be a waist land and destroyed should they ever tangle it up with Russia.
Your family, including you and I wouldn't survive it. Russians too wouldn't survive it.
Russia has been around over 1000 years and would continue to exist. America is a coward
that is the reason why are they inviting their enemy to their home to worship him and
convince him that it was all hot air they were spewing from their comfort zone.It is very
stupid and silly to invite someone you claim to be your adversary and whom you publicly
announced to the whole world that you being the tough guy has sanctioned him but in
privacy you invited him. This is a behaviour of a coward.Russians of course would come
and even bug that idiot Pompeo in his office to get some more information , because he is
good - for - nothing.
They estimate that world GDP is about 64 trillions. But derivatives they say a rough
guess ais at least ten times bigger.
They say American have rotten teeth ,as cost of treatment is too expensive. One must sell
family home to get it.
The crumbling empire of the West have run out of ideas. They are weak militarily, even
an African army can kick those fat loud mouthed toads knowing full well they cannot use
nukes again (if any Western country uses nuclear bombs on anyone else they will
ultimately be nuked)
Secondly they have a crumbling economy made up of bloated papers traded to each other
which have no real inherent value. Their population is getting weak and old while the
younger population are fat and lazy with a sense of entitlement meaning they are
unwilling to produce but ready to consume. The growing population in the USA is not the
White productive individuals who built up the country but a mixed breed of non whites or
perhaps trailer thrash whites who do not believe in producing anything.
Yes the population is turning into the population of a third world country because
most of the aborted children were white (they could afford to pay for abortion) while the
other unproductive lot kept on having babies!!!! It's double whammy. Unfortunately for
the USA this is the future. Go to any city in the USA and look at the High School
students and you will see the next generation. They are similar to many countries like
Mexico or Zimbabwe!!
Good article but does require a native English speaker to proof read before
publication. BTW the U.S's main strategy is to prevent any Rus-German alliance forming
which would potentially seriously threaten U.S economic dominance.
In my opinion US is deliberately targeting Russia 5th column to make sure there is no
way to avoid a US-Russia conflict.US is looking for a war to save the dying US
petro-Dollar. Russia is being provoked in to a conflict US firmly believes it will win.
US defeats Russia, US creates a pivot in to Asia that will guarantee another 100 years of
US imperialism.
US wants Russia to come out fighting.War is good for US economy.
Well, yes, in a tongue in cheek way. They still borrow the money from the ZioBank U.$.
Fed. It just gets chalked up as another couple of trillion of red ink on the balance
sheet in the name of 'fighting for freedom.'
This isn't about Russia. This is about Europe. The U.$. has been trying to keep Europe
and Russia apart for the last three quarters of a century. This is just part of that
gambit. The U.$. says 'Europe is my dog.' 'Russia is to stay away.' That is what this is
about. Keeping Russia's oligarchs away from Europe so that the U.$. has sole 'ownership'
of them.
Poor Europe. Got targeted with 'Anti-Russian sanctions' over the 'Crimea excuse.' And
now 'they' (EuroLapdogs) won't be allowed to associate with 'Russia's money men' either.
Bummer. Sucks to be European right now what with the depression, debt, terrorists and
refugees.
How can the US believe it could win a war against Russia who has more nukes than the
US and are very powerful than the US. US believed it win against Vietnam and failed, US
believed it could win wars but failed. Such is arrogance which could be a madness
instinct.
Sadly Saker, you miss the obvious, yet again. Your grasp of US internal history is
weak. I attribute that to your mastery of Russia. It is difficult to master enormous
quantities ( BOTH US and Russian) of info. Let me give you the basics. In the US, we
have
Sadly Saker, you miss the obvious, yet again. Your grasp of US internal history is
weak. I attribute that to your mastery of Russia. It is difficult to master enormous
quantities ( BOTH US and Russian) of info. Let me give you the basics. In the US, we have
essentially two socioeconomic classes. This is new, I forgive you not seeing this very
recent development. The upper class, prep school educated, then Ivy League educated,
amassing great wealth and influence nationwide. Remaining largely in the shadows. These
are the folks you, Saker, no doubt encounter on a day to day occurrence.. Really, a
separate entity when compared to the swarming masses underneath them. This under class,
dismally educated, easily manipulated, are a huge engine the upper class have harnessed
and mind controlled for several generations. To carry out their policies. ( I sense
Saker, you do not interact with the peasants much or you would scream at their monumental
ignorance and lack of education). It is all a carefully choreographed science.Think
Edward Bernays. Today, this mind control is vast, far greater then ever before.
SIMPLY, Russia bashing is a final chapter in a long term plan going back to Mackinder and
company (today's Anglo Zionist EMPIRE). You know the Great Game. What was theory then is
now emerging as real action. Slave master Vatican and Britain's, (again, Anglo Zionism's
privileged elite Imperial guards) feudal lords, stirring up the animals (the cabbage
eating hinds, the sweating boobsoisie) That is how the upper class view their peasant
underlings.
The Russia bashing, is a relentless program of systematized opinion formation, brain
washing, and propaganda. Ask yourself these two questions. Who is the "targeted
demographic" when presenting wrong doings of Russian oligarchs? Why is this carefully
choreographed "managed perception" of their wrong doings being put out for general
consumption? The answer for me is to turn public opinion against a rising Russia and
embolden a dangerously ignorant populace to eventually take up and/or support actions
against this rising danger. (That perceived "other" endangering their futures). I really
cannot emphasize the importance of this science. It is the obvious point you over
look.
I know you are a far greater scholar then I am . I urge you to focus on Bernays. I feel
you could really benefit from mastering that field. Sorry to be so harsh. Always
enlightening to read your take on Russia!
Leanne's comment, below, magnificently fills in the specific details regarding Russia's
rise. Hat tip to her.
Exactly! This is a Bernay and MacKinder plan through and through. Anyone who has read
Brerzynski would have a firm knowledge of this Grand Game and the US Path to Persia. This
is a battle for the Motherland because the future economy lies in Eurasia. The Russians,
Chinese and Iranians have already set these wheels well and truly in motion and the
Atlantians are fighting hard to dominate this situation. Keeping Europe from Russia is an
essential strategic move to stop a very powerful alliance that will see the US on the
outside looking in. It is interesting to note that the Germans are going to go ahead with
Nordstream II. These are the geopolitical moves I take notice if. First of all the
Europeans do not want to suffer another war especially on behalf of the US so they can
remain the dominate world power. And as we know money is usually the bottom line. With
Russia restructuring their economy to exist without needing SWIFT etc and avoiding world
war 3 they will have the time to grow the new Eurasian economy way beyond the dying Petro
dollar. With certain European countries moving towards eliminating the use of petrol
based fuels is a further move towards the death nell of the Petro dollar. Gas will have
far more value than petroleum until renewable energies become the norm, and Russia and
Iran have tons of it. I see desperation from the Atlantians.....for all their death and
destruction I am.not so sure their Grand Game is playing out as planned.
Thanks Leanne for your astute observations! Yep, economics and natural resources. Well
said.( I like the moral support too). Anyway, I like to give something nice to a nice
comment. Hopefully, you'll enjoy it as much as I do. Play
Hide
Thanks for the YouTube and it is good to see that someone else can see the big
picture. All the BRI needs is Germany and it's all over red rover Red Rover for the US
however Obama made sure that would never happen by creating a massive schism, much to
Germany's detriment. More fool Merkel and the German voters.
Bestriding the world in a way that no other nation can, America has become more
invasive, predatory, and repressive than at any time in its history.
Eight hundred U.S. military bases garrison the globe. A highly militarised state, backed
by major corporations and a wealthy elite, exploits the public fear of foreigners,
subversives and minorities.
To create a high-tech version of medieval demonology, in which an unseen enemy is poised
to exploit any lack of vigilance.
There is only one response to the lurking Powers of Darkness: love of Jesus and awesome
weaponry. (Ken Humphries )
****
The US Leftards who roared against Bush wars,
Cheered as Obama Drone strike ,continue All Bush wars
Trump the many times over Bankrupt and bailed out by
Jewish Bankers became Presidential by Media after
Cruise missile attack on Syria.
There's No One to beat these Morons up,
Maybe the Universe will crash a huge Meteor into them,
Or Yellowstone Super Volcano Cauldera let's go.
30% of Americans 20 - 35 yrs live at home as they cannot afford to live on their own.
Millions upon millions are burried in student loan, credit card debt,....default on these
.+ Auto,Mortgage etc.
Slaves of a Nameless God...
Empire couldn't give a RIP about them....the Media
MK Ultra drives them in their derision.
Why traveled to the USA the Russia's foreign intelligence service?What they disqus?The
Russian capitulation to empire?Why all the Russian media silence about that meeting? So
much hurts the sanctions to the Russian elite ?``CIA Director Mike Pompeo met with
several senior Russian intelligence officials when they traveled to the U.S. recently,
U.S. ambassador to Russia Jon Huntsman said. Among those Pompeo met was Sergei Naryshkin,
head of Russia's foreign intelligence service, the SVR, according to Russia's state news
...``
Mountain from a molehill? probably . Just more paper...
Who actually created the list... one of hundreds.
Banksters and their Toadies no doubt ... they are the same everywhere are they
not?
It might help to understand..
Deplorables tend to see things from a different perspective
For example: The below group argues " Congress created the Federal Reserve, yet it had
no constitutional authority to do so. We forget that those powers not explicitly
granted
to Congress by the Constitution are inherently denied to Congress â€"
and thus the authority to establish a central bank never was given."
Before the Oligarchs of that day brought to the Russian People the corruption misery
death and suffering that Communism always brings in the end. Thru the Oligarch's Toadie's
and Sycophants in the US Congress they passed legislation (unconstitutional legislation)
bringing the corruption, misery and death that Crony Capitalism always brings to the
American People.
Millions of Deplorables in the US know it as a fraud and you see they are in the fight
for liberty.
Ron Paul , America's Most Respected Senior Statesmen wrote a book on the subject and
comments on the illegitimacy of the Fed unceasingly..
The Book title: "End the Fed"
"In the post-meltdown (Economic) world, it is irresponsible, ineffective, and
ultimately useless to have a serious economic debate without considering
and challenging the role of the Federal Reserve. Dr Ron Paul, Congressmen (ret)
America and Americans (Deplorables) are no more the one dimensional creatures
projected by Globalist Propagandists than the Russian people are.
Take the time to look at the links.. to gain a broader view of Americans and the
social, economic and political nature of the world they live in.. Just as Americans need
to gain a broader view and understanding of their Christian brothers and sisters in
Russia.
States need to be included in the American-led Corporatocracy in order to, possibly,
not be attacked by it. However, If you're are a major power, uncle Sam will always fear
your ability, not to undo the mafia capitalist system he's designed, but to take his
place as leader within that beast. 1. The American-led Corporatocracy, is a wild,
anti-life, anti-God beast that God is going to destroy. 2. If you want to be part of
that, then 'Good luck'.
There are basic things that should have been done by Russia.
After all the sanctions placed on Russia from the West the least that should have been
done is the total control over the Russian rouble disconnecting it from the USdollar and
the EUro (gold, oil, Yuan etc.) and the Cenral bank as well as the placement of Russian
reserves
We see that not much is done in that direction, something that should have been done
years ago, how come???
Lets say, go figure!!
Alternative 3, "Trump is ours" is the real explanation. As you say, the US foreign
policy is the result of compromise between not just power vectors, but real warring
factions.Trump is probably doing all within his power to support Russia in her fight
against their common enemy, the Globalist/NWO cabal
america is so very nearly defunct. the rate at which israel [ with usg's help ] is
assett stripping her & corrupting the petro dollar to the point that russia/china
wont have to dump it, i wonder if the zion pigs have a second bet on russia as their next
bitch. !!
There is a nice article, over on Veteran's Today, with regards Russia. Well worth
reading.
What New World Order Agents Won't Tell You About Vladimir Putin and Russia
Ask yourself this question: when was the last time that any American president got an
approval rating of 86%? And who was that president? Donald Trump? Barrack Obama? George
W. Bush? Bill Clinton? George H. W. Bush? Ronald Reagan?...
https://www.veteranstoday.c...
Another reason might be to instigate some kind of palace coup against the Russian
President. The Americans probably believe that these individuals are the main pillars of
the Russian government, so by threatening them with sanctions they would find some way to
get rid of the head of state. But if that was the thought of the Americans they have
overplayed their hands. I'm sure the old KGB judo master is watching those individuals
more closely now.
The Saker has got it spot on with the Russian Oligarchs now going to get hit with a
New Act brought into Law on the 31st of January by the British Government called the
Unexplained Orders where suspicious assets worth over £50,000 can be Seized
(stolen)
(The working class have had this Act against us Forever for any amount the Screws decide
to Steal)
They have already identified Dozens of Targets and you can bet your last £1 that
they are Russians on the "not sanctioned list ? " just brought out by the american Loony
government and have "COMMENDED" the "Zionist BBC" programme Mc Mafia (I am not making
this up) about Russians in England.
The Saker is Right make up with President Putin and take your money and assets back "
Home" before they make up more laws to strip yous of everything including your
Liberty
After that article ,i stop to criticize Putin and Lavrov, otherwise i will be a troll
army. Well, Putin is the greatest leader in the world and Lavrov the master of diplomacy
who very soon with his brave policy will defend the empire...written by agent provocateur
Byzantines
Sanctions are like having a trainer hold a gun to your head and force you to lose
weight and get pumped up. If the objective was to weaken you, the opposite effect is
achieved. Good Luck with all that.
The
latest policy recommendations by the influential Director General of the
Russian International Affairs Council (RIAC), one of the most
well-respected and listened-to experts in Russia – to say nothing of the
entire former Soviet space – is causing quite a stir by waxing
nostalgically about the Obama years and even suggesting that Moscow should
embrace the American "deep state".
Mr. Kortunov's Case For Russia's "Deep State"-Democrat
Partnership
Mr.
Andrey Kortunov
is one of the most brilliant minds in Russia and earned
his place as the Director General of the
Russian International Affairs Council
(RIAC), and his words accordingly
carry much weight for the fact that they set the tone for countless other
analysts in the country and even an untold number of policymakers who look
to him for guidance.
That's why it caused quite a stir when he published his latest
recommendation earlier this week at the famous
Valdai Club
titled "
Russian
Approaches to the United States: Algorithm Change Is Overdue
", in which
he waxed nostalgically about the Obama years and even suggested that Moscow
should embrace the American "deep state".
So as not to put words in his mouth, the relevant passages are republished in their entirety below:
"First, it is better to avoid demonizing the Deep State, which is perceived by many in
Moscow as the center of world evil and the stronghold of the pathological haters of Russia. Of
course, most of the State Department or the CIA officials, the Congress staff, experts from the
main think tanks are not Vladimir Putin's fans. But these people, at least, have considerable
experience of interaction with Moscow and can hardly be considered stubborn paranoids, exalted
conspiracy theorists or genetic Russophobes. Deep State consists of rationally thinking
professionals, who are always easier to deal with than romantic amateurs are. With all its
shortcomings, it is the Deep State that limits Donald Trump's most exotic and potentially most
dangerous foreign policy oddities.
Second, it's time to change the attitude toward the Demcratic Party leadership. For some
reason (probably because of inertia) the Barack Obama administration is constantly remembered in
Russia in the worst possible way, with the two latest presidents constantly juxtaposed. How is
Obama bad, and Trump is good? The stubborn facts show otherwise. For example, Obama pursued a
consistent policy of rapprochement with Iran, and Trump returned to the most severe pressure on
Tehran. Obama followed the international consensus on the status of Jerusalem, and Trump destroyed
this consensus. Obama did not resort to direct military action against Bashar Assad, and Trump did
not hesitate to give an order to launch missiles against the Syrian Al- Shayrat airbase. Well, who
after all created more problems for Russia -- Democrats or Republicans?"
Mr. Kortunov did indeed talk about other aspects of US-Russian relations, including the need for a
bottom-up approach to improving his country's soft power in America, but none of those proposals are
controversial, at least not when compared to what he wrote about above.
A diversity of respectful views in any discourse is symptomatic of a healthy democracy, and Russian
society is no different in this respect, which is why the dialogue on this topic would be greatly
enriched by presenting some counterpoints to Mr. Kortunov's article.
Deciphering The "Deep State"
The first is that the US' military, intelligence, and diplomatic bureaucracies ("deep state") are
experienced and rational like Mr. Kortunov describes them as, but that they nevertheless bear primary
responsibility for the deterioration in US-Russian relations under both the Obama and Trump
Presidencies because the bulk of these professional bureaucrats always retain their jobs between
leadership transitions in the country.
The President is supposed to determine the broad trajectory of their work in consultation with his
closest advisors, some of whom are handpicked by him and approved by Congress to lead the relevant
institutions of the "deep state" while others are more informal, but the rank-and-file members of the
"deep state" are still largely more responsible for the execution of policy in practice than anyone
else.
Unprecedentedly, many of them oppose President Trump's stated desire to improve relations with
Russia and have worked to unconstitutionally offset his plans, and the pressure that they've put on
him to this end explains why he's undertaken decisively anti-Russian policies during his first year in
office despite his campaign pledge to do the opposite.
Seeing as how most of these "deep state" individuals naturally remained in the same positions that
they had during the Obama Administration and would have probably still retained their jobs under
Hillary's Presidency, it's inaccurate to attribute the deterioration of Russian-American ties to
President Trump personally while overlooking the actions of the "deep state" that he's still trying to
reform to the best of his ability.
The "deep state" is rational – too rational, it can be argued – because it embraces a
Neo-Realist paradigm of International Relations
that sometimes correlates with Trump's own views
on certain topics but other times contradicts them like in the case of Russia, and the internal power
struggle between Trump and the "deep state" is what's really to blame for the worsening of bilateral
relations, not the "amateur" President's "romanticism" like Mr. Kortunov insists.
For these reasons, it can be argued that Mr. Kortunov's belief that the "deep state" "can hardly be
considered stubborn paranoids, exalted conspiracy theorists or genetic Russophobes" isn't exactly
accurate, since it's indeed full of "stubborn paranoids" under the dual influence of the
neoconservatives' Neo-Realism and the Obama-Clinton worldview of "militant liberalism".
That said, the "conspiracy theories" that he references are just a "deep state"
infowar distraction
to deceive the voting masses while the assertion that such a thing as a
"genetic Russophobe" exists
wrongly implies
that an individual's political views are irreversibly predetermined by their DNA.
To flip around Mr. Kortunov's last comment on the matter, it's more realistic to assert that "with
all his shortcomings, it is Donald Trump that limits the Deep State's most exotic and potentially most
dangerous foreign policy oddities."
Debunking The Dreams Of Democrat Rule
Relatedly, Mr. Kortunov's views on the "deep state" clearly influence his attitude towards the
Democrats and specifically the Obama Administration, which he thinks is unfairly "remembered in Russia
in the worst possible way" because "the stubborn facts show otherwise" and apparently disprove the
prevailing notion that "Obama (is) bad, and Trump is good."
Mr. Kortunov thinks that Obama had pure intentions in signing the nuclear agreement with Iran,
though it can
cynically
be argued that his "deep state" was in fact trying to co-opt the Islamic Republic's
"moderate/reformist" ruling elite in a bid to tip the scales to their favor in the country's own "deep
state" competition for influence with the "conservative/principalist" military-security faction, the
failure of which would
explain
why
Trump was tasked
with "returning to the most severe pressure on Tehran."
The enduring presence of most of the "deep state's" personnel between presidential administrations
doesn't preclude the US from pivoting between policies but actually allows such moves to be more
smoothly executed, as can be seen from the example of Nixon's rapprochement with China in spite of
Johnson's antagonism towards it; Bush Sr. "betraying" Iraq even though Reagan aligned with it; Obama
signing the nuclear deal against the former Bush Jr. Administration's wishes; and Trump dismantling
his predecessor's plans.
Although the President might set the tone for the overall direction that each respective policy
should go in and this sometimes reverses what the previous administration did, it's ultimately the
"deep state" that puts these ideas into practice and is able to maintain a degree of strategic
continuity that advances
America's national interests
regardless, though the case of Trump's vision for US-Russia relations
also shows that this same "deep state" can also conspire to obstruct the President's will.
Another "stubborn fact" at variance with Mr. Kortunov's nostalgia for Democrat rule is the
practical significance of Obama "following the international consensus on the status of Jerusalem" and
Trump "destroying" it since it inaccurately hints that the former was somehow 'pro-Palestinian' and
that the latter's announcement tangibly changed something on the ground, neither of which are true
because Obama was actually
very pro-Israel
and Trump's decision
only stands to affect
foreign aid recipients who voted against the US and the UN.
Looking beyond Obama's highly publicized personal rivalry with Netanyahu and his populist rhetoric
on the Palestinian issue, nothing that he did during his two terms had any influence on Israel's
occupation of East Jerusalem and unilateral claim to the entirety of the city being its capital;
likewise, Trump's words didn't change any of this reality either and only resulted in word games being
played at the UN and the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation
, neither of which did anything other than attempt to comfort
the Palestinians.
As for Mr. Kortunov's juxtaposition of Obama's refusal to "resort to direct military action against
Bashar Assad" with Trump "not hesitating to give an order to launch missiles against the Syrian Al-
Shayrat airbase", he's totally overlooking the 44
th
President's responsibility for the
theater-wide "Arab Spring"
Color Revolutions
and the resultant
Hybrid War
of
Terror on Syria which dealt incomparably more damage to Syria and its democratically elected
President's standing that Trump's handful of one-off missiles.
In addition, Trump only ordered the attack because he was under
intense "deep state" pressure to do so
after having been caught in a Catch-22 trap where he was
forced to "put his money where his mouth is" and respond to the false-flag chemical weapons attack
that violated his "red line", but truthfully speaking, what Mr. Kortunov might really resent is that
it only took a few million dollars' worth of missiles to
call President Putin's bluff
in hinting at a military response to the exact same scenario in 2013
that got Obama to back down at the time.
To respond to Mr.Kortunov's rhetorical question of "who after all created more problems for Russia
-- Democrats or Republicans?", the reader should be reminded that the Obama Administration presided
over or was outright responsible for the
"Arab Spring" and its attendant regime changes
, the
War on Syria
, the
2011-12 anti-government unrest
in Moscow, EuroMaidan and the Ukrainian Civil War, the anti-Russian
sanctions, and the fake news scheme of "Kremlin interference" in order to suppress Russia's publicly
funded international media outlets and harass their employees, among many other examples.
In comparison, Trump merely continued most of the policy trajectories that Obama and his Secretary
of State Hillary Clinton first initiated, and even then he's tried to resist some of the "deep
state's" pressure when it comes to Russia, so as bad as he's been for Moscow's interests, one should
wonder how much worse Hillary would have been she entered into the Presidency and allowed the "deep
state" to do as it pleases.
Concluding Thoughts
Mr. Kortunov seems to have wanted to spark a serious conversation about how Russia's "deep state"
should respond to the disappointment that it experienced throughout Trump's first year in office, and
if that was his intention, then he remarkably succeeded by controversially reinterpreting the Obama
years as something to apparently be nostalgic about and boldly suggesting that his government
reconsider its negative attitude to Trump's "deep state" foes.
In the spirit of dialogue that Mr. Kortunov implicitly encouraged by publishing such a provocative
piece, it's only fitting that a rebuttal be presented to challenge his premise that the Democrats and
their "deep state" handlers are supposedly more preferable to Russia than Trump is, especially seeing
as how he selectively pointed to a few decontextualized examples that were presumably cherry-picked in
order to promote his argument.
With all due respect to this prestigious gentleman, his entire notion is flat-out wrong and shows
that he doesn't at all understand Trump's "
Kraken
"-like
leadership and his never-ending struggle to survive the "deep state's" permanent
Clintonian Counter-Revolution
that's being waged in trying to undermine the
Second American Revolution
that the President is trying to carry out in America's domestic and
foreign affairs.
Instead of ignoring the plethora of evidence proving the Obama Administration's hostility to Russia
and its international interests, Mr. Kortunov should have at least made a superficial reference to it
because this glaring omission implies a deliberate partiality towards that political faction and the
"deep state" in general, which is fine to have in principle but nevertheless casts doubt on how
effective his proposals would be in the overall sense of things if they were ever put into practice.
Mr. Kortunov is evidently unaware that the same "deep state" that he finds attractive in contrast
to Trump had a controlling influence in determining the Obama Administration's anti-Russian policies
that the 44
th
President's Secretary of State Hillary Clinton ended up implementing with
ruinous consequences for Moscow's grand strategic interests, and that she would have given the "deep
state" free rein to do whatever it wanted had she won unlike Trump's willingness to challenge its most
extreme tendencies (though with mixed results).
Having said that,
pragmatic working relations between Russia and the US' "deep states" are
inevitable because there isn't any alternative to interacting with any national counterpart's
collection of military, intelligence, and diplomatic figures no matter how much one may disagree with
their policies
unless ties between the two sides are formally suspended, which isn't
foreseeable but would in any case still allow for the existence of communication backchannels.
What Mr. Kortunov is lobbying for is something altogether different because he wants Russian
decision makers to reconceptualize the American "deep state" as a 'positive', 'moderating', and
'responsible' force against what he characterizes as Trump's "romantic", "amateurish", "most exotic
and potentially most dangerous foreign policy oddities", which is ironically a very "romantic" and
"exotic" view to have of the US' most dangerous anti-Russian institutional forces.
In all actuality, however, the "deep state" and its Democrat allies are the real reason
why Trump hasn't been able to succeed in his pledge to improve Russian-American relations, and these
two problems shouldn't ever be confused as part of the solution that's needed to reverse this downward
spiral, nor should a tactical partnership with these two actors ever be considered if Moscow hopes to
maintain the upper hand in the
New Cold War
.
Vote up!
23
Vote down!
0
He is certainly what The Sakar calls a Russian Atlanticist. And quite a
fool at that!
Hey, ZH? Whydja publish this tripe. I like your articles
about how Yellowstone geyser is going to boil New York City or the giant
meteor heading for us is made of tapioca pudding. You've spent the last
three weeks diddling us about memo, mome, meme, momo, mmmm,oooo and Yunez,
whonez. And it's all just a diddle. Just as this article is a diddle.
If there any news these days, you know, where an actual person does an
actual deed and their are consequences from that deed? Or is it just
diddle, diddle, diddle, diddle, diddle, diddle, diddle, diddle, diddle?
Agree. Either Andrey Kortunov is a CIA 5th-Column asset, or has had too
much "
Amerikanski Burbon".
To present the
False Choice
Paradigm
of Demoncrats v. Repugnicants, is the height of political
folly or the depth of a compromised player.
Hell, even most ZHers don't fall for
that
"Bait for suckers".
We all know that both (privately owned) Parties, the
Deep State and
the Surveillance-Military-Industrial Complex
(SMIC) are only possible
with the full backing of the Financial Predator Class, whose Global-Lust
appetites and ambitions will not be satiated until all the world's
resources and markets are under their thumb.
history will judge the Mueller investigation into Trump russian collusion as the
biggest witch hunt in American History. you just watch cause in the end pomp, duck
and circumstance <> actual facts to back up assertions.
Yes. The walking brain dead. Obama sucked up to Iran because he was told to by
Brezinsky, who is a Pole who hates Russia. This is old school neocon, the real
enemy is your most powerful adversary, especially if its Russia and you are a
Pole. The strategy is to isolate Russia so it can be crushed. Creating a
wedge between Russia and Iran would be a major win for them.
Trump seems to
be following the Israel uber alles regional dominance strategy, which is bad
strategy for the neos, as it drives Iran into the arms (pun intended) of
Russia.
Why would a Russian think the crush Russia strategy is good? Brain dead or
part of the globalist bolshevik deep state.
The most vitriolic and obsessive Russia-bashing journalists in the media are
mostly Jewish. The publications which push these writers most energetically are
ALL Jewish-owned, and as a publisher, I know very well, that is where the buck
stops.
On the policy side, the neo-conservative movement, Russia's harshest foe, was
conceived of, is led by, and consists mostly of, Jews. And their trouble-making
extends far beyond Russia – they are responsible for America's disastrous debacle
in the Middle East over the last 20 years – where their crimes have been stymied
by precisely one country – Russia. The psychotically anti-Russian recent UN
ambassadors, Nikki Haley and Samantha Power, were put there by the Israel lobby,
and given an independent brief, in other words, they answer not to their
presidents, rather to their Jewish sponsors.
In Congress the biggest Russia-Gate tub-thumpers are noticeably Jewish – Schiff,
Schumer, Blumenthal, Franken (although not as overwhelmingly as in the media).
The Israel lobby routinely enforces legislation hostile to Russia. Bill Browder
with his Magnitsky Sanctions – is Jewish.
Facts are Facts, and it cannot be ignored that those who are aiming their daggers
at Russia are Jews.
Deep state trying to unseat Trump because the Russians "like him" and
"helped him into office".
If they now "like" the deep state...implications are hilarious. It'll have to go
like that old Star Trek where Kirk convinces the AI probe (Nomad) it is imperfect
and must be destroyed....so it blows itself up.
Hey, I can dream, can't I?
Of course, back in real life, the deep state has shown an ability to survive deep
cognitive dissonance and even total internal contradiction. (No, not you, Cog).
We should shout this to the rooftops instead of trying to discredit it...however
would they spin the Russians preferring the Dems and Deep State?
If the present provides a hint of what it is to come, the nastiest, ugliest, and bloodiest
wars to be fought this century will be between states opposed to continued US dominance, and
the force multipliers of US dominance. We see the outline of sovereign self-defense programs
that take diverse forms, from the banning of foreign funding for NGOs operating in a state's
territory, controlling the mass media, arresting protesters, shutting down CIA-funded political
parties, curtailing foreign student exchanges, denying visas to foreign academic researchers,
terminating USAID operations, to expelling US ambassadors, and so forth. In extreme cases, this
includes open warfare between governments and armed rebels backed by the US, or more indirectly
(as the force multiplier principle mandates) backed by US allies. US intervention will provoke
and heighten paranoia, stoking repression, and create the illusion of a self-fulfilling
prophecy that US interventionists can further manipulate, using logic of this kind: they are
serial human rights abusers; we therefore need to intervene in the name of humanity. There will
be no discussion, let alone admission, that US covert intervention helped to provoke
repression, and that the US knowingly placed its "force multipliers" on the front line. "Force
multipliers" also requires us to understand the full depth and scope of US imperialism
comprising, among other things: entertainment, food, drink, software, agriculture, arms sales,
media, and so on.
Yet, in the end, we are still left with a basic question:
What is a force
multiplier?
There are even more answers to this question than there are persons answering
it. Beyond the most basic definition in physics, we see a proliferation of examples of force
multipliers, reflecting a weak pseudo-science that reifies actual policies, offering mixed
results in practice. Given the scientistic and positivist approach that achieved hegemony
during the Cold War in US universities and the military, the conceptualization of force
multipliers reveals familiar problems arising from the naturalization of social phenomena, of
"man" as "molecule" of society. As an impoverished form of political science, one that is
formulaic, mechanical, utilitarian, and ideologically-driven, the force multiplier idea
nonetheless poses difficult anthropological questions about the agency of others.
My hope was that military writers did not choose to write "force multipliers" because
candidly calling them "quislings," "shills," "dupes," "pawns" or "suckers" would have been too
"politically incorrect," or would have validated older, Cold War-era accusations of the US
supporting "stooges," "lackeys," "cronies," "henchmen," "running dogs," or "lap dogs". In other
words, my hope was that this was not yet another imperial euphemism. Regardless of the
intentions behind the terminology, whether conscious or not, the basic idea of using humans as
a form of
drone
, one that is less expensive yet more precise and in less need of
constant guidance, seems to be the persisting feature of the force multiplier concept.
If the concept is not a mere euphemism, then there is still an absence of sound theorization
of force multipliers on the part of the Pentagon, and by that I mean that while an inchoate
lexical infrastructure exists consisting of nested synonyms derived from the natural sciences,
there is little more than crude utilitarianism and functionalism to hold the terms together.
Some may wish to retort, "then
that
is the theory" by noting the presence of
functionalist assumptions and premises derived from rational-choice theories. However, the
presence of theory should also involve the process of theorization, which entails questioning,
revising, and exposing one's assumptions to a dialogue with other theories and with facts that
appear to challenge the validity of the theory.
There may be a lot of real-world destruction by the US military and intelligence apparatus,
but there is no winning as such!the absence of theorization is killing the imperial political
and security structures, but their exposure to critical theories will only hasten their defeat.
No wonder then that so many right-wing "pro-military" columnists in the US routinely scoff at
and dismiss "post-colonialism"!theirs is a hegemony in trouble, turned narcissistic: unable to
find their mirror image in many sectors of the social sciences and humanities, they resort to
angry triumphalism and cyclical repetition of the same failed "solutions," repeated over and
over again. On the other hand, they can find their mirror-image in academia, and particularly
anthropology, in other ways: many US anthropologists' convoluted (meta)theoretical fumblings,
obfuscated by pretentious language whose deliberate lack of clarity masks deep confusion and
bewilderment, stands out particularly in the cases of topics which are "new," such as democracy
or globalization. In this sense, both the US military and US anthropology in some quarters
share in common a proliferation of theoretical-sounding rhetoric and a lack of scientific
theory. Not coincidentally, both also share an apparent aversion to even saying the word
"imperialism". One might detect a certain decadence in imperial intellectual life, of which the
force multiplier theoretical pretense is but one small example.
Clearly there are numerous examples of agents serving as "force multipliers," and almost as
clear is the absence of theorization, let alone reason for imperial elites to feel confident
about success when the political, economic, and cultural projects they represent are
domestically bankrupt and alienating. Counterinsurgency in Afghanistan and Iraq, and "winning
hearts and minds," certainly did happen in some places and to some extent, which gives partial
weight to the "force multiplier" idea at the core of these processes. However, on the whole,
counterinsurgency programs have been defeated in Afghanistan just as in Vietnam before.
"... "Kovalev makes no secret of his own agenda, either. "I despise [Margarita] Simonyan [chief editor of RT and Rossiya Segodnya] for what she did to RIA," he says. "After all, my name is on the website, and now it's filled with all kinds of shit. And it's really shameful to see my name next to some stupid story about how Obama is a bad dancer. If that kind of story appeared on RIA a couple of years ago, the editor would have been fired." ..."
"... "When confronted with a deluge of information, people instinctively cling to just one source (however biased it may be) just because it's "ours." There is a certain degree of doublethink in Russia. How much contradiction can Russians absorb without going crazy? At any point in time, they believe two opposite things. For instance, there are no Russian troops in Ukraine, but we are winning the war. Because we cannot lose. Because Russians can never lose. But there are no Russian troops in Ukraine. So whatever is broadcast, they will believe, because it's instinctive. Even if it's lies, we'll believe them because it's our guys who are telling the lies. Because everyone is lying, and we're going to stick to our lies. ..."
And about those whom fat Western trolls consider "patriots of Russia". Their usual demagogery
aka "we are not against Russia, we are against State/Media" serves only as the excuse for all
would be traitors. Nazis did the same thing with their
"политрук лжёт"
leaflets. Tiresome, useless and uneffective. To repeat this faily tactic now? What a mess,
what a mess! Gevalt-gevalt!
"Kovalev makes no secret of his own agenda, either. "I despise [Margarita] Simonyan
[chief editor of RT and Rossiya Segodnya] for what she did to RIA," he says. "After all, my
name is on the website, and now it's filled with all kinds of shit. And it's really
shameful to see my name next to some stupid story about how Obama is a bad dancer. If that
kind of story appeared on RIA a couple of years ago, the editor would have been
fired."
[ ]
"When confronted with a deluge of information, people instinctively cling to just
one source (however biased it may be) just because it's "ours." There is a certain degree
of doublethink in Russia. How much contradiction can Russians absorb without going crazy?
At any point in time, they believe two opposite things. For instance, there are no Russian
troops in Ukraine, but we are winning the war. Because we cannot lose. Because Russians can
never lose. But there are no Russian troops in Ukraine. So whatever is broadcast, they will
believe, because it's instinctive. Even if it's lies, we'll believe them because it's our
guys who are telling the lies. Because everyone is lying, and we're going to stick to our
lies.
"
My, what a patriot of Russia! How high he thinks about his fellow people! Oh, and dissing
Graham Phillips for his work in "occupied" Donbass – how more pro-Russian can they ever
become?! Oh, I know – how about
whoring for OpenDemocracy
, which,
I remind you, is funded by NED and Soros.
The meaty part?
Kovalyov was editor in
The Moscow Times
, which fired recently its entire crew and stopped running as printed
edition. Poor Kovalyov – how can he survive without panhandling and whoring himself
even more to the Western press!
Btw, where is their server situated, oh self-less Patriots of True Russia? Why,
in Murika
, where else! It's net trust level?
Negligible
.
The Duma should get off its lazy ass an legislate a ban on all newsmedia purporting to be
"Russian" having its computer servers stationed abroad. I do not mean blocking foreign media,
I mean the "Moscow Times" and similar. This is a variation on the foreign agent theme and it
seems the Russian law is too crappy to properly act against offshoring of information sources
(i.e. propaganda sources).
Russia has no need to block the Moscow Times; it is such a ridiculous nitpicking parody of
actual life in Russia – going on week-long rants because Russia is not receptive to the
introduction of crass western 'holidays' like Hallowe'en, for example, in which kids stuff
themselves with candy until they throw up – that it actually fulfills a valuable
service in Russia. It reminds those few Russians who read it and are not kreakl ponces that
while it is wise to embrace those western concepts which are beneficial (medical and
technological research, for example, which are still traded fairly freely on the world
market), it is never wise to get down on the floor and roll in it.
On the site
Quora
, in answer to the
question "How credible is the Moscow Times?", there are two replies.
The first is from a kreakl -- a professional photojournalist, publishing designer, TV
cameraman and EN/RU translator, he says -- who thinks MT is top hole and gives a list of 5
other arsewipes that he holds in reverence:
There are five credible Russian media: Vedomosti, Kommersant, RBC,
Лента.Ру and Meduza. All of them not without
mishaps, but at least more or less readable (between the lines at least). Everything else
Don't go there.
The second comment is bang on, in my humble opinion as an insignificant Englishman
resident in Moscow for almost a quarter of a century:
Don't get me started. It's really, really bad, almost a cartoon of a propaganda
mill.
It operates as a project to give bonuses to superannuated Radio Free Europe hacks who
write articles on yesterday's news filled with quotes from people who have been dead for
years.
Just one more example of how Putin controls the news.
For those who "don't do irony", the last sentence in the second of the above quotes has
been written in irony.
The op-eds in MT are really over the top. Latynina often did them. (She might still do: it
is several years since I picked up a freebie MT.) And then, just to let the readers believe
there is a sense of balance at MT, there appears maybe two or three times a year an op-ed
that is more positive about Russia.
That British rag the Guardian used to do the same in its risibly named feature "Comment Is
Free".
Those 2 answers to the Quora question appeared in 2016, by the way.
The kreakl got one "like", the "useful idiot" got 5.
Yeltsin sold Russian industry to foreigh interests for pennies on a dollar. Gave up natural
resposes for peanuts, on essentially colonial terms. That how Us oil companies got to Sakhalin
island.
The first ever Russian production sharing agreement was signed in the framework of the Sakhalin-2
project in 1994.
In foreign policy Yeltsin behaves like a drunk puppet of Clinton. His foreign minister Kozirev
( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Andrei_Kozyrev
) was nicknamed by US press "Mister Yes".
A comprador is a "person who acts as an agent for foreign organizations engaged in investment,
trade, or economic or political exploitation". A comprador is a native manager of European business
houses in East and South East Asia, and, by extension, social groups that play broadly similar
roles in other parts of the world.
Lumpenbourgeoisie is a term used primarily in the context of colonial and neocolonial elites
in Latin America, which became heavily dependent on and supportive of the neocolonial powers.
"Lumpenbourgeoisie" is a more correct term as for Yeltsin entourage then "lumpen elite". Sorry
about that.
But "comprador" also is a legitimate term for describing this phenomena. It originated in Marxism
and means "groups and classes in the developing world in subordinate to imperial power interests"
== quote from Wikipedia ==
In Marxism, the term comprador bourgeoisie was later applied to similar trading-class in regions
outside of East Asia.[5][6][7][8]
With the emergence (or re-emergence) of globalization, the term comprador has reentered the
lexicon to denote trading groups and classes in the developing world in subordinate but mutually
advantageous relationships with metropolitan capital. The Egyptian Marxist Samir Amin has discussed
the role of compradors in the contemporary global economy in his recent work.[9] In addition,
the Indian economist, Ashok Mitra, has accused the owners and managers of firms attached to the
Indian software industry of being compradors.[10] Growing identification of the software industry
in India with comprador 'qualities' has led to the labeling of certain persons associated with
the industry as 'dot.compradors'.[11]
== end of quote ==
But meaning all those terms is essentially the same -- part of the elite acting not in interests
of the county, but some imperial foreign powers and content with neo-colonial role of their country.
In some sense neoliberal governments also can be called "lumpen elite" as they are subservient
to transnational corporations, not so much interests of their own country population.
But I would draw analogies between Weimar government and Yeltsin regime. In both case countries
faced huge financial outflows (reparations in one case, "economic rape" in another), hyperinflation,
mass impoverishment of population, disappearance of middle class, and high unemployment.
To a certain extent that was true about Obama regime in 2008-2010.
Yeltin Russia was really a "failed country". Government employees and government workers were
not paid for many months, average longevity for males dropped below 60. And Russian neoliberals
(such as Yegor Gaidar( https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yegor_Gaidar
an object of loathing among ordinary Russians who lost everything during the neoliberal privatization,
Anatoly Chubais -- the most hated person in Russia, oligarchs such as Berezovsky, Gusinsky ) who
came to power with Yeltsin tried to ally with foreign powers in order to secure what they stole
from Russian people. Rephrasing Obama, only the USA stand between them and pitchforks. BTW Chubais
is (or was) a member of the Advisory Council for JPMorgan.
It rather funny and tragic that criminals that stole money from Russians and than managed to
escape to the West with their money already in Western banks instantly become fighters for democracy
-- I would call this "Classic Neoliberal Metamorphose" (CMM). Berezovsky is one example here.
Very convenient, useful for the pressure on Russian government, and you do not return the money
:-)
A very interesting variant of the "rule of law".
In a sense Trump is more similar to Putin than Yeltsin. Both accidentally came to power on the
wave of dis-illusion of the mass of population in previous administration and dramatic loss of
"good" jobs.
"... Even with the outside help, even if all US Department Of State budget will be spent on Kasparov's campaign, even with the help of 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions, chances of Kasparov becoming PM or President of Russia are approaching zero. ..."
"... Unless ofc US manages coup in Russia like in Ukraine and elsewhere, which is nearly impossible at this point. ..."
"... He never had those chances in the first place and it has very little to do with his support from the West. Western "liberalism" in the form it is preached by Kasparov or his ilk simply has no chances in Russia, period. And it is all for the better. Basically what is known as Russian "westernizing" liberalism is dead. Good riddance. ..."
What do you think of Kasparov? Can he ever be PM or President of the Russian Federation without
outside Help?
Even with the outside help, even if all US Department Of State budget will be spent on Kasparov's
campaign, even with the help of 101st and 82nd Airborne Divisions, chances of Kasparov becoming PM
or President of Russia are approaching zero.
Kasparov ruined his chances to become president of RU by being an obvious puppet of the West, much
like nobody in Syria would vote for whatever "opposition president" for the day is. Unless ofc US
manages coup in Russia like in Ukraine and elsewhere, which is nearly impossible at this point.
Kasparov ruined his chances to become president of RU by being an obvious puppet of the West
He never had those chances in the first place and it has very little to do with his support from
the West. Western "liberalism" in the form it is preached by Kasparov or his ilk simply has no chances
in Russia, period. And it is all for the better. Basically what is known as Russian "westernizing"
liberalism is dead. Good riddance.
I believe the Duma should strip him of Russian citizenship. In the debate of reference, he is
siding with enemies of Russia and shows no patriotism at all. Ambition blinds him.
I believe the Duma should strip him of Russian citizenship.
No, it shouldn't. He has to be regularly shown on TV and has his views propagated. Not that he
wasn't a freak before, let him completely discredit himself (I wonder if it is even possible) and
meanwhile complete a cycle of immunization of Russians against "values" he preaches.
"... First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing class, and they aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest. I know that this will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't governing anything - as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing anything either - but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests of the managerial class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as its lower tier. ..."
"... I'm not sure about the merits of the whole Manufacturing Consent line of critique, but defending elite opinion as the only respectable opinion sort of is accomplishing something ..."
"... A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy. ..."
"... Look at how much effort people put into ensuring that their children are high-status, degreed, good job holders just like themselves, and how successful that generally is. ..."
"... ...Rich: to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class hangers -- on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests ( at least until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest. ..."
Will G-R: "The point of this facade isn't what the lemming-like hordes of Clinton defenders (or
Putin defenders, if they're Russian) are actually accomplishing, which is essentially nothing;
the point is what they're not accomplishing, which is any meaningfully subversive reflection about
how ruling-class power works in general and how the governed classes might effectively counter
it."
Not quite right, I think. First of all, for all extents and purposes they *are* the governing
class, and they aren't simply failing to be subversive, they are defending their class interest.
I know that this will cue any number of remarks about how someone is a college professor and isn't
governing anything - as if someone in corporate upper management somewhere is really governing
anything either - but what holds the neoliberal order in place is that it serves the interests
of the managerial class, which includes professionals and other symbolic-manipulation people as
its lower tier.
Second, I'm not sure about the merits of the whole Manufacturing Consent line of critique,
but defending elite opinion as the only respectable opinion sort of is accomplishing something
.
Sure, individual votes are meaningless, and any one person's contribution negligible. But there
is a recurring trope of people wondering whether someone is a paid troll because people are actually
paid - whether by David Brooks or by Putin - to do exactly this kind of thing. And they are paid
to do it because it works, or at any rate people think that it works. Even better if people do
it on a volunteer basis.
A side note: there was some conversation above about the interests of an aristocracy, which of
course prompted the idea that the aristocracy is long gone. But meritocracy is a kind of aristocracy.
Look at how much effort people put into ensuring that their children are high-status, degreed,
good job holders just like themselves, and how successful that generally is.
I'll quote wiki:
"One study […] found that of nine developed countries, the United States and United Kingdom had
the lowest intergenerational vertical social mobility with about half of the advantages of having
a parent with a high income passed on to the next generation."
...Rich: to the extent that the people parroting this line are professional-class hangers
-- on of the global financial elite and neoliberalism serves their class interests (
at least
until academic/media sinecures are next in line for outsourcing ), their aversion to subversive
radical politics makes perfect sense as a simple matter of vested interest.
The intelligentsia (Latin: intellegentia, Polish: inteligencja, Russian: интеллигенция; IPA: [ɪntʲɪlʲɪˈɡʲentsɨjə])
is a social class of people engaged in complex mental labor aimed at guiding or critiquing, or
otherwise playing a leadership role in shaping a society's culture and politics.[1] This therefore
might include everyone from artists to school teachers, as well as academics, writers, journalists,
and other hommes de lettres (men of letters) more usually thought of as being the main constituents
of the intelligentsia.
Intelligentsia is the subject of active polemics concerning its own role in the development of
modern society not always positive historically, often contributing to higher degree of progress,
but also to its backward movement.[2]... In pre-revolutionary Russia the term was first used to
describe people possessing cultural and political initiative.[3] It was commonly used by
those individuals themselves to create an apparent distance from the masses, and generally retained
that narrow self-definition. [citation needed]
If intellectuals replace the current professional politicians as the leaders
of society the situation would become much worse. Because they have neither
the sense of reality, nor common sense. For them, the words and speeches are
more important than the actual social laws and the dominant trends, the dominant
social dynamics of the society. The psychological principle of the intellectuals
is that we could organize everything much better, but we are not allowed to
do it.
But the actual situation is as following: they could organize the life of
society as they wish and plan, in the way they view is the best only if under
conditions that are not present now are not feasible in the future. Therefore
they are not able to act even at the level of current leaders of the society,
which they despise. The actual leaders are influenced by social pressures, by
the current social situation, but at least they doing something. Intellectuals
are unhappy that the real stream of life they are living in. They consider it
wrong. that makes them very dangerous, because they look really smart, while
in reality being sophisticated professional idiots.
"Handshakable" is Soviet dissidents times term meaning a person not too in
bed with "despicable" regime. Now used mainly in satical sense with the meaning
almost identical to kreakls" -- useless person with strong opinions about
everything and very active on the Internet.
I've found this little gem 2 days ago and I'm still… "overjoyed" by it.
Despite Manichean claims of the Free and Independent ™ Western Media
that in Russia "there are no free press", that everything is controlled
by Kremlin and Putin, and only [Radio] Ekho Moskvy, Novaya Gazeta [Newspaper]
and Dozhd [TV] are the few remaining honest sources of truth and independent
journalism ™, there are still a lot of "handshakable" outlets created for
kreakls by kreakls.
In one such handshakeble paper, the "Snob" [well, at least they are honest
with themselves and their readers] recently was published
this
interview with another extremely handshakable, ah, "person", who used
to be the Chief Editor of the "KommmersantЪ" paper in it's [even more] handshakable
heyday. This particular excerpt seems especially "meaty" (translation is
mine):
Snob: And when do you think the era of the "rich cooperators'"
of the 90s came to an end?
AV: I think it happened when they arrested Khodorkovsky. Then not only
the era of cooperators came to an end, the society in this country was
finished
also.
Snob: Why is society so easily reconciled with this and it's own end?
AV: And because it could not be otherwise! Because there are no such
country – Russia! This is a huge geopolitical mistake … I do not know whose,
Lord God's or Darwin's. This country never existed, don't exist now and
never will be. This country is bad.
Snob: Even if it is so bad, it does not mean that it doesn't exist.
AV: Well, fuck with it! Here's my answer. Fuck with it, that it exists!
I wish it to be healthy! But this is not interesting for me. It is a cancer
on the body of the world! What, should I fight with it? I'm not a professor
Pirogov, I will not cut out this tumor, I just do not know how. Honestly,
I don't know how.
Snob: What are the symptoms of this cancer?
AV: There are two evidences of this cancer. Never in my life Russia and
its people had any other national ideas then "we are surrounded by enemies"
and "Russia for the Russians!". With such two fundamental attributes there
can't be country. This is just savagery. Can you give me somw other Russian
national ideas?
Snob: Empire from sea to sea.
AV: This is just "We are surrounded by enemies" and "Russia for the
Russians!" in other words. It's just combined in a beautiful word "empire".
Nothing else! And with such fundamental principles country of course, some
country might even exist, but who needs it? I do not! It is necessary to
those inside.
Needless to say, Andrey Vasiliev now is a proud and free emigre.
So, after reading this little interview I got a proverbial train of thoughts
going in my head at a top speed,finally arriving to it's destination. Now
I can say that I "understand" (as in "understand what makes them tic") all
of them – liberasts, Byelarussian zmagars, Ukrainian svidomites, pint-sized
Baltic patriots, sausage emigrants forming Brighton Beach Bitching Brigade
etc.
But that's the topic for another post
ThatJ, July 21, 2015 at 2:50 am
Does Andrey Vasiliev live in Brighton Beach now?
yalensis, July 21, 2015 at 3:24 am
No, Vasiliev lives in Geneva, Switzerland.
And, no, he is not Jewish, in case that's what you are trying to get
at.
He is of Russian ethnicity.
yalensis, July 21, 2015 at 3:27 am
Dear Lyttenburgh:
Thanks for this find.
These Fifth Columnists are all the same, aren't they?
For them, the true litmus test was, and always has been, Khodorkovsky.
They longed for a world in which Khodorkovsky owned every single thing
in Russia that wasn't nailed down; and everybody else, including these kreakls,
just getting crumbs from his table.
But the kreakls receiving bigger crumbs, plus an honored place at the
master's side.
I regularly ask Russians – ordinary work-a-day Russians, be they of the
working or the professional classes – if they could imagine leaving Russia
forever, if they could consider emigrating, never intending to return. They
all say they couldn't. They say they'd like to travel, but they always feel
they would want to come "home".
I have never yet met one Russian person
who speaks as does Vasiliev, no one who says "I hate this place and my fellow
countrymen so much: it's a shithole; it's a dump; it's full of morons etc.,
etc….", though I often hear them speaking loudly and clearly in that way
from afar through the bullhorn of the Western mass media.
I ask my children regularly if they would like to live in England. I
get a resounding "No!" off them. They speak English fluently now (except
the youngest) and say they like visiting the place, that it's "cool" and,
curiously enough, all their pals think it's "cool" that they are "half-English".
My children do as well, not least because I suspect they can already sense
the great advantage that their bilingualism has given them – but they categorically
state they are Russian and that Russia is their Motherland, their rodina,
the land that "bore" them, their "Mother Russia".
My wife is the same.
None of them are nationalistic, but they are very, very patriotic.
People such as Vasiliev are a small yet vociferous minority that, I suspect,
suffers from some psychological aberration.
I am so glad that many of them leap at the first opportunity to fuck
off away from here.
America has a whole university set aside
for people who hate America. A sort of open-air loonybin.
Your Russian anti-patriots can be corralled and stowed out of sight in
the same way, if you wish. Market it right, and they'll do it entirely of
their own accord.
I should add that I know many who have chosen to leave Russia in search
of fame and fortune, education, a better standard of living etc., but none
of them left because they loathe the land and its people.
I also have
over the years come across a few who have returned: some because, having
achieved success, they preferred to live out the rest of their lives in
their Mother Russia; others because they could not adapt to an alien culture
("No 'soul' in the USA!" I have often heard such folk say; and others simply
because they were homesick.
Interestingly, and unbeknownst to me, my sister emailed my wife last
week when I was in the UK and told her that I was clearly "homesick".
Опубликованная в "Новой газете" моя статья "Нормальные герои всегда идут в обход", рассказывает о
коррумпированном экс-премьере и ныне оппозиционере Михаиле "Два Процента" Касьянове. Нет, нет. Я
не ошибся. Журналистское расследование о махинациях, жульничестве и миллионах долларов нынешнего
главы "Парнас" Михаила Касьянова опубликовано именно в "Новой газете". Вот
ЗДЕСЬ .
Только статья датирована 28 февраля 2000 года. То есть, ровно 16 лет назад. Что, впрочем, ничего
не меняет. Ни один факт, из приведенных мною в "Новой газете" в 2000 году, не был опровергнут ни
самой "Новой газетой", ни Михаилом Касьяновым.
Привожу свое расследование, опубликованное "
Новой газетой ", полностью.
" Нормальные герои всегда идут в обход
Неизвестные факты из жизни Михаила Касьянова
Стране нужны новые герои. Надоели Березовский и Абрамович. На них и без нас уже пробы негде ставить.
Я кинул взгляд окрест Кремля и Белого дома и обнаружил в пыли Министерства финансов настоящий бриллиант
из короны будущего президента - это не кто иной, как второй человек в государстве Российском, вице-премьер
Михаил Касьянов. Начав изучение жизни своего "героя", я вскоре понял, что этот на первый взгляд скромный
переговорщик с МВФ - просто находка для журналистского расследования. За тихим и внешне приятным
Михаилом Михайловичем тянутся весьма и весьма странные следы... Итак, несколько историй из жизни
нового "героя" России Михаила Касьянова
ИЗ НАШЕГО ДОСЬЕ.
Касьянов Михаил Михайлович родился 8 декабря 1957 года в Солнцеве, окончил Московский автодорожный
институт. С 1981 по 1990 год работал в Госплане РСФСР, специализируясь на внешнеэкономических связях.
С 1990 по 1993 год Касьянов трудился в Министерстве экономики, где также отвечал за внешнеэкономические
вопросы. В 1993 году перешел в Министерство финансов, где возглавил департамент иностранных кредитов
и внешнего долга. В 1995 году Михаил Михайлович назначен заместителем министра финансов РФ, а 25
мая 1999 года наш "герой" занял пост министра. В настоящее время Касьянов - первый вице-премьер,
министр финансов и практически исполняет обязанности главы кабинета министров Владимира Путина.
Касьянов и "Мабетекс"
Перед нами - удивительный документ периода расцвета скандала под названием "Мабетекс". Помните?
В этой весьма откровенной бумаге, именуемой "Разрешением № 1972 от 2.08.1995", говорится следующее:
"Министерство финансов РФ разрешает перечислить... двадцать три миллиона шестьсот пять тысяч восемьсот
девяносто долларов на оплату оборудования и выполнения комплекса работ по реконструкции Московского
Кремля, производимого фирмой "Мабетекс" (Швейцария). Внешторгбанку РФ перечисления рублевого покрытия
не контролировать".
Вот такое знатное разрешение было выдано Минфином России, и почти 24 миллиона долларов утекло
скандально известному "Мабетексу", но при этом никакого рублевого покрытия в российский бюджет не
поступило. Письмо подписали замминистра финансов А. Головатый и казначей В. Волков. Но, как мне стало
известно, на этом документе Головатый всего лишь поставил свою закорючку, а подлинным автором индульгенции
был не кто иной, как нынешний первый вице-премьер Михаил Касьянов. Именно Михаил Михайлович в 1995
году являлся заместителем министра финансов и единолично ведал всеми валютными операциями Минфина
РФ и соответственно всеми проплатами по "Мабетексу". Ну а конкретно это разрешение на оплату услуг
господина Пакколи оформлял и готовил лично Касьянов, и в архиве Минфина имеются документы по этим
24 миллионам за подписью нынешнего первого вице-премьера. По информации нашего источника, работавшего
в 1995-1996 годах в ближайшем окружении Касьянова, все финансовые расчеты с "Мабетексом", "Меркатой"
и другими компаниями, "уводившими" бюджетные деньги через управление делами президента, готовились
лично Михаилом Касьяновым. И, кстати, в уголовном деле по "Мабетексу", которое ведет швейцарская
прокуратура кантона Женева, имеются еще три таких же разрешения на оплату по 20 миллионов долларов
каждое. И к каждому из них самое прямое отношение имел Касьянов, а на многих документах, подшитых
в том же уголовном деле, присутствует аккуратный росчерк нынешнего первого вице-премьера.
Касьянов и долги
Есть такое понятие, как коммерческие долги государства. Сейчас много говорят и пишут о том, что
Россия должна миллиарды различным странам, фондам и фирмам. И вот как раз этими долгами последние
четыре года и ведает не кто иной, как Михаил Касьянов. Тут-то и начинает действовать уникальная схема
игры, придуманная Касьяновым и его ближайшим партнером Александром Мамутом. Суть в следующем.
Долг России какой-либо фирме или фонду составляет, предположим, сотни миллионов долларов. Касьянов
на международном уровне сообщает, что мы не можем вернуть долг, и тут же банки, "аффилиированные"
с господином Мамутом (МДМ-Банк, Собинбанк и другие), скупают за бесценок российские долговые обязательства,
платя за них примерно 25-30 процентов стоимости. Как известно, отчаявшийся кредитор зачастую идет
на все, лишь бы получить хоть часть долга.
А в обязанности Михаила Касьянова последние годы входит составление списка первоочередных долгов
России, которые нужно срочно погашать. Эта бумага впоследствии ложится на стол премьер-министру.
И вот тут-то в "ежемесячный список Касьянова" в обязательном порядке попадают те долги, которые приобрел
господин Мамут. И государство выплачивает компаньону Касьянова практически полную сумму долга. И
разница в размере 60-70 процентов остается в структурах Мамута. Далее мамутовско-касьяновские деньги
перечисляются в дочерние компании, принадлежащие компаньонам, а оттуда миллионы долларов уходят через
корсчета то в "Бэнк оф Нью-Йорк", то в оффшорные зоны.
О масштабе сумм, проходящих через схему Касьянова - Мамута, свидетельствует ряд документов. Приведем
один из них. Перед нами - платежное поручение, в котором "Компания проектного финансирования", принадлежащая
Мамуту, перечисляет двенадцать миллионов долларов США через "Бэнк оф Нью-Йорк" в оффшорную фирму,
зарегистрированную на Барбадосе. Документ датирован 18 апреля 1996 года. Незадолго до этого Россия
погасила целый ряд долгов крупным западным табачным компаниям. И, кстати, именно в то время заместителем
министра финансов, курирующим внешние коммерческие долги и выплаты по ним, был... Михаил Касьянов.
Но, как свидетельствуют очевидцы, приведенная нами сумма в 12 миллионов долларов - это лишь маленькая
часть денег, "прокрученных" дуэтом Касьянов - Мамут.
Касьянов и кредит
Помните 1998 год - то сладкое время, когда МВФ еще давал России большие кредиты? Именно тогда
наше отечество получило очередной кредит в размере 4 миллиарда 800 миллионов долларов на стабилизацию
курса рубля. Эти немалые деньги поступили на счет Минфина в федеральном резерве Центробанка. После
чего Михаил Касьянов распорядился перевести миллиарды на зарубежные корсчета уполномоченных банков
(СБС-Агро, Менатеп, Инком, Объединенный банк и проч.) для того, чтобы эти банки перечислили в российский
бюджет рубли на эквивалентную сумму и тем самым стабилизировали отечественную валюту. Так думали
различные чиновники, включая и МВФ. Но Касьянов наверняка так не думал, являясь организатором и мозговым
центром всей этой операции.
А суть в том, что банки, получив 4 миллиарда долларов, вместо живых рублей вручили любимому государству
гособлигации ГКО и ОФЗ, которые к тому времени превратились в никчемные бумажки и могли использоваться
только в качестве обоев. И тут же все крупные банки, провернувшие аферу с кредитом МВФ, начали моментально
банкротиться, переводя капиталы в свои более мелкие структуры. Помните: сначала Инком, потом СБС-Агро...
То есть никто в обиде не остался - разумеется, кроме российского бюджета и "лохов" из МВФ.
И еще один не менее увлекательный эпизод из истории с кредитом МВФ. В 1998 году большинство российских
банков, получивших кредитные деньги, держали свои зарубежные корсчета в "Нейшнл Рипаблик Бэнк оф
Нью-Йорк", владельцем которого был ныне покойный банкир-миллионер Эдмон Сафра. Так вот, Сафра, будучи
человеком неглупым, увидел, что через его банк российскими банкирами и Минфином прокручивается многомиллиардная
афера. Наивный бизнесмен пожелал сообщить в ФБР о том, куда делся кредит МВФ. И вот тут-то у Сафры
и случились неприятности. А начались они с того момента, как к нему на Лазурный Берег летом 1999
года прибыл некий эмиссар российских финансистов по имени Борис Березовский, который, кстати, является
хозяином Объединенного банка - одного из тех, что получили кредитные деньги. О чем беседовали Березовский
и Сафра, остается тайной за семью печатями. Известно только, что после разговора Сафра в срочном
порядке переехал в свою резиденцию в Монако, где имелись усиленная охрана и даже бункер на случай
ядерной войны. Но перепуганному банкиру не помогла надежная охрана - через три месяца он был убит...
Я, конечно, не утверждаю, что в гибели Сафры, пожелавшего раскрыть ФБР историю аферы с кредитом,
виновны Березовский или Касьянов, который к тому времени уже поднялся до уровня министра финансов
России. Но уж очень много странных совпадений!
Перед вами - лишь три истории из жизни второго человека в Российском государстве Михаила Михайловича
Касьянова. Но на этом наше расследование жизненного пути первого вице-премьера не заканчивается.
Продолжение следует.
Олег ЛУРЬЕ
28.02.2000".
PS . Надеюсь, что коллеги не станут в срочном порядке чистить свои архивы, где упоминается имя
"видного оппозиционера" Михаила Касьянова.
Russian "oppositionist" tweets – don't you just love 'em?
Colonel Matt Lee receiving instructions from his superiors
No doubt the person who posted the above tweet thinks Psaki, Harf, Trudeau, Rear-Admiral Kirby
et al. have all been unfairly tested by this Russian FSB colonel Matt Lee and he should not have
been allowed to take part in the Dept. of State press briefings because he is an agent of the
Dark Lord, whilst the above mentioned Dept. of State spokespersons are all on the side of righteousness.
I do love them, actually. For anyone who is not stupid, the antipathy the Russian kreakly
bear toward Matthew Lee and anyone like him who questions the pat and Manichean State Department
narrative bespeaks an admiration for the way the United States government operates. Quite apart
for an unhealthy devotion to 'Murkan nationalism and a clear belief that when America seizes something,
it should be grateful because it is a compliment if America wants it, it is a preview of how they
would govern if they had power. Russia's 'intellectuals' are great admirers of the disinformation
and manipulation of the public consciousness with which the State Department gets about its daily
work.
It is noteworthy that Matt Lee has never at any time expressed any gratuitous admiration
for Russia or Putin or the way Russia conducts global affairs. He merely questions the State Department
when its lies get too big or when it purports something as incontestable fact which it has gleaned
from social media and Syrian activists. But the Russian intelligentsia view him as an
impediment to a unipolar world ruled by America The Great And Good.
Russian "oppositionist" tweets – don't you just love 'em?
Colonel Matt Lee receiving instructions from his superiors
No doubt the person who posted the above tweet thinks Psaki, Harf, Trudeau, Rear-Admiral Kirby
et al. have all been unfairly tested by this Russian FSB colonel Matt Lee and he should not have
been allowed to take part in the Dept. of State press briefings because he is an agent of the
Dark Lord, whilst the above mentioned Dept. of State spokespersons are all on the side of righteousness.
I do love them, actually. For anyone who is not stupid, the antipathy the Russian kreakly
bear toward Matthew Lee and anyone like him who questions the pat and Manichean State Department
narrative bespeaks an admiration for the way the United States government operates. Quite apart
for an unhealthy devotion to 'Murkan nationalism and a clear belief that when America seizes something,
it should be grateful because it is a compliment if America wants it, it is a preview of how they
would govern if they had power. Russia's 'intellectuals' are great admirers of the disinformation
and manipulation of the public consciousness with which the State Department gets about its daily
work.
It is noteworthy that Matt Lee has never at any time expressed any gratuitous admiration
for Russia or Putin or the way Russia conducts global affairs. He merely questions the State Department
when its lies get too big or when it purports something as incontestable fact which it has gleaned
from social media and Syrian activists. But the Russian intelligentsia view him as an
impediment to a unipolar world ruled by America The Great And Good.
"... Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the
intention of coming out on top is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt and
its entire system is coming down. ..."
"... EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putins bid for the Presidency,
and throwing Russia into deadly political turmoil. ..."
"... In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against
the Russian government as authoritarian, dictators, and so forth. She said, The trend lines for freedom
and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since Vladimir Putin took power and set about
the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state. She announced at
that point that the elections would be illegitimate: [T]he current regime will likely use the upcoming
parliamentary elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March 2012 with the inevitable
falsifications and manipulations, to claim the continued legitimacy of its rule. ..."
"... The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy,
from which perch she has spread Cold War venom against Putin and the Russian government. ..."
"... Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that
the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East, in
2000-08. ..."
"... NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online anti-corruption activist and
cult figure of the December demonstrations. Addressing crowds on the street, Navalny sounds more like
Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist found him reminiscent of either Hitler,
or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic. Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration in Moscow. ..."
January 9, 2012 -Organizers of the December 2011 "anti-vote-fraud" demonstrations in Moscow have
announced Feb. 4 as the date of their next street action, planned as a march around the city's Garden
Ring Road on the 22nd anniversary of a mass demonstration which paved the way to the end of the Soviet
Union. While there is a fluid situation within both the Russian extraparliamentary opposition layers,
and the ruling circles and other Duma parties, including a process of "dialogue" between them, in
which ex-Finance Minister Alexei Kudrin is playing a role, it is clear that British imperial interests
are intent on-if not actually destroying Prime Minister Vladimir Putin's bid for reelection as Russia's
President in the March 4 elections-casting Russia into ongoing, destructive political turmoil.
Lyndon LaRouche has observed that anybody acting according to this British agenda with the
intention of coming out on top is a fool, since the British financial-political empire is bankrupt
and its entire system is coming down.
Review of the events leading up to the Dec. 4, 2011 Duma elections, which the street demonstrators
demanded be cancelled for fraud, shows that not only agent-of-British-influence Mikhail Gorbachov,
the ex-Soviet President, but also the vast Project Democracy apparatus inside the United States,
exposed by EIR in the 1980s as part of an unconstitutional "secret government,"[1]
have been on full mobilization to block the current Russian leadership from continuing in power.
Project Democracy
Typical is the testimony of Nadia Diuk, vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy
(NED), before the Subcommittee on Europe and Eurasia of the U.S. House Committee on Foreign Affairs
last July 26. The NED is the umbrella of Project Democracy; it functions, inclusively, through the
International Republican Institute (IRI, linked with the Republican Party) and the National Democratic
Institute (NDI, linked with the Democratic Party, and currently headed by Madeleine Albright).
Diuk was educated at the U.K.'s Unversity of Sussex Russian studies program, and then taught at
Oxford University, before coming to the U.S.A. to head up the NED's programs in Eastern Europe and
Russia beginning 1990. She is married to her frequent co-author, Adrian Karatnycky of the Atlantic
Institute, who headed up the private intelligence outfit Freedom House[2]
for 12 years. Her role is typical of British outsourcing of key strategic operations to U.S. institutions.
EU: British imperial interests are intent on destroying Prime Minister Putin's bid for
the Presidency, and throwing Russia into deadly political turmoil.
In her testimony, Diuk came off like a reincarnation of a 1950s Cold Warrior, raving against
the Russian government as "authoritarian," "dictators," and so forth. She said, "The trend lines
for freedom and democracy in Russia have been unremittingly negative since Vladimir Putin took power
and set about the systematic construction of a representation of their interests within the state."
She announced at that point that the elections would be illegitimate: "[T]he current regime will
likely use the upcoming parliamentary elections in December 2011 and presidential election in March
2012 with the inevitable falsifications and manipulations, to claim the continued legitimacy of its
rule."
Diuk expressed renewed hope that the disastrous 2004 Orange Revolution experiment in Ukraine could
be replicated in Russia, claiming that "when the protests against authoritarian rule during Ukraine's
Orange Revolution brought down the government in 2004, Russian citizens saw a vision across the border
of an alternative future for themselves as a Slavic nation." She then detailed what she claimed were
the Kremlin's reactions to the events in Ukraine, charging that "the leaders in the Kremlin-always
the most creative innovators in the club of authoritarians-have also taken active measures to promote
support of the government and undermine the democratic opposition...."
Holos Ameryky
The British-educated Nadia Diuk is vice president of the National Endowment for Democracy,
from which perch she has spread "Cold War" venom against Putin and the Russian government.
While lauding "the democratic breakthroughs in the Middle East" in 2011, Diuk called on the Congress
to "look to [Eastern Europe] as the source of a great wealth of experience on how the enemies of
freedom are ever on the alert to assert their dominance, but also how the forces for freedom and
democracy will always find a way to push back in a struggle that demands our support."
In September, Diuk chaired an NED event featuring a representative of the NED-funded Levada Center
Russian polling organization, who gave an overview of the then-upcoming December 4 Duma election.
Also speaking there was Russian liberal politician Vladimir Kara-Murza, who predicted in the nastiest
tones that Putin will suffer the fate of President Hosni Mubarak in Egypt. In this same September
period, Mikhail Gorbachov, too, was already forecasting voting irregularities and a challenge to
Putin's dominance.
The NED, which has an annual budget of $100 million, sponsors dozens of "civil society" groups
in Russia. Golos, the supposedly independent vote-monitoring group that declared there would be vote
fraud even before the elections took place, has received NED money through the NDI since 2000. Golos
had a piecework program, paying its observers a set amount of money for each reported voting irregularity.
NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny-the online anti-corruption activist and cult figure of
the December demonstrations-since 2006, when he and Maria Gaidar (daughter of the late London-trained
shock therapy Prime Minister Yegor Gaidar) launched a youth debating project called "DA!" (meaning
"Yes!" or standing for "Democratic Alternative"). Gorbachov's close ally Vladimir Ryzhkov, currently
negotiating with Kudrin on terms of a "dialogue between the authorities and the opposition," also
received NED grants to his World Movement for Democracy.
Besides George Soros's Open Society Foundations (formerly, Open Society Institute, OSI), the biggest
source of funds for this meddling, including funding which was channeled through the NDI and the
IRI, is the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Officially, USAID has spent $2.6 billion
on programs in Russia since 1992. The current acknowledged level is around $70 million annually,
of which nearly half is for "Governing Justly & Democratically" programs, another 30% for "Information"
programs, and only a small fraction for things like combatting HIV and TB. On Dec. 15, Assistant
Secretary of State, Bureau of European and Eurasian Affairs Philip Gordon announced that the Obama
Administration would seek Congressional approval to step up this funding, with "an initiative to
create a new fund to support Russian non-governmental organizations that are committed to a more
pluralistic and open society."
Awaiting McFaul
White House/Pete Souza
The impending arrival in Moscow of Michael McFaul (shown here with his boss in the Oval Office),
as U.S. Ambassador to Russia, is seen by many there as an escalation of Project Democracy efforts
to destabilize the country.
People from various parts of the political spectrum in Russia see the impending arrival of Michael
McFaul as U.S. Ambassador to Russia as an escalation in Project Democracy efforts to destabilize
Russia. McFaul, who has been Barack Obama's National Security Council official for Russia, has been
working this beat since the early 1990s, when he represented the NDI in Russia at the end of the
Soviet period, and headed its office there.
As a Russia specialist at Stanford's Freeman Spogli Institute for International Studies and Hoover
Institution, as well as the Carnegie Endowment, and an array of other Russian studies think tanks,
McFaul has stuck closely to the Project Democracy agenda. Financing for his research has come from
the NED, the OSI, and the Smith-Richardson Foundation (another notorious agency of financier interests
within the U.S. establishment). He was an editor of the 2006 book Revolution in Orange: The Origins
of Ukraine's Democratic Breakthrough, containing chapters by Diuk and Karatnycky.
In his own contribution to a 2010 book titled After Putin's Russia,[3]
McFaul hailed the 2004 Orange Revolution in Ukraine-which was notoriously funded and manipulated
from abroad-as a triumph of "people's political power from below to resist and eventually overturn
a fraudulent election."
Before coming to the NSC, one of McFaul's many positions at Stanford was co-director of the Iran
Democracy Project. He has also been active in such projects as the British Henry Jackson Society
which is active in the drive to overthrow the government of Syria.
The Internet Dimension
The December 2011 street demonstrations in Moscow were organized largely online. Participation
rose from a few hundred on Dec. 5, the day after the election, to an estimated 20,000 people on Bolotnaya
Square Dec. 10, and somewhere in the wide range of 30,000 to 120,000 on Academician Sakharov Prospect
Dec. 24.
Headlong expansion of Internet access and online social networking over the past three to five
years has opened up a new dimension of political-cultural warfare in Russia. An EIR investigation
finds that British intelligence agencies involved in the current attempts to destabilize Russia and,
in their maximum version, overthrow Putin, have been working intensively to profile online activity
in Russia and find ways to expand and exploit it. Some of these projects are outsourced to think
tanks in the U.S.A. and Canada, but their center is Cambridge University in the U.K.-the heart of
the British Empire, home of Bertrand Russell's systems analysis and related ventures of the Cambridge
Apostles.[4]
The scope of the projects goes beyond profiling, as can be seen in the Cambridge-centered network's
interaction with Russian anti-corruption crusader Alexei Navalny, a central figure in the December
protest rallies.
While George Soros and his OSI prioritized building Internet access in the former Soviet Union
starting two decades ago, as recently as in 2008 British cyberspace specialists were complaining
that the Internet was not yet efficient for political purposes in Russia. Oxford University's Reuters
Institute for the Study of Journalism produced a Soros-funded report in 2008, titled "The Web that
Failed: How opposition politics and independent initiatives are failing on the Internet in Russia."
The Oxford-Reuters authors regretted that processes like the Orange Revolution, in which online connections
were crucial, had not gotten a toehold in Russia. But they quoted a 2007 report by Andrew Kuchins
of the Moscow Carnegie Center, who found reason for optimism in the seven-fold increase in Russian
Internet (Runet) use from 2000 to 2007. They also cited Robert Orttung of American University and
the Resource Security Institute, on how Russian blogs were reaching "the most dynamic members of
the youth generation" and could be used by "members of civil society" to mobilize "liberal opposition
groups and nationalists."
Scarcely a year later, a report by the digital marketing firm comScore crowed that booming Internet
access had led to Russia's having "the world's most engaged social networking audience." Russian
Facebook use rose by 277% from 2008 to 2009. The Russia-based social networking outfit Vkontakte.ru
(like Facebook) had 14.3 million visitors in 2009; Odnoklassniki.ru (like Classmates.com) had 7.8
million; and Mail.ru-My World had 6.3 million. All three of these social networking sites are part
of the Mail.ru/Digital Sky Technologies empire of Yuri Milner,[5]
with the individual companies registered in the British Virgin Islands and other offshore locations.
The Cambridge Security Programme
Rafal Rohozinski and Ronald Deibert, two top profilers of the Russian Internet, noted that
the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing Internet region, the Middle East,
in 2000-08.
Two top profilers of the Runet are Ronald Deibert and Rafal Rohozinski, who assessed its status
in their essay "Control and Subversion in Russian Cyberspace."[6]
At the University of Toronto, Deibert is a colleague of Barry Wellman, co-founder of the International
Network of Social Network Analysis (INSNA).[7]
Rohozinski is a cyber-warfare specialist who ran the Advanced Network Research Group of the Cambridge
Security Programme (CSP) at Cambridge University in 2002-07. Nominally ending its work, the CSP handed
off its projects to an array of organizations in the OpenNet Initiative (ONI), including Rohozinski's
SecDev Group consulting firm, which issues the Information Warfare Monitor.
The ONI, formally dedicated to mapping and circumventing Internet surveillance and filtering by
governments, is a joint project of Cambridge (Rohozinski), the Oxford Internet Institute, the Berkman
Center for Internet and Society at Harvard Law School, and the University of Toronto.
Deibert and Rohozinski noted that the Runet grew five times faster than the next fastest growing
Internet region, the Middle East, in 2000-08. They cited official estimates that 38 million Russians
were going online as of 2010, of whom 60 had broadband access from home; the forecast number of Russia-based
Runet users by 2012 was 80 million, out of a population of 140 million. Qualitatively, the ONI authors
welcomed what they called "the rise of the Internet to the center of Russian culture and politics."
On the political side, they asserted that "the Internet has eclipsed all the mass media in terms
of its reach, readership, and especially in the degree of free speech and opportunity to mobilize
that it provides."
This notion of an Internet-savvy core of the population becoming the focal point of Russian society
is now being hyped by those who want to push the December demonstrations into a full-scale political
crisis. Such writers call this segment of the population "the creative class," or "the active creative
minority," which can override an inert majority of the population. The Dec. 30 issue of Vedomosti,
a financial daily co-owned by the Financial Times of London, featured an article by sociologist
Natalya Zubarevich, which was then publicized in "Window on Eurasia" by Paul Goble, a State Department
veteran who has concentrated for decades on the potential for Russia to split along ethnic or other
lines.
Zubarevich proposed that the 31% of the Russian population living in the 14 largest cities,
of which 9 have undergone "post-industrial transformation," constitute a special, influential class,
as against the inhabitants of rural areas (38%) and mid-sized industrial cities with an uncertain
future (25%). Goble defined the big-city population as a target: "It is in this Russia that the
35 million domestic users of the Internet and those who want a more open society are concentrated."
The Case of Alexei Navalny
In the "The Web that Failed" study, Oxford-Reuters authors Floriana Fossato, John Lloyd, and Alexander
Verkhovsky delved into the missing elements, in their view, of the Russian Internet. What would it
take, they asked, for Runet participants to be able to "orchestrate motivation and meaningful commitments"?
They quoted Julia Minder of the Russian portal Rambler, who said about the potential for "mobilization":
"Blogs are at the moment the answer, but the issue is how to find a leading blogger who wants to
meet people on the Internet several hours per day. Leading bloggers need to be entertaining.... The
potential is there, but more often than not it is not used."
Creative Commons
Creative Commons/Bogomolov.PL
NED grant money has gone to Alexei Navalny (inset), the online
"anti-corruption" activist and cult figure of the December demonstrations. Addressing crowds on
the street, Navalny sounds more like Mussolini than a proponent of democracy. A Russian columnist
found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina, who conspired against the Roman Republic.
Shown: the Dec. 24 demonstration in Moscow.
It is difficult not to wonder if Alexei Navalny is a test-tube creation intended to fill the missing
niche. This would not be the first time in recent Russian history that such a thing happened. In
1990, future neoliberal "young reformers" Anatoli Chubais and Sergei Vasilyev wrote a paper under
International Institute for Applied Systems Analysis (IIASA) auspices, on the priorities for reform
in the Soviet Union. They stated that a certain personality was missing on the Soviet scene at that
time: the wealthy businessman. In their IIASA paper, Chubais and Vasilyev wrote: "We now see a figure,
arising from historical non-existence: the figure of a businessman-entrepreneur, who has enough capital
to bear the investment responsibility, and enough technological knowledge and willingness to support
innovation."[8]
This type of person was subsequently brought into existence through the corrupt post-Soviet privatization
process in Russia, becoming known as "the oligarchs." Was Navalny, similarly, synthesized as a charismatic
blogger to fill the British subversive need for "mobilization"?
Online celebrity Navalny's arrest in Moscow on Dec. 5, and his speech at the Academician Sakharov
Prospect rally on Dec. 24 were highlights of last month's turmoil in the Russian capital. Now 35
years old, Navalny grew up in a Soviet/Russian military family and was educated as a lawyer. In 2006,
he began to be financed by NED for the DA! project (see above). Along the way-maybe through doing
online day-trading, as some biographies suggest, or maybe from unknown benefactors-Navalny acquired
enough money to be able to spend $40,000 (his figure) on a few shares in each of several major Russian
companies with a high percentage of state ownership. This gave him minority-shareholder status, as
a platform for his anti-corruption probes.
It must be understood that the web of "corruption" in Russia is the system of managing cash flows
through payoffs, string-pulling, and criminal extortion, which arose out of the boost that Gorbachov's
perestroika policy gave to pre-existing Soviet criminal networks in the 1980s. It then experienced
a boom under darlings of London like Gaidar, who oversaw the privatization process known as the Great
Criminal Revolution in the 1990s. As Russia has been integrated into an international financial order,
which itself relies on criminal money flows from the dope trade and strategically motivated scams
like Britain's BAE operations in the Persian Gulf, the preponderance of shady activity in the Russian
economy has only increased.
Putin's governments inherited this system, and it can be ended when the commitment to monetarism,
which LaRouche has identified as a fatal flaw even among genuinely pro-development Russians, is broken
in Russia and worldwide. The current bankruptcy of the Trans-Atlantic City of London-Eurozone-Wall
Street system means that now is the time for this to happen!
Yale Fellows
In 2010, Navalny was accepted to the Yale World Fellows Program, as one of fewer than 20 approved
candidates out of over a thousand applicants. As EIR has reported, the Yale Fellows are instructed
by the likes of British Foreign Office veteran Lord Mark Malloch-Brown and representatives of Soros's
Open Society Foundations.[9]
What's more, the World Fellows Program is funded by The Starr Foundation of Maurice R. "Hank" Greenberg,
former chairman and CEO of insurance giant American International Group (AIG), the recipient of enormous
Bush Jr.-Obama bailout largesse in 2008-09; Greenberg and his C.V. Starr company have a long record
of facilitating "regime change" (aka coups), going back to the 1986 overthrow of President Ferdinand
Marcos in the Philippines. Navalny reports that Maria Gaidar told him to try for the program, and
he enjoyed recommendations from top professors at the New Economic School in Moscow, a hotbed
of neoliberalism and mathematical economics. It was from New Haven that Navalny launched his
anti-corruption campaign against Transneft, the Russian national oil pipeline company, specifically
in relation to money movements around the new East Siberia-Pacific Ocean pipeline. The ESPO has just
finished the first year of operation of its spur supplying Russian oil to China.
Navalny presents a split personality to the public. Online he is "Mr. Openness." He posts the
full legal documentation of his corruption exposés. When his e-mail account was hacked, and his correspondence
with U.S. Embassy and NED officials about funding him was made public, Navalny acknowledged that
the e-mails were genuine. He tries to disarm interviewers with questions like, "Do you think I'm
an American project, or a Kremlin one?"
During the early-January 2012 holiday lull in Russia, Navalny engaged in a lengthy, oh-so-civilized
dialogue in Live Journal with Boris Akunin (real name, Grigori Chkhartishvili), a famous detective-story
author and liberal activist who was another leader of the December demonstrations, about whether
Navalny's commitment to the slogan "Russia for the Russians" marks him as a bigot who is unfit to
lead. Addressing crowds on the street, however, Navalny sounds like Mussolini. Prominent Russian
columnist Maxim Sokolov, writing in Izvestia, found him reminiscent of either Hitler, or Catalina,
who conspired against the Roman Republic.
Navalny may well end up being expendable in the view of his sponsors. In the meantime, it is clear
that he is working from the playbook of Gene Sharp, whose neurolinguistic programming and advertising
techniques were employed in Ukraine's Orange Revolution in 2004.[10]
Sharp, a veteran of "advanced studies" at Oxford and 30 years at Harvard's Center for International
Affairs, is the author of The Politics of Nonviolent Action: Power and Struggle, which advises
the use of symbolic colors, short slogans, and so forth.
While at Yale, Navalny also served as an informant and advisor for a two-year study conducted
at Harvard's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, one of the institutions participating in the
OpenNet Initiative, launched out of Cambridge University in the U.K. The study produced a profile
titled "Mapping the Russian Blogosphere," which detailed the different sections of the Runet: liberal,
nationalist, cultural, foreign-based, etc., looking at their potential social impact.
Allen Douglas, Gabrielle Peut, David Christie, and Dorothea Bunnell did research for this article.
[1] "Project Democracy: The 'parallel government' behind the Iran-Contra affair," Washington,
D.C.: EIR Research, Inc., 1987. This 341-page special report explored the connection between the
National Endowment for Democracy (NED) and the illegal gun-running operations of Col. Oliver North,
et al., which had been mentioned in cursory fashion in the Tower Commission report on that "Iran-Contra"
scandal. Lyndon H. LaRouche, Jr.'s introduction to the report identified the roots of North's
"Irangate" gun-running in Henry A. Kissinger's reorganization of U.S. intelligence under President
Richard M. Nixon, in the wake of post-Watergate findings by the 1975 Senate Select Committee to
Study Governmental Operations with Respect to Intelligence Activities (Church Committee). The
process of replacing traditional intelligence functions of government with National Security Council-centered
operations, often cloaked as promoting ``democracy'' worldwide, was continued under the Trilateral
Commission-created Administration of Jimmy Carter. Supporting ``democracy''--often measured by
such criteria as economic deregulation and extreme free-market programs, which ravage the populations
that are supposedly being democratized--became an axiom of U.S. foreign policy. The NED itself
was founded in 1983.
[2] "Profile:
'Get LaRouche' Taskforce: Train Salon's Cold War Propaganda Apparat,"EIR, Sept. 29,
2006, reviews the Truman-era roots of relations among Anglo-American intelligence figures John
Train, James Jesus Angleton, Jay Lovestone, and Leo Cherne, all of whom were later active against
LaRouche and his influence. Cherne's International Rescue Committee (IRC) was described by Daniel
Patrick Moynihan, its one-time director of public relations, as an instrument of "psychological
warfare." The closely related Freedom House project was directed by Cherne for many years. Geostrategists
such as Zbigniew Brzezinski, who has written that Russia is destined to fragment as the Soviet
Union did, have sat on its board.
[3] Stephen K. Wegren, Dale Roy Herspring (eds.), After Putin's Russia: Past Imperfect,
Future Uncertain, Lanham, Md.: Rowman & Littlefield, 2010, p. 118.
[4] Craig Isherwood, "Universal Principles vs. Sense Certainty," The New Citizen, October/November
2011, p. 12 (http://cecaust.com.au/pubs/pdfs/cv7n6_pages12to14.pdf).
Founded as the Cambridge Conversazione Society in 1820, by Cambridge University professor and
advisor to the British East India Company, the Rev. Charles Simeon, the Apostles are a secret
society limited to 12 members at a time. Its veterans have held strategic intelligence posts for
the British Empire, both in the heyday of overt colonialism, and in the continuing financial empire
and anti-science "empire of the mind," for nearly two centuries, during which Cambridge was the
elite university in Britain, Trinity College was the elite college within Cambridge, and the Apostles
were the elite within Trinity. Isherwood reported, "Among other doctrines, the Apostles founded:
Fabian socialism; logical positivism specifically against physical chemistry; most of modern psychoanalysis;
all modern economic doctrines, including Keynesianism and post-World War II 'mathematical economics';
modern digital computers and 'information theory'; and systems analysis. They also founded the
world-famous Cavendish Laboratory as the controlling priesthood for science, to attack Leibniz,
Gauss, and Riemann, in particular.... John Maynard Keynes, a leader of the Apostles, ... traced
the intellectual traditions of the Apostles back to John Locke and Isaac Newton, and through Newton
back to the ancient priesthood of Babylon." The group's abiding focus on influencing Russia is
exemplified by not only Bertrand Russell himself, but also the involvement of several members
of the Apostles, including Lord Victor Rothschild of the banking family, and future Keeper of
the Queen's Pictures Sir Anthony Blunt, in the Anglo-Soviet spy rings of the mid-20th Century.
[5] Billionaire Milner is a self-described failed physicist. He worked for the World Bank
on Russian banking issues in the 1990s, before making his fortune as one of Russia's newly minted
"oligarchs"-a business partner of now-jailed Mikhail Khodorkovsky in the Menatep banking group,
among other projects.
[6] In Access Controlled: The Shaping of Power, Rights, and Rule in Cyberspace, an
OpenNet Initiative (ONI) book, Cambridge, Mass.: The MIT Press, 2010.
[8] Anatoliy Chubais and Sergei A. Vasiliev, "Privatization in the USSR: Necessary for Structural
Change," in Economic Reform and Integration: Proceedings of 1-3 March 1990 Meeting, Laxenberg,
Austria: IIASA, July 1990. The authors' notion of a charismatic businessman-entrepreneur comes
straight from Austrian economist Joseph Schumpeter who coined the term Unternehmergeist,
or "entrepreneur-spirit," to describe people he called agents of "creative destruction."
"... Political Institutions under Dictatorship ..."
"... Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the cold war ..."
"... Journal of Economic Perspectives ..."
"... Political Science Quarterly ..."
"... The Pinochet Effect: Transnational Justice in the Age of Human Rights ..."
"... the US needs to only be mildly interventionist, since moneyed interests will own the megaphones
and censor their own workers; and since the one-sidedness of information is no threat to the regime.
..."
"... In light of the New American Police State, post 9-11, it is clear to me that the United States
has undergone a coup d'etat. ..."
"... Most of us back Chavez, Morales, or Correa for the policies they have followed in their own
countries to the benefit of the great masses of the poor and their refusal to put the interests of international
capital ahead of their people. ..."
The new authoritarianism,
by Sergei Guriev, Daniel Treisman, Vox EU: The changing dictatorships Dictatorships
are not what they used to be. The totalitarian tyrants of the past – such as Hitler, Stalin, Mao,
or Pol Pot – employed terror, indoctrination, and isolation to monopolize power. Although less
ideological, many 20th-century military regimes also relied on mass violence to intimidate dissidents.
Pinochet's agents, for instance, are thought to have tortured and killed tens of thousands of
Chileans (Roht-Arriaza 2005).
However, in recent decades new types of authoritarianism have emerged that seem better adapted
to a world of open borders, global media, and knowledge-based economies. From the Peru of Alberto
Fujimori to the Hungary of Viktor Orban, illiberal regimes have managed to consolidate power without
fencing off their countries or resorting to mass murder. Some bloody military regimes and totalitarian
states remain – such as Syria and North Korea – but the balance has shifted.
The new autocracies often simulate democracy, holding elections that the incumbents almost
always win, bribing and censoring the private press rather than abolishing it, and replacing comprehensive
political ideologies with an amorphous resentment of the West (Gandhi 2008, Levitsky and Way 2010).
Their leaders often enjoy genuine popularity – at least after eliminating any plausible rivals.
State propaganda aims not to 'engineer human souls' but to boost the dictator's ratings. Political
opponents are harassed and defamed, charged with fabricated crimes, and encouraged to emigrate,
rather than being murdered en masse.
Dictatorships and information
In a recent paper, we argue that the distinctive feature of such new dictatorships is a preoccupation
with information (Guriev and Treisman 2015). Although they do use violence at times, they maintain
power less by terrorizing victims than by manipulating beliefs. Of course, surveillance and propaganda
were important to the old-style dictatorships, too. But violence came first. "Words are fine things,
but muskets are even better," Mussolini quipped. Compare that to the confession of Fujimori's
security chief, Vladimir Montesinos: "The addiction to information is like an addiction to drugs".
Killing members of the elite struck Montesinos as foolish: "Remember why Pinochet had his problems.
We will not be so clumsy" (McMillan and Zoido 2004).
We study the logic of a dictatorship in which the leader survives by manipulating information.
Our key assumption is that citizens care about effective government and economic prosperity; first
and foremost, they want to select a competent rather than incompetent ruler. However, the general
public does not know the competence of the ruler; only the dictator himself and members of an
'informed elite' observe this directly. Ordinary citizens make what inferences they can, based
on their living standards – which depend in part on the leader's competence – and on messages
sent by the state and independent media. The latter carry reports on the leader's quality sent
by the informed elite. If a sufficient number of citizens come to believe their ruler is incompetent,
they revolt and overthrow him.
The challenge for an incompetent dictator is, then, to fool the public into thinking he is
competent. He chooses from among a repertoire of tools – propaganda, repression of protests, co-optation
of the elite, and censorship of their messages. All such tools cost money, which must come from
taxing the citizens, depressing their living standards, and indirectly lowering their estimate
of the dictator's competence. Hence the trade-off.
Certain findings emerge from the logic of this game.
First, we show how modern autocracies can survive while employing relatively little violence
against the public.
Repression is not necessary if mass beliefs can be manipulated sufficiently. Dictators win
a confidence game rather than an armed combat. Indeed, since in our model repression is only used
if equilibria based on non-violent methods no longer exist, violence can signal to opposition
forces that the regime is vulnerable.
Second, since members of the informed elite must coordinate among themselves on whether
to sell out to the regime, two alternative equilibria often exist under identical circumstances
– one based on a co-opted elite, the other based on a censored private media.
Since both bribing the elite and censoring the media are ways of preventing the sending of
embarrassing messages, they serve as substitutes. Propaganda, by contrast, complements all the
other tools.
Propaganda and a leader's competency
Why does anyone believe such propaganda? Given the dictator's obvious incentive to lie, this
is a perennial puzzle of authoritarian regimes. We offer an answer. We think of propaganda as
consisting of claims by the ruler that he is competent. Of course, genuinely competent rulers
also make such claims. However, backing them up with convincing evidence is costlier for the incompetent
dictators – who have to manufacture such evidence – than for their competent counterparts, who
can simply reveal their true characteristics. Since faking the evidence is costly, incompetent
dictators sometimes choose to spend their resources on other things. It follows that the public,
observing credible claims that the ruler is competent, rationally increases its estimate that
he really is.
Moreover, if incompetent dictators survive, they may over time acquire a reputation for competence,
as a result of Bayesian updating by the citizens. Such reputations can withstand temporary economic
downturns if these are not too large. This helps to explain why some clearly inept authoritarian
leaders nevertheless hold on to power – and even popularity – for extended periods (cf. Hugo Chavez).
While a major economic crisis results in their overthrow, more gradual deteriorations may fail
to tarnish their reputations significantly.
A final implication is that regimes that focus on censorship and propaganda may boost relative
spending on these as the economy crashes. As Turkey's growth rate fell from 7.8% in 2010 to 0.8%
in 2012, the number of journalists in jail increased from four to 49. Declines in press freedom
were also witnessed after the Global Crisis in countries such as Hungary and Russia. Conversely,
although this may be changing now, in both Singapore and China during the recent decades of rapid
growth, the regime's information control strategy shifted from one of more overt intimidation
to one that often used economic incentives and legal penalties to encourage self-censorship (Esarey
2005, Rodan 1998).
The kind of information-based dictatorship we identify is more compatible with a modernized
setting than with the rural underpinnings of totalitarianism in Asia or the traditional societies
in which monarchs retain legitimacy. Yet, modernization ultimately undermines the informational
equilibria on which such dictators rely. As education and information spread to broader segments
of the population, it becomes harder to control how this informed elite communicates with the
masses. This may be a key mechanism explaining the long-noted tendency for richer countries to
open up politically.
References
Esarey, A (2005), "Cornering the market: state strategies for controlling China's commercial
media", Asian Perspective 29(4): 37-83.
Gandhi, J (2008), Political Institutions under Dictatorship, New York: Cambridge University
Press.
Levitsky, S, and L A Way (2010), Competitive authoritarianism: hybrid regimes after the
cold war, New York: Cambridge University Press.
McMillan, J, and P Zoido (2004), "How to subvert democracy: Montesinos in Peru", Journal
of Economic Perspectives 18(4): 69-92.
Rodan, G (1998), "The Internet and political control in Singapore", Political Science Quarterly
113(1): 63-89.
Roht-Arriaza, N (2005), The Pinochet Effect: Transnational Justice in the Age of Human
Rights, Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press.
Peter K. said...
"A final implication is that regimes that focus on censorship and propaganda may boost relative
spending on these as the economy crashes."
Instead of military Keynesianism, it's "police state" Keynesianism.
More social spending coupled with more social control.
ilsm said...
The corporation runs the governors.....
"Investor State Dispute Settlement" is a new twist where the actions of government, like investor
"losses" from shuttering frackers would be compensated by a standing unelected nor appointed by
the locals "board" filled with corporate cronies to take sovereignty from governments when foreign
investors are denied pillaging "rights".
"Investor State Dispute Settlement" is why you should oppose TPP fast track.
The kleptocarcy is well advanced in the US!
GeorgeK said...
..."This helps to explain why some clearly inept authoritarian leaders nevertheless hold on
to power – and even popularity – for extended periods (cf. Hugo Chavez"...
Guess your definition of authoritarian leaders depends on who's Ox is being gored. If you were
wealthy or upper middle class Chavez was a failure, if you were poor or indigenous he was a savior.
..."Chávez maintains that unlike other global financial organizations, the Bank of the South
will be managed and funded by the countries of the region with the intention of funding social
and economic development without any political conditions on that funding.[262] The project is
endorsed by Nobel Prize–winning, former World Bank economist Joseph Stiglitz, who said: "One of
the advantages of having a Bank of the South is that it would reflect the perspectives of those
in the south," and that "It is a good thing to have competition in most markets, including the
market for development lending."[263]"...
Guess nobody told Stiglitz about Chavez's authoritarian incompetence.
Julio said in reply to anne...
Seems clear enough to me. Consider "freedom of the press": the US needs to only be mildly
interventionist, since moneyed interests will own the megaphones and censor their own workers;
and since the one-sidedness of information is no threat to the regime.
But in a government attempting left-wing reforms, and where the government is less stable, there
is less room for the government to accept the unanimity and hostility of the press; it may need
to intervene more strongly to defend itself. Take e.g. Ecuador where Correa has been accused of
suppressing press liberties along these very lines.
anne said in reply to Julio...
Seems clear enough to me. Consider "freedom of the press": the US needs to only be mildly interventionist,
since moneyed interests will own the megaphones and censor their own workers; and since the one-sidedness
of information is no threat to the regime....
[ Thinking further, I realize that the United States is wildly aggressive with governments
of countries considered strategic and does not hesitate to use media in those countries when our
"needs" do not seem met. I am thinking even of the effort to keep allied governments, even the
UK, France and Germany, from agreeing to become members of the Asian Infrastructure Investment
Bank that China has begun. ]
Peter K. said in reply to GeorgeK...
"Guess your definition of authoritarian leaders depends on who's Ox is being gored."
This is how I see it. There are no objective standards.
Lefties criticize Obama for going after whistle blowers. Snowden is treated as a hero. Then
guys like Paine and Kervack defend the behaviro of a Putin or Chavez because the U.S. doesn't
like them.
Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....
I think a lot of the older left is stuck in a Cold War mind set.
Opposing America is good because you're opposing multinational capitalism. So they'll provide
rhetorical support to any nutjob who opposes the West no matter how badly he mistreats his people.
Peter K. said in reply to Peter K....
It's the flipside to the Dick Cheney-Security State rationalizations of torture and police
state tactics like warrantless surveillence.
It's okay if we do it, because they're trying to destroy us.
The ends justify the means.
hyperpolarizer said in reply to Peter K....
I am the older left (born right after WW II). I grew up with the cold war, but -- despite its
poisonous legacy (particularly the linking of the domestic labor movement to international communism)--
I have assuredly left it behind.
In light of the New American Police State, post 9-11, it is clear to me that the United
States has undergone a coup d'etat.
Roger Gathmann said in reply to anne...
Defending Chavez doesn't seem like a bad thing to do. So, Peter K., do you defend, say, Uribe?
Let's see - amended constitution so he could run again - Chavez, check, Uribe check. Associated with
paramilitaries, Uribe, check, Chavez, demi-check. Loved by the US, Uribe, check, Chavez, non-check.
Funny how chavez figures in these things, and Uribe doesn't. https://www.citizen.org/documents/TalkingPointsApril08.pdf
Peter K. said in reply to Roger Gathmann...
I never said a thing about Uribe. I said there should be single standards across the board
for Uribe, America, Chavez, Putin, China, etc...
Roger Gathmann said in reply to Peter K....
Right. Double standard. That is what I am talking about. The double standard that allows US
tax dollars to go into supporting a right wing dictator like Uribe. I don't have to piss off.
You can piss off. I doubt you will. I certainly won't. It is adolescent gestures like that which
make me wonder about your age.
Are you going to slam the door next and saY I hate you I hate you I hate you?
You need to get a little pillow that you can mash. Maybe with a hello kitty sewed on it.
Nietil said in reply to Roger Gathmann...
I don't see how any of these criteria has anything to do with being an autocrat.
Autocracy is an answer to the question of the source of legitimacy (democratic, autocratic,
or theocratic). It has nothing to do with either the definition of the sovereign space (feudal,
racial or national) or with the number of people running the said government (anarchy, monarchy,
oligarchy).
The UK for example was a national and democratic monarchy for a long, long time. Now it's more
of a national and democratic oligarchy. And it can still change in the future.
DrDick said in reply to Peter K....
I really do not think that is at all accurate. While there are certainly some like that, it
is far from the majority. Most of us back Chavez, Morales, or Correa for the policies they
have followed in their own countries to the benefit of the great masses of the poor and their
refusal to put the interests of international capital ahead of their people.
Much of that support is also conditional and qualified, for reasons that have been mentioned
here. All evaluations of current leaders is conditioned by both past history in the country and
region, as well as the available alternatives. By those standards, all of the men I mentioned
look pretty good, if far from perfect.
How Modern Dictators Survive: Cooptation, Censorship, Propaganda, and Repression
By Sergei Guriev and Daniel Treisman
We develop an informational theory of dictatorship. Dictators survive not because of their
use of force or ideology but because they convince the public--rightly or wrongly--that they are
competent. Citizens do not observe the dictator's type but infer it from signals inherent in their
living standards, state propaganda, and messages sent by an informed elite via independent media.
If citizens conclude the dictator is incompetent, they overthrow him in a revolution. The dictator
can invest in making convincing state propaganda, censoring independent media, co-opting the elite,
or equipping police to repress attempted uprisings -- but he must finance such spending with taxes
that depress the public's living standards. We show that incompetent dictators can survive as
long as economic shocks are not too large. Moreover, their reputations for competence may grow
over time. Censorship and co-optation of the elite are substitutes, but both are complements of
propaganda. Repression of protests is a substitute for all the other techniques. In some equilibria
the ruler uses propaganda and co-opts the elite; in others, propaganda is combined with censorship.
The multiplicity of equilibria emerges due to coordination failure among members of the elite.
We show that repression is used against ordinary citizens only as a last resort when the opportunities
to survive through co-optation, censorship, and propaganda are exhausted. In the equilibrium with
censorship, difficult economic times prompt higher relative spending on censorship and propaganda.
The results illuminate tradeoffs faced by various recent dictatorships.
[ This is the discussion paper, which I find more coherent than the summary essay. ]
JayR said...
Wow quite a few countries, maybe even the US with Obama's war on whistle blowers, could fit
this articles definition if the authors actually though more about it.
Roger Gathmann said in reply to Peter K....
Yes, the people of Greece can vote to leave the Eurozone, just like the people of Crimea can
vote to leave the Ukraine, or the people of Kosovo could vote to leave Serbia. There are many
ways, though, of looking at soft dictatorship. I think the EU bureaucrats have been busy inventing
new ones, with new and ever more onerous chains. To say Greece can vote to leave the EU is like
saying the merchant can always defy the mafioso, or the moneylender. It isn't that easy.
Those people tried to find alternative to communism in neoliberalism and when thay understood that
their choice is as rotten as the old one they have no corage to admit it. So sfrom dissentent they instance
converted themselves into fifth column. Into neoliberal creacles. Afanasyev was pretty aggressive creakle
BTW.
MOSCOW - Yuri N. Afanasyev, a Russian historian and former Communist loyalist who became a leading
democratic politician in the late Soviet era and founded a liberal arts university that, together
with the Jewish Theological Seminary in New York, introduced Russia's first academic Jewish studies
program, died Sept. 14 at his home in Moscow. He was 81.
The cause was a heart attack, said a spokeswoman for the Russian State University for the Humanities,
which Mr. Afanasyev founded in 1991. His son-in-law, Viktor Prichesnyaev, told the radio station
Ekho Moskvy that Mr. Afanasyev had diabetes.
Mr. Afanasyev's life traced an unpredictable arc that began under Stalin's harsh rule in the 1930s,
carried him as a boy through the hardships of World War II and brought him stature and privileges
as a dedicated Communist, only to lead him away from the very political system that had nurtured
him.
By the end of his life he had embraced democratic principles, laid bare the sins of Russian history
as a scholar and spoken out against his country's leaders, from Soviet party chiefs to Mikhail S.
Gorbachev to, most pointedly, Vladimir V. Putin.
Yuri Nikolaevich Afanasyev was born on Sept. 5, 1934, in the Volga River region of Ulyanovsk.
His father, Nikolai, was a laborer; his mother, Anna, taught at a village school.
Mr. Afanasyev rose in Soviet academic and political circles during the thick of the Cold War.
He earned a degree in history at Moscow State University, served as secretary of the Komsomol youth
organization at a Siberian
hydroelectric power plant, and became a senior researcher at the Soviet Academy of Sciences and
rector of the Historical Archives Institute in Moscow.
But by the 1980s he had begun to turn from Soviet orthodoxy, thanks in part to the Soviet authorities
themselves. Allowed by the state to travel to Paris in the 1970s and to do academic research at the
Sorbonne, Mr. Afanasyev stumbled on the work of Soviet dissidents, including the poet Anna Akhmatova
and the nuclear physicist Andrei D. Sakharov. He began questioning his party loyalties.
"I was pro-regime," he said in a 1991 interview with Dialog, a Moscow magazine, "and sincerely
believed that our system is the best in the world, and since I believed this, I worked in government
structures. To say that now I curse myself in every possible way for what I was then - is to say
nothing."
He became an editor, in 1983, of Kommunist, the Communist Party's flagship journal, and caused
a furor two years later when, in an article titled "The Past and Us," he suggested that the Soviet
authorities distorted history. --[ that fact alone suggests that KGB
brass and part of Politburo at this time fully switched to neoliberal camp]
"Badly understood history is an extremely dangerous thing," he wrote.
He went on, in 1988, to edit "There Is No Other Way," a seminal collection of essays by leading
thinkers of the time about the necessity of reform. He wrote the introduction.
In 1989, Mr. Afanasyev helped found Memorial, an organization dedicated to exposing Stalin's atrocities
and commemorating the victims.
That year he also joined the Soviet Union's first freely elected parliamentary body, the Congress
of People's Deputies, which was created under Mr. Gorbachev's reforms. But he grew disenchanted,
doubting that its unwieldy mix of Stalinists, democrats and Communist Party functionaries could bring
about change, and denouncing both its "aggressively obedient majority" and Mr. Gorbachev.
"They did not send us here to be graceful but to drastically change the situation in the country,"
Mr. Afanasyev said.
He quit the Communist Party in 1990 and helped found the Democratic Russia political movement,
an opposition faction. He gave speeches at pro-democracy rallies that drew hundreds of thousands
of protesters in the prelude to the collapse of the Soviet Union.
The journalist David Remnick, in "Lenin's Tomb," his 1993 account of that era, called Mr. Afanasyev
"the democratic movement's master of ceremonies."
Equally disappointed in Mr. Gorbachev's successor, Boris N. Yeltsin, Mr. Afanasyev withdrew from
politics and turned to education, founding the Russian State University for the Humanities, an outgrowth
of the Historical Archives Institute that today enrolls more than 21,000 students.
In his book "Russia in Search of Itself" (2004), James Billington, the librarian of Congress and
a historian of Russia, described the university as possibly "the most vibrant new large institution
of higher learning in post-Communist Russia."
The university created its Jewish studies program, Russia's first, in 1991 as a joint effort with
the Jewish Theological Seminary of America in Manhattan. Mr. Afanasyev was not Jewish but had denounced
many Russian nationalists as anti-Semites and received threats because of it.
In 1996 the university granted an honorary doctorate to
Dr. Ismar
Schorsch, who was the seminary's chancellor at the time.
"The study of religion in any systematic fashion was taboo" in Soviet Russia, Dr. Schorsch said
in an interview with The New York Times that year, "and he told us" - referring to Mr. Afanasyev
- "'You can't study the history of religion without studying the history of Judaism.'"
Mr. Afanasyev continued his own research on the history of Russia. In the 1990s he edited a multivolume
work covering the nation's 20th century. In 2001, in his book "Dangerous Russia," he argued that
Russia had been poisoned by its past.
As the title of one chapter, "Putin's Reconstruction of the Russian State," suggests, Mr. Afanasyev's
concerns extended to present-day Russia. In a 1999 essay, he projected a scenario in which Russia,
in 2015, "will end up in the trap of imperial nationalism," fueled by economic depression.
He was rector of the university until 2003 and retired as its president in 2006. Though his health
was failing, he continued to write and speak about his country.
In May,
at a conference in Poland marking 70 years since the end of World War II in Europe and attended
by European leaders, Mr. Afanasyev warned of a new form of Stalinism growing in Russia and called
the country under Mr. Putin "criminal from the bottom up."
Mr. Afanasyev's wife, Ninel, died in 2008. He is survived by a son, Andrei; a daughter, Marina;
and four grandchildren.
Я вдруг понял, как настоящего интеллигента отличить от быдла вроде меня. Мы, быдло, можем быть
сколь угодно начитанными и умненькими, а они, интеллигенты, сколь угодно необразованными и тупыми
- но нас не спутать, мы различаемся на первых же опознавательных кодах. Мы, быдло, можем быть даже
оппозиционерами, а они, интеллигенты, даже лоялистами - но мы расходимся на первых же цифрах после
запятой.
Штука вся в том, что у нас, быдла, и у них, интеллигентов, совершенно по-разному устроен русский
язык. Мы используем совершенно разные словари понятий для основных сфер жизни.
Настоящий интеллигент, когда пишет о Родине, всегда пишет о жратве и бытовухе. О чём бы он ни
писал - он всегда составляет свою мысль из котлет, макарон, макияжа, кнопок в лифте, потных подмышек,
желудочных газов, гарнитуров, ковров на стене, истошных соседкиных собачек и как его толкнули в трамвае.
Он всегда помнит, когда и где как ели и что носили и чем обставлялись. Он вспоминает это, даже когда
пишет об искусстве. Его тексты о каком-нибудь отечественном творце - это всегда тексты о том, как
он, интеллигент, пробирался на концерт/фильм/выставку творца и порвал себе колготки.
А когда он начинает писать о чём-нибудь горнем, нездешнем - то грубый материализм покидает интеллигента,
и даже если он пишет про чьи-то ужасы, вонь и подмышки, вся его сварливость сразу куда-то девается.
Всё превращается в Высокий Слог. И он поэтично задвигает что-то типа "у Пазолини внутренний мир экстериоризуется,
исходит вовне, рывком обнажая содержание".
Я случайно нашёл сейчас такого интеллигента. Вот он пишет про горнее: "Великое мифологическое
ничто у Фасбиндера всегда содержит ничто человеческое - простейшую животную особь. Его герои, явившиеся
на свет после конца, рождены с неизбывным чувством краха. Они - недоноски, бастарды, полулюди. Не
зная ни любви, ни понимания, они не в силах осмысленно жить и с толком, с чувством умереть. У них
нет не только истории, у них нет биографии. Они - фантомы. Но причастность к другому, большему фантому,
делает их великими".
А вот спустя пару абзацев про Родину:
"Но полицейское государство блокирует любые меньшинства, само это понятие; вместо недоносков,
бастардов и полулюдей всегда в ассортименте номенклатурные герои - настоящие мужики, скромные
и скорбные, и Варвара краса-накладная коса в штопаной кофточке, с духовностью во взоре. Не было
народа-преступника, ставшего народом-фантомом, были герои, совершавшие перманентный подвиг. Иногда
среди них попадались жертвы, с этим, кряхтя и пердя, пока соглашаются".
Почувствуйте разницу. Как всё сразу материализовалось-то. Накладная коса, штопаная кофточка, кряхтение
и пердение. Это твой интеллигент, Родина. Он так тебя видит, слышит, обоняет.
У того же чубзика, кстати, дальше три поста про колготки и почему в интеллигентных домах обувь
не снимали - "советский человек был лишён прайвеси, и а интеллигенты не принуждали друг друга к коллективистским
тапкам".
...А мы, быдло, описываем мир так, будто он один, общий для всех людей. Для нас обои всего лишь
обои, а котлеты всего лишь котлеты одинаково в Самаре и Берлине. А режиссёр И. Бергман для нас такой
же живой рассказчик, как С. Бондарчук - первого мы не превращаем в астральную сущность, второго мысленно
не обряжаем в тапки, спецпаёк и волгу с занавесочками. Мы возмутительно терпимо относимся к жратве
и бытовухе, они нам не мешают любоваться Врубелем, Гогеном и закатом. Для нас состояние уборных в
Версале и Петергофе - это одно, а Пуссен и Куинджи - это другое.
Из-за этого мы всё время забываем, где нужно ныть, а где воспарять. Быдло может написать статью
про "Гамлета" Козинцева, ни разу не упомянув перловку и перманент, - а интеллигент не может. Зато
интеллигент, когда смотрит какую-нибудь пальмоносную порнушку вроде "жизни Адель", видит там сплошь
Нарушения Табу, Страстность и Фактурность, а не как быдло - непрерывно что-то едящих и долго совокупляющихся
крашеных лесби.
Вчера в Австрии началось заседание Билдербергского клуба.
Некоторая часть интересующейся общественность числит эту организацию мировым правительством,
международным политбюро, современной масонской ложей и говорит о том, что её влияние на мировую политику
безгранично.
Другая - значительно более малочисленная, но, похоже, более осведомленная - утверждает,
что это всего лишь посиделки старых лоббистов, немало усилий прилагающих для того, чтобы прослыть
всемогущими.
Истина - полагаю - как обычно кроется где-то посередине.
Не суть.
В этом году на заседание клуба позвали
Сергея Гуриева.
В подробности его биографии вдаваться не станем, поскольку роль, отведённую Гуриеву, мог сыграть
кто угодно - и Ходорковский, и Касьянов, и даже бывший политик Навальный.
Но полагаю, в случае с первым сыграла роль информация, которой наверняка обладают члены
"теневого". Касается она и деятельности "ЮКОСА" в России, и тех обязательств которые МБХ принял на
себя, оказавшись на Западе. Наёмных работников на господские посиделки, как правило, не зовут.
Пресловутые 2%, проще говоря, мощная коррупционная составляющая публичной биографии Касьянова,
вероятно, закрыли ему двери любого общества, которое претендует на то, чтобы называться приличным.
Политические демарши конгрессменов и сенаторов США, понятно, не в счёт.
В случае с третьим персонажем - можно ограничиться одной фразой - "нос не дорос". И уже
всем и везде очевидно, что не дорастёт никогда.
Гуриев - в этих обстоятельствах - фигура волпне себе компромиссная. В лучших традициях отдела
пропаганды ЦК КПСС персонажу, который должен предстать пред светлы очи членов политбрю, обеспечили
короткую, но мощную PR компанию, в частности -
полосу The Washington Post, где наш герой подробно объяснил, что и как нужно делать, дабы сместить
действующую российскую власть. Г-н Гуриев - как и подобает представителю революционной интеллигенции
- пространно ответил на два исконных вопроса : "кто виноват?" и "что делать?"
Виновата, разумеется, нынешняя российская власть ( читай - лично Президент Путин ). И вот
почему:
- нынешняя российская власть больше не говорит о будущем;
- у Кремля полностью исчезло стратегическое мышление;
- Кремль полностью провалил т.н. "программу Грефа", которая предусматривала перспективы
для России как открытой и модернизированной страны";
- власть концентрируется на конфликте с Украиной и Западом и его "марионетками" внутри
России;
- власть слишком много говорит о героическом прошлом (в основном Вторая мировая война);
Вывод: Кремль сосредоточен исключительно на собственном выживании и - стало быть - наступило
время действовать.
Ответ на вопрос "что делать?" экс-директор ВКШ даёт вполне определённый.
- поскольку в России грядут серьёзные волнения, неоходимо готовить переходное правительство,
которое предоставит определенные гарантии уходящим элитам и обеспечит проведение новых выборов;
- Запад должен разработать программу по по образцу "плана Маршалла" , с помощью которого
восстановить экономику, разрушенную коррупцией;
- Запад должен сформулировать план по реинтеграции России в свободный мир;
Иными словами, необходимо любой ценой вывести народ на улицы, добиться массовых протестных
акций ( революции, восстания, мятежа) в результате которых Путин вынужден будет уйти в отставку.
Далее формируется "переходное правительство". Поскольку никакого "переходного
правительства" Конституция РФ не предусматривает, речь здесь идёт о том, что страна покидает
правовое поле и погружается в режим "революционной целесообразности", в рамках которого
и пройдут "свободные демократические выборы" ( ну, мы же помним, как свободно и демократично
выбирали Б.Н.Е со товарищи?)
Далее двери страны широко распахиваются для "освободителей", у которых - как и
в начале 90-х - есть план.
Занавес.
И - знаете что? - вся эта история может стать хорошим тестом для Билдербергского клуба.
Потому как "мировая закулиска" - если таковая действительно существует - должна
быть хорошо осведомлена о настрое российского народа сегодня.
Ещё более она должна быть осведомлена о том, who is mr. Putin.
Это к вопросу о численности революционных масс и о том, что "Путин будет вынужден".
В обратном случае, мы можем с полной уверенностью говорить о клубе бывших лоббистов, которым
до сей поры удавалось убедительно надувать щёки.
И последнее.
Про маленькую "б"
Это не метафора ни разу.
Прибывающих сегодня в Австрию членов клуба (не суть, на частном самолёте прибыл гость или
на обычном), организаторы встречали с табличками.
Для постоянных членов это была табличка с большой буквой "Б". Для приглашённых
- с маленькой. Всё просто.
About the 'self-hating Russian'
"...the kreakly delight in caricaturing Russia, both because it makes them feel clever and because
it brings instant adulation from the western media, which likes to maintain a stable of tame Russia-hating
Russians for credibility. I often think what makes a kreakl is a sense that one does not fit in, does
not belong. It is the easiest thing to assume that one must be smarter than his fellows, otherwise he
would think and feel as they do. "
Perhaps Shishkin believes Russians are a primitive people, that the Germans would have civilised
the unwashed, ignorant and blighted Russian masses. Germany's defeat in World War 2 prevented
this from happening; perhaps this is the source of Shishkin's resentment? Russian liberals and
Russian right-wing racists such as Misanthropic Division and Dmitry Demushkin all seek to emulate
West in one form or another, and see Russians as somehow defective.
Shishkin reminds me of anther self-hating liberal from an enemy state – a Chinese liberal
that is praised in the West; Liu Xiaobo, who also echoes the West's prejudices.
In a well-known statement of 1988, Liu said:
It took Hong Kong 100 years to become what it is. Given the size of China, certainly it
would need 300 years of colonisation for it to become like what Hong Kong is today. I even doubt
whether 300 years would be enough.
Has an American or British political dissident, opposed to the policies of his own government,
ever won a Nobel Prize? They are reserved for handing out to foreign political dissidents who
lick the west's boots and yammer about how great their former country will be when the west liberates
it and overthrows their government. Westerners who act like that are traitors, and certainly not
Nobel Prize material.
If a "protest art" group in New York painted a 30-foot dick on the Brooklyn
Bridge, I find it hard to imagine they would get an art prize from the U.S. government.
Has an American or British political dissident, opposed to the policies of his own government,
ever won a Nobel Prize?
I don't know whether you can consider Pintor a political dissident.
However he certainly did not approve the policies of his own government, as clearly stated in
his beautiful
Nobel Prize lecture.
The trick there was the usual one, namely not to silence dissent but to drown it in noise.
Great find; I had never heard of Harold Pinter – shows what an uncultured Philistine I am. The
lecture is indeed a thing of beauty, and one paragraph of it may be perfect for my next post,
which is in the works. Thanks!!
I could lecture you for hours on this topic,
if I wasn't myself an uncultured monkey much more than you are, and if I had not been introduced
to it by an article from the journalist John Pilger.
I never heard of
Shishkin before,
let alone read anything by him; but that says something only me and how out of touch I am with
contemporary "Russian" literature. (Shishkin apparently lives in exile, in Switzerland, but presumably
he still writes in Russian.)
According to his biograpy, Mikhail Shishkin is half Russian, half Ukrainian (on his mother's
side); Shishkin's grandfather was repressed in Stalin times; Shishkin's father was a decorated
war veteran (as per his op-ed). By the time Shishkin was born, it was already a broken family,
with the father leaving the family, and the boy raised by his grandmother.
The boy became ideologically anti-Soviet and engaged in samizdat and tamizdat
activities typical of Soviet dissidents. His Ukrainian mother also appears to be a political dissident,
and it sounds like there was a mother-son political bond, against the absent (possibly abusive)
father. At one point (all this in the wiki bio) Mikhail's mother was fired from her job at the
school because she allowed the boy to attend "Vysotsky parties".
In other words, if I may indulge in some amateur Freudian psychiatry, it sounds like Shishkin
has a lot of "daddy" issues, identified his loathed father with the Soviet state; later with Putin;
idealized his mother, which he associates with all good things: Vysotsky, dissidents, the West,
etc.
And by the way, this is an enduring theme of the Russian intelligentsia: Just about every
Soviet dissident and modern contemporary kreakl was a Vysotsky fan. Vysotsky was some kind of
catalyst for this generation.
Anyhow, A few years back, Shishkin emigrated to Switzerland and considers himself to be a political
emigre. He publishes on average one book every five years and appears to be able to make a good
living from his writing.
According to the wiki entry (which sounds like it was written by Shishkin himself), Shishkin
is the greatest Russian writer of our times, a veritable combination of Chekhov, Tolstoy, Nabokov,
Bunin and James Royce, all rolled into one. His works are translated into innumerable languages,
and even turned into plays.
I never got what the big deal was about Vysotsky. I guess it was one of those things that you
had to be there at the right time to understand. When it comes to Soviet bards, I prefer Okudzhava.
I spent a full academic year at Voronezh University listening to that bugger howling. My three
Russian room-mates played Vysotsky almost non-stop daily. At first, I used to think it was a drunkard
singing, which was right, in a way, because booze eventually killed him. In the end I asked them
what it was all about, and told them I thought it was crap. They said I had to be a Russian to
understand.
Oh yeah, and he had his revenge on me! After I had got wed, Mrs. Exile took me to see her parents'
and grandparents'graves, which are in the Vagankovskoe cemetery, a place where many famous folk
are pushing up the daisies, including Vysotsky. And as we approached, I heard his howling again.
I thought I was hearing things, but there, next to the gates was a big kiosk flogging off souvenirs
of the great crooner, including audio cassettes of his complete works, examples of which were
constantly being blasted out from speakers hanging from the frontage of the shop.
Vysotsky's grave. It's always covered with flower tributes whenever I pass it. I was there
the other week for a spring clean-upof my wife's folks' plot.
It was ever thus with Russian self-hating liberals.
Nineteenth-century Russia had some of
the most radically "self-hating" liberals ever. They were called Zapadniki, or "Westerners".
The social gulf between traditional-minded Russian masses and the small Western-educated elite
was huge: in the 18th century it was even greater: the elite didn't even speak Russian most of
the time and the only contact they had with members of the great unwashed was with their house
servants – sort of like "house niggers" in the glory days of the US South. This 19th century Russian
elite had nothing but contempt towards the Russian past and with an almost colonial subject's
servility adopted all the newest progressive fads invented in Western Europe.
Here is an extract from a letter written by Dostoevsky in 1867, in which he describes his visit
to Turgenev, who was then living as an expatriate in Germany:
Frankly, I never could have imagined that anyone could so naively and clumsily display
all the wounds in his vanity, as Turgenev did that day; and these people go about boasting
that they are atheists. He told me that he was an uncompromising atheist. My God! It is to
Deism that we owe the Saviour - that is to say, the conception of a man so noble that one cannot
grasp it without a sense of awe - a conception of which one cannot doubt that it represents
the undying ideal of mankind. And what do we owe to these gentry - Turgenev, Herzen, Utin,
Tchernychevsky? In place of that loftiest divine beauty on which they spit, we behold in them
such ugly vanity, such unashamed susceptibility, such ludicrous arrogance, that it is simply
impossible to guess what it is that they hope for, and who shall take them as guides. He frightfully
abused Russia and the Russians. But I have noticed this: all those Liberals and Progressives
who derive chiefly from Bielinsky's school, find their pleasure and satisfaction in abusing
Russia. The difference is that the adherents of Tchernychevsky merely abuse, and in so many
words desire that Russia should disappear from the face of the earth {that, first of all!).
But the others declare, in the same breath, that they love Russia. And yet they hate everything
that is native to the soil, they delight in caricaturing it, and were one to oppose them with
some fact that they could not explain away or caricature, - any fact with which they were obliged
to reckon - they would, I believe, be profoundly unhappy, annoyed, even distraught. And I've
noticed that Turgenev - and for that matter all who live long abroad - have no conception of
the true facts (though they do read the newspapers), and have so utterly lost all affection
and understanding for Russia that even those quite ordinary matters which in Russia the very
Nihilists no longer deny, but only as it were caricature after their manner - these fellows
cannot so much as grasp. Amongst other things he told me that we are bound to crawl in the
dust before the Germans, that there is but one universal and irrefutable way - that of civilization,
and that all attempts to create an independent Russian culture are but folly and pigheadedness.
He said that he was writing a long article against the Russophils and Slavophils. I advised
him to order a telescope from Paris for his better convenience. " What do you mean?" he asked.
"The distance is somewhat great," I replied; "direct the telescope on Russia, and then you
will be able to observe us; otherwise you can't really see anything at all." He flew into a
rage.
And take a look at these extracts from Dostoevsky's "The idiot":
"I can but thank you", he said, in a tone too respectful to be sincere, "for your kindness
in letting me speak, for I have often noticed that our Liberals never allow other people to
have an opinion of their own, and immediately answer their opponents with abuse, if they do
not have recourse to arguments of a still more unpleasant nature".
"Excuse me", continued Evgenie Pavlovitch hotly, "I don't say a word against liberalism.
Liberalism is not a sin, it is a necessary part of a great whole, which whole would collapse
and fall to pieces without it. Liberalism has just as much right to exist as has the most moral
conservatism; but I am attacking RUSSIAN liberalism; and I attack it for the simple reason
that a Russian liberal is not a Russian liberal, he is a non-Russian liberal. Show me a real
Russian liberal, and I'll kiss him before you all, with pleasure".
"In the first place, what is liberalism, speaking generally, but an attack (whether mistaken
or reasonable, is quite another question) upon the existing order of things? Is this so? Yes.
Very well. Then my 'fact' consists in this, that RUSSIAN liberalism is not an attack upon the
existing order of things, but an attack upon the very essence of things themselves–indeed,
on the things themselves; not an attack on the Russian order of things, but on Russia itself.
My Russian liberal goes so far as to reject Russia; that is, he hates and strikes his own mother.
Every misfortune and mishap of the mother-country fills him with mirth, and even with ecstasy.
He hates the national customs, Russian history, and everything. If he has a justification,
it is that he does not know what he is doing, and believes that his hatred of Russia is the
grandest and most profitable kind of liberalism. (You will often find a liberal who is applauded
and esteemed by his fellows, but who is in reality the dreariest, blindest, dullest of conservatives,
and is not aware of the fact.) This hatred for Russia has been mistaken by some of our 'Russian
liberals' for sincere love of their country, and they boast that they see better than their
neighbours what real love of one's country should consist in. But of late they have grown,
more candid and are ashamed of the expression 'love of country,' and have annihilated the very
spirit of the words as something injurious and petty and undignified. This is the truth, and
I hold by it; but at the same time it is a phenomenon which has not been repeated at any other
time or place; and therefore, though I hold to it as a fact, yet I recognize that it is an
accidental phenomenon, and may likely enough pass away. There can be no such thing anywhere
else as a liberal who really hates his country; and how is this fact to be explained among
US? By my original statement that a Russian liberal is NOT a RUSSIAN liberal–that's the only
explanation that I can see".
Exactly: as he says, the kreakly delight in caricaturing Russia, both because it makes them
feel clever and because it brings instant adulation from the western media, which likes to maintain
a stable of tame Russia-hating Russians for credibility. I often think what makes a kreakl is
a sense that one does not fit in, does not belong. It is the easiest thing to assume that one
must be smarter than his fellows, otherwise he would think and feel as they do.
Beautiful piece of observation that you picked out the moment of peak mendacity:
'Each one of
Hitler's victories was a defeat for Germany. And the final rout of Nazi Germany was a victory
for the Germans themselves, who demonstrated how a nation can rise up and live like human beings
without the delirium of war in their heads.'
That is a sickening bit of tautological "reasoning" and bombast.
paul.. thanks for your article.. i thought it was well written and well said.. instead of deconstructing
the same tired bullshit the mainstream western media -this example from the nyt in the form of
mikhail shishkin's comments – you'd be better to try to deconstruct just why the constant onslaught
against russia in the same predictable way? that is what is happening here, regardless of the
changing representatives from russia or with some dubious connection to russia that wish to support
the msm in it's take down of russia.. forget details on his bullshit.. it is the bigger attempt
on the part of the western msm to take down russia.. any propaganda and fodder will do in this
ceaseless goal of the western msm.. it is not a free fucking press.. it is a bullshit agenda for
war 24/7… that's how i see it..
after shishkins comments, it will be some other similar minded doofus unwilling to see russia
in any light other then the one that capitalism run amok wants to see and define it as.. war=money..
that is the game being played and we are the suckers being played on..
The contradiction inherent to his view did not dawn on Shishkin.
If every defeat for the Nazis
was a victory for the German people, and conversely (as he implies) every victory for the Soviets
was a defeat for the Soviet people, we obtain again that only one power could have "won" the war,
either the Soviets with the fall of Moscow or the Germans (as it happened) with the fall of Berlin.
One of the loudest and most obnoxious Latvian Nazis is an ethnic Russian named Igor Shishkin.
Not suggesting any relation, but they would find much to agree on.
note was supported by hundreds of thousands - that is not a coup, but a revolution
Aside from the fact that in a 40 million people nation 'hundreds of thousands' is very far
from a majority, it's the protests that were supported by hundreds of thousands.
Feb 21 Yanuk signs the agreement with the opposition, negotiated and guaranteed by European
politicians. Stipulating early elections, amnesties, rollback of some laws, investigations of the
police abuses, etc. It was accepted and signed by the opposition, i.e. those representing these
hundreds of thousands you're taking about.
Had this agreement been implemented, everything would've probably worked out somehow.
Instead, a few ultra-nationalist militants, a fringe, refuse to accept the agreement. They take
over the government. And the opposition politicians play along and become figureheads, puppets.
And that's what's been going on there since: militant ultra-nationalist fringe is controlling the
regime from the inside, and the US and EU from the outside, supplying them with money, weapons,
propaganda, and diplomatic support. What a shame.
Babeouf 13 May 2015 08:57
Look Kerry went to see Putin to sell off an unwanted collection of Ukrainian Fascists.
Apparently the Fascists had disappointed their US owners. And afterwards the invariable
accompaniment of the brush off Kerry phoned Kyiv but didn't stop off on his way home. Today Yats
is in Paris and the Choc Soldier is in Germany.
Their survival now depends on Germany and France. So this sad collection of non entities now
have to cut a deal with Putin, on Russia's terms. I 'm not surprised that the US public
repudiation of the previous US policy of isolating 'Russia' is not noticed by the Guardian.
As for the Russian opposition their identification with the 'invader at the Gates' has
finished them off for a generation at least.
entirely pro-government now, apart from one radio station Ekho
Moskvy, and one TV station Dozhd
MaoChengJi -> kolf, 13 May 2015 07:01
That's precisely NOT entirely. Besides, kommersant is a
newspaper, not broadcast media. There are plenty of opposition
newspapers. Also, when the government is popular, the media, naturally,
reflects that - there's nothing sinister about it. And murdering people
is a crime, where they are journalists or not.
it is rather like the soldiers that have to "resign" before they
patriotically "volunteer" in Donbass, when instructed to do so - a
mere technicality
Perhaps. But we don't know that. I understand the suspicion, but not
the certainty. Strelkov, in particular, gives the impression of very
much anti-government character. A right-wing government opponent.
Personally, I see absolutely no reason to believe that he was sent or
controlled by the RF government. I'd be surprised.
The violent takeovers in Donbass were carried out initially by
small Russian-sponsored groups, with the support of special forces
from Russia, who carried out a range of criminal and paramilitary
activity including abduction, intimidation, murders, attacks on
Ukrainian military bases, and destroying military Ukrainian aircraft
on the ground
This is a bunch of lies. The protests in Donetsk started the next day
after the coup, I saw videos. Gubarev became the 'people's governor'. He
was arrested - protests became more violent. I watched videos with old
ladies blocking roads to stop the regime's troops carriers.
was installed by the Rada after the previous president fled
Oh, god. President fleeing and the majority party decimated (their
offices burned) is the definition of a coup d'etat. He didn't resign, he
didn't die, and he wasn't even impeached - they tried but they didn't
have the votes.
Can anyone in the right mind and not being disingenuous still insist
that it wasn't a coup? I don't think so. So, go ahead, have your last
word.
Dmitry Berezhnov -> Botswana61 13 May 2015 04:06
RFE is US propaganda bullhorn, of course I believe them in anything they say about Russia.
MaoChengJi -> kolf 13 May 2015 04:05
even Russian media acknowledges it
you appear to be under the impression that Russian media are all pro-government. This
completely disproves your statement that you "know the difference between propaganda and
journalism". A large portion of the Russian media is rabidly anti-government. If you knew the
difference between propaganda and journalism, you would've known it.
All that "clearly" is just your impression, based on anti-Russian propaganda, on the stories you
read and believe. What's clear to you isn't clear to others, if they read different stories. In
fact, exactly the opposite can be clear to them. It's important for you to understand that your
stories are not at all better than their stories.
Also, "war started by Russian intelligence officers like Strelkov and Borodai" is all wrong,
objectively. Strelkov and Borodai are not Russian intelligence officers. The Kiev regime attacked
Donbas, Donbas did not attack Kiev. If Kiev acknowledged the referendum, there would've been no
war. The important thing to understand here is that the Kiev regime was NOT at that time -
without any doubt - a legitimate government, even if you believe that the current government is
legitimate (I don't).
Kiev had a revolution, and then Donetsk had a revolution. Then Kiev attacked Donetsk. It didn't
have to, but it did. Blaming this on Russia is disinformation and a manifestation of russophobia.
lionarslan Botswana61 13 May 2015 03:45
Mr. Lavrov never denied that there's Russian citizens in Ukraine. Do you know the difference
between soldiers (people who signed obligatory military contract and take a vow to serve their
country) and volunteers (people who consciously decided to do something or to go somewhere)?
People from Russia, Germany, Spain, Netherlands comes to Donbass to fight for freedom of people
of Donbass. They volunteered, no one forced them. And that is what Sergey Lavrov "admitted".
I read that report, that's really science-ficton. All so-called proofs are quotes without
context which someone can understand in more than one way. The text itself is clear anti-Putin
propaganda. It was really boring to read that text. It's like watching "Glee" only Glee has
wonderful songs and some of actors are really good in their play.
Russian self-named opposition's report is much more boring and have so much realism as tv-series
"Glee".
lionarslan -> freedomcry 13 May 2015 03:21
Nationalists in Russia was never decent and sober-minded people. In time of Russian empire
they were terrorists, in modern Russia they are still the same. Moreover, if you are sentient
being you wouldn't support ideas of nationalists in any possible way. Do you forgot what
nationalists did in Germany and then in half of the world in last century?
Agatha_appears -> freedomcry 13 May 2015 01:53
it is not opposition. This is a group of people who, like Yashin, have never worked, never
done anything useful. They found a job paid by the US State Dep-t. Their responsibility is to
play against official Russia according to US scenario. They buy luxurious cars, apartments, go to
expensive resorts. Their main audience is the western media. There is a small group of Russia
haters inside the country who notice them.
There are nationalists who oppose the Kremlin. They are radicals. Some of them are in prison.
They represent larger part of Russian society than so to say "liberals". Their views are similar
to Ukranian nazi who are in power in Kiev. Putin tries to maintain balance and does not let them
come to power, speak publicly, because nationalism is infection desease ( see what is going
on in Ukraine). And Russian nationalism can be as awful as Ukrainian. It is close to fascism.
Dmitry Berezhnov -> Tepluken 13 May 2015 01:05
Funny enough to see fairytales about Savushkina st. Once I have decided to waste some time and
watched a video about a "troll lair", well, small office with like 10-12 people there. Do you
really call that a HQ of Evil Russain Propaganda Machine?
Let's just mention that:
1. UK officially annouced creation of cybersquad with unmentioned budget for delivering a
propaganda.
2. US spending over 1 bln in 2014 for Russian opposition NGO sponssorship and declaring a war
on "Russian propaganda" with it's own propaganda via BBG and state controlled media throughour
Europe with gazillion bucks budget.
3. Ukraine creating a Truth Ministry and Ukranian Information Army with up to this very moment
over 40 000! volunteers, not mentioning a full-time staff.
And we do not know about other countries trolls. In my humble opinion, Savushkina with it's 20
people tops looks very very faintly.
Colin Robinson 13 May 2015 00:31
Claims about Russian forces covertly entering the Donbas region, even if true, cannot explain
the conflict there.
It would hardly be possible for Russian tanks to move across the border, without being shot at
or even photographed, unless the local population had previously rejected the Kiev régime and
removed its border guards.
This is conflict between two constituencies within Ukraine itself, not between a supposedly united
Ukraine and a supposedly ambitious president of Russia.
normankirk -> Botswana61 12 May 2015 23:36
What do you mean he's just admitted it, he's never denied it. I would be disgusted if no help
had been given to eastern Ukrainian civilians, HRW and Amnesty intern. have both recorded use
of illegal weapons against civilians by the Ukrainian army.
If ever there was a reason for humanitarian intervention you need go no further than protecting
unarmed civilians from cluster bombs
MichaPalkin -> bcnteacher 12 May 2015 23:08
If they had found the slightest evidence it was indeed rebels' BUK, froth-at the mouth anti-Russian
hysteria would have been filling the free press for months now. THE FACT IS THEY CAN'T. And since
the Dutch keep remarkably quiet about it, what they v. probably have is the evidence to the contrary.
When someone from the investigation tried to make the findings public a few weeks ago - he was
immediately silenced and fired. This is called cover-up. It shouldn't be that difficult to tell
BUK from air-to-air missile really. So this investigation will either go on into the plus infinity
or they'll say some evasive bs, no media outlet would ever mention it and that would be the end
of it. Ok?
BorninUkraine -> Chirographer 12 May 2015 22:46
There is real opposition in Russia. If I lived there, I'd be one of them. But those are the
people who do not sell their country to foreign interests, never touch Western money, and therefore
are not promoted by Western media owned by the same interests that purchase third-rate opposition
figures in Russia.
To give you a few examples, Eduard Limonov, Boris Kagarlitsky (who even spent some time in
jail in Soviet period), and others like them are opposition, but they are not bought and paid
for traitors. That's why they are not rich.
Unlike Nemtsiov, they cannot afford to pay for the abortion of a whore in Switzerland. You
are welcome to ask your supervisor to find out who they are.
BorninUkraine -> nnedjo 12 May 2015 21:45
The "government" in Kyiv absolutely needs this alleged Russia aggression.
How else can they explain that they ran into the ground a reasonably decent country so quickly:
from solid third world to total shit in a bit over a year.
If Poroshenko, Yatsenyuk, and Co acknowledge how much they steal and how incompetent they are,
their puppeteers might start looking for better puppets, and that would never do.
BorninUkraine -> Paul Moore 12 May 2015 21:36
Oh, yes. Military officials in Sweden have already been looking very hard for a Russian submarine.
As soon as they achieved what they wanted, an increase in the military budget, they acknowledged
that no submarine ever existed.
Apparently someone in Finland also wants a bigger military budget. How creative, wouldn't you
say?
Sergey A Gimranov 12 May 2015 21:33
Good science-fiction report. The highlight of the presentation was "We don't have any actual
evidence but we know troops were there". I could not believe they said that. Lame and fake! Shocking
discovery from the "book" Russian troops were in Crimea on Russian military bases. Oh my God!
Standards are lower and lower with each and every article. Where are the reporters? Why they cannot
go there and report it? I guess narrative would change drastically.
Roodan 12 May 2015 20:57
But I do agree the government in Kiev does not represent the political will of all of its people
and hence the civil war. That there is external support for each side in this war form special
forces or otherwise be they NATO or Russian that this is not the cause of the war . I do not my
self understand the relevance of the article, it states the obvious. Only a regional settlement
between the waring parties will end the war. A ettlement in which all of the aspiration of the
people in the Ukrainian, have representation perhaps a federation or Union like the EU .
I don't think there is any value in supporting one side against the other to impose a system of
government with out the support of the people . That is a dictatorship and I don't support dictatorships
by any military alliance NATO or Russian federation, they result in perpetual war in which only
the powerless suffer.
Chirographer -> Walter Potocki 12 May 2015 20:55
You seem to very concerned about who paid for the report. Why? That doesn't address the content
of the report at all.
And wouldn't there be more money and a lot safer life for this Yashin character if he'd published
a book supporting the government's narrative?
Walter Potocki 12 May 2015 20:18
there were never CIA operatives in Ukraine, it is not true that Maiden was a western agencies.
Just few masked people gathered on the square with clubs and firearms to have a fun
Walter Potocki 12 May 2015 20:13
Hi Tom, did you ask Russian opposition how much this report cost? You did not have to ask who
paid, the same sponsored paid for your piece. Nice propaganda.
nnedjo -> nnedjo 12 May 2015 19:21
And to add one more thing. If I'd lived in the southeast of Ukraine and if my government would
abolish my salary, and, on the other hand, if I would have known that soldiers receive 90,000
rubles per month, that would be an extra motivation for me to join the rebel army. So, in that
case there would be no need at all for the arrival of troops from Russia, because the Ukrainian
government itself supports the recruitment in the Donbas, in a way that stopped the economic support
to the region.
nnedjo -> Solongmariane 12 May 2015 19:11
It is ridiculous to speculate about it at all, because it is clear that Russia pays not only
all the fighters in the southeast of Ukraine, but also all other citizens. Because how else they
would survive, considering that the Ukrainian government has abolished them all salaries and pensions,
and closed all the banks, and prevent the use of payment cards.
Thus, considering that the Ukrainian government itself agreed that someone else should pay these
people, or more precisely, that Russia should pay them, then why do they complain about it now?
ID5868758 12 May 2015 18:26
You know, we're supposed to buy this narrative that Nemtsov was a credible political threat
to Putin. But I remember seeing a video of a Russian TV station catching Nemtsov sneaking out
of the side door of the American embassy in Moscow, and he was not a happy camper when he was
caught.
Now, reverse that, and imagine an American politician being caught sneaking out of the side
door of the Russian embassy in DC. How much credibility do you suppose that politician would have
left with the American public?
Russians aren't really that different from Americans after all, and Nemtsov was no threat to
Putin at all.
Puttepoju -> Kaiama 12 May 2015 18:06
Dear Kaiama.
Russian journalists are clever and wise. They are better than the entire US satellite system. They
have "common sense".I like Russia and Russians --- but what I like most -- is to be honest. My best
greetings. Puttepoju
Falloe7 12 May 2015 18:00
more PROPAGANDA and the media of the West naturally believes it -because they want to believe
it if you are in opposition in anything you will make up stories about your opponent just like
this past Election there was enough Lies by the parties about each other hoping the voters will
believe it (and they did) and the same about Russia. the papers are well known for printing Lies
or make up stories
Kaiama 12 May 2015 17:44
So how come 10 Russian journalist claim to find something that the entire US satellite system
can't find? It comes as no surprise that Russian volunteers have been killed in Ukraine fighting
alongside their relatives.
What is more telling is the 100,000+ Kiev draft evaders and 800,000+ displaced citizens - all
in Russia (defected to the enemy? or simply more astute than their government in Kiev?
Solongmariane 12 May 2015 17:38
Some bizarre figures, I find ;
a) 53 bln Rubles is just around 1 Bln $. Isn't ? Not so much money, for a war with 40.000-50.000
fighters.
b) If the average of wages of 60.000 - 90.000 rubles is correct, It is around an army of 1.500
soldiers during 10 months.
Are my calculations correct ? Please, check it !
BorninUkraine -> bcnteacher 12 May 2015 17:32
I don't have anything except my brains, but that's enough to have a pretty prestigious job
in the US.
Russia apparently has a lot to make self-appointed masters of the Universe in the US hysterical,
and their European poodles even more so. Not to mention small-change commenters here paid very
little (to match pathetic quality of their comments).
The three things that immediately come to mind regarding Russia are nukes, natural resources,
and fighting spirit. Each of these would be enough to scare the opponents. For example, the opposition
in Iraq and Afghanistan only has fighting spirit, and this was sufficient to make NATO retreat
with its tail between its legs. Or, in 1940 France had an army at least as strong as Hitler's,
but due to lack of fighting spirit it disgracefully surrendered in no time.
So, I can only express my sincerest condolences to the servants of humiliatingly hysterical
masters.
nnedjo -> Metronome151 12 May 2015 17:22
Perhaps you are confused with suspicious arrest and detention of a female Ukranian pilot
and Estonian security officer by the FSB. Must be he effect of those drugs you refer to.
Actually, in the event that you mentions use of the drug is excluded because the pilot Savchenko
was very defiant during the examination before the cameras, which is why she has acquired the
status of a national hero in Ukraine, and in the absence she is elected to parliament.
It is also interesting that the example of the pilot Savchenko is the first proven case of "a
soldier on leave," who fought on the Ukrainian front. Because it is known that she left the regular
Ukrainian army to join the volunteer battalion Aidar. So I do not see what is the problem that
Russian troops also take leave and go to help the brothers in Ukraine.
However, Ms. Savchenko has one big problem. If she had been released from the Russian prison now,
she would not have anywhere to return because her Aidar battalion was disbanded by the Ukrainian
authorities.
Kiev Claims Is Disbanding Notorious Aidar Volunteer Battalion
KIEV, March 2, (TASS) - Ukraine's Defense Ministry is disbanding an armed militia group blamed
for abuse during recent months of regional conflict, said to be out of control and with a splinter
faction planning unrest in the capital...
The move follows the arrest of former Aidar battalion fighters said by Luhansk regional administration
head Gennady Moskal to be preparing transfer of weapons from the Ukraine's restive Donbas region
in a bid to promote social upheaval in Kiev.
"Part of this unit long ago defected from Aidar and was engaged in looting, robbery, racketeering,
auto theft and other crimes in regions controlled by the Ukrainian side," Moskal's website
said.
Moskal added that an attempt had been prevented to take an arsenal of weapons from the area
of combat operations in Donbas to Kiev. The arms were meant for "destabilizing the situation"
in the capital.
Babeouf 12 May 2015 17:11
So the opposition united to produce a monster /blockbuster report ,you say , well when there
is a report I shall force myself to read it to see what evidence it actually contains. I seen
no evidence open source or otherwise just assertions based on claims made by person or persons
unknown. This battle over Russian troops is itself a proxy war between the supporters of the US
and the rest of the world.
MichaPalkin -> alpamysh 12 May 2015 17:09
What's truly outstanding is how lame you are and inept Kiev regime is. And quit blubbering
gibberish. It simply kills me how low RFE standards sunk. You're trained very badly, klopets.
nnedjo -> alpamysh 12 May 2015 16:28
Gosh, you seem to have a lot of them--and you said all we had to do was just watch ONE
I am talking here about a group of 10 soldiers who were captured by the Ukrainian Security
Service last year.
Yes, there are several of these videos, and from each of them, it is clear that the soldiers
recite a prepared text directly into the camera.
VladimirM -> SoloLoMejor 12 May 2015 16:28
He is not, I think. But I did, actually, it is in Russian on the Dozhd website. I had an impression
of reading some of the articles here in the Guardian but in Russian. Or even some posters, which
is weird. The report is incoherent, includes many topics, just one chapter is about the Russian
troops in Donbas. You may read anything here in the Guardian to get some idea of what the report
is like. The article "Invisible army…" will do, I think. In my view, the report is utter rubbish
and does not live up to expectations.
nnedjo 12 May 2015 15:56
As I saw in another article this report mentions the examination of Russian soldiers caught
in Ukraine. We all remember this event in the summer of last year. Internet was flooded with videos
with "examination" of Russian "prisoners of war" who were actually recited a prepared text that
was placed somewhere in front of them and behind the camera. I think it was clear to everyone
at the first viewing of the video.
As an example, look at examination of the imprisoned soldier Alexei Generalov. This guy almost
three minutes talking without interruption and without pauses, with a view strictly focused at
one point, probably in some text that he reads somewhere on the left side of the camera. In one
moment the examiner asks him something, and he looked at him, then to the right side of the camera.
A particular problem is the fact that these soldiers were arrested somewhere near the border
under very suspicious circumstances. According to the official Ukrainian version, that the soldiers
also recited in the camera, they were caught about twenty kilometers inside the Ukrainian territory.
However, it is very possible that they were in fact kidnapped by Ukrainian special forces on the
Russian side of the border.
You can say that this is my very bold assumption. But, one can easily notice that during examination
these soldiers were very disoriented. I would not be surprised if this is the result of a drug
that has been deliberately given to captives in order to weaken their will, but I still stand
by my first assumption that they were kidnapped.
For example, another captured soldier to the question of where he is, he replies: "I am now located
in Ukraine, the city of Ukraine."
Thus, it is clear that this soldier has no idea what his exact location, and that he is completely
disoriented, although they examined him in a tent (ie in a tent in the "city of Ukraine"), which
should be somewhere near the scene of his capture. Here you can watch, from 0:59 onwards of this
video:
`And he will NEVER risk an open confrontation with the West`.
Oh, this is the main mistake. The Western politician think that Putin doesn`t attack Ukraine
because he`s afraid of the NATO, West, etc. No, he doesn`t. He just grants the West with a good
chanceopportunity to go home without shame. Why to fight Ukraine if it sooner or later crawls
back? It will, it will due to many objective reasons. No, Putin won`t send troops there until
Ukrainians ask him. Russia does not need any war.
normankirk -> alpamysh 12 May 2015 15:45
Poroshenko still wants the Donetsk airport. Why are they breaking the ceasefire to try and
get it back off the anti-govt fighters?
Madness to throw so many lives away
Noes Vencia -> alpamysh 12 May 2015 15:41
So 140 were given compensation to keep silence and 70 were not?!
1) Given compensation to keep silence will work in a couple of instance, never in dozens!
2) For sure it will never work, if then you don't give compensation to others.
3) Lets do some math; if Ukraine have 200,000 troops of which some 2500 died, at that rate if
there are 210 dead Russian soldiers send by Moscow, that means Russia has send 16,800 troops!
Trust me, you cannot send 1000 soldiers anywhere without being highly noticeable, the logistics
are immense! Let alone 17000!.
4) What percentage does Kiev says of Russian troops are combating against? Because looking at
the media seems that all are Russians. if so, that is a slap on the face to their own army that
they cannot win an "army" of 12 times less soldiers with the same weaponry capabilities. If, however
Russians are a small portion of the Revels, why 100% of focus on Russians so?
Again, I do believe Russia has personnel in there, but limited to advising and intelligence gathering.
I highly doubt there are troops fighting because 1st, they don't need it (enough supply with the
residents) and 2nd it would not have got better outcomes for their own safety or economy.
I feel sad that Ukrainians felt for antagonizing their biggest trading partner for the dream of
UE. EU will not accept Ukraine in decades, enough we have with bankrupt tiny Greece, let alone
10 times bigger corrupted Ukraine. Nor will the French farmers will be happy with Ukrainian ones.
Ukraine should had approached EU while maintained trade with Russia and assuring Russia that no
NATO membership. That is what Finland choose even though of past severe confrontations with Russia;
that pragmatism made of it a prosperous country.
[May 10, 2015] Modern Russian neolibs looks exactly like Bolsheviks
Modern Russian neolibs looks exactly like Bolsheviks:
As Bolsheviks thier number is very small.
As Bolsheviks are evil and lack any moral conscience
As Bolsheviks they also cover up your dirty essence the "great ideals".
And, finally, both Bolsheviks and neolib were planted and grown in Russia by the international
Anglo-Saxon capital for the oppression of the sovereignty of Russia.
The West has no respect for Russian liberals or kreaklies. The moment a Russian liberal or kreakly
steps out of line or fails to sing from the same hymn sheet they will be ostracised and labelled
a Putin/Kremlin lackey.
To be a Russian liberal or kreakly is to be a member of a religion, to be a believer in "Westernism"
as Karlin coins it. Russian liberal or kreakly is a lay person who has no right to question or
challenge the high priests of Westernism, to do so is heresy and will condemn you to become a
benighted undemocratic uncivilised Russian heathen again.
The treat of Gorbachev and Solzhenitsyn by the Western media is evidence that the West has
no respect for any Russian political figure or dissident that goes off message and goes off the
reservation.
Russian liberals and kreaklies only function is to denigrate their own country and people incessantly.
If a Russian liberal or kreaklies, dares to defend the Russian perspective or interests, then
they cease being a liberal or a kreakly.
To be a Russian liberal or kreakly to have a fanatical belief that the West is right all the
time and on everything.
I often wonder what the Middle East would look like today had the advice of that "evil Putin" been
followed by the "exceptional Americans" and their allies. He was opposed to the war in Iraq. He was
opposed to the attacks on Ghaddafi and Liibya, but overruled by Medvedev, who was president at the
time. And of course he was against the US and their obsessive campaign against secular Assad and Syria.
But somehow we are supposed to believe that this man is the danger in the world, that everything
would be fine and dandy if we could just get rid of Putin? Please.
Me109BfG6 11 Mar 2015 19:58
Stop better the mad house of s.c. "Ukraine". Until you can't find it on a map, you can't argue
anything. I personally know a brigade of house constructors of 6 persons, of which 2 are Ukrainians
and who have procured their passports somewhere is the Baltics for money. Now, do realize how you
would once have to notice those 45 M Ukrainians standing on all street crossings in the UK and in
the EU as well while beggaring. Yes, do realize that instead of any abstract demagogy and propaganda
insulting Russia and Putin along with all the Russians in the s.c. "Ukraine". Stop the Nazis over
there instead. The West Ukraine will elong to the Poland. The East Ukraine will belong to Russia or
remain independent in order to speak freely Russian instead of that South Russian dialect called "Ukrainian"
which is spoken - to the Forbes - by some 17% of the whole population in Ukraine only.
T_Wallet 11 Mar 2015 18:46
This article is nonsense. If there was no such thing as NATO then maybe it would have a credible
point.
The EU is about as Democratic as Russia. Both want, like US and China, to extend their spheres of
influence. Empires by other names.
JoseArmando0 -> psygone 11 Mar 2015 01:24
Money money money only thing yanks understand cant take it with you in the end anyway poetic justice
HARPhilby -> jezzam 11 Mar 2015 16:04
Rockefeller and JP Morgan financed hitler in 1929, 1931 and 1933. Read free pamphlet HITLER'S SECRET
BACKERS by Sidney Warberg which came out in Holland in 1933 and was suppressed after 4 days.
UN chapter or not, but not everything in life is done according to legal interpretations. It's
shouldn't be about bunch of lawyers arguing about legalese, it's about 10 million people. Why does
UN chapter give more rights to 1.5 million people in Lithuania than to 10 million people in Donbass
and South Ukraine?
It's about principles, not about legalese.
irishmand -> psygone 11 Mar 2015 11:11
The largest trading partners of both China and India: the EU and the US.
But not the exclusive partners. India and China will continue to trade with everybody. They are
making honest money and don't care about US ambitions for world domination and its bad habit of toppling
governments.
Don't take me wrong, I don't hate americans. The most of you are just brain washed regular citizens.
It is not your fault, except for what you allowed your government to do with your school system. But
I also see the extremism is growing in american society and that is the result of people being told
about how exceptional they are comparing to the rest of the world. Germans started the same way in
30's...
Russian aggression from the Blairites is about as believeable as Iraqs weapons of mass distraction.
I am a Labour supporter - I feel ashamed of them. They should be kicked out just like militant was
- and for much better reasons - lies and war criminality. The Libdems and Tories are no better.
Ross Vassilev -> jezzam 11 Mar 2015 09:56
Jezzam, you're either an idiot or a liar. NO ONE in the US wants a war with Russia except the neo-cons
in Washington. And the dismembering of Serbia is proof that not all countries are entitled to territorial
integrity, including Ukraine.
Ross Vassilev jezzam 11 Mar 2015 09:52
At least Russia is only invading neighboring countries. There's hardly a country in the world the
US hasn't bombed or invaded.
Калинин Юрий Bosula 11 Mar 2015 09:22
The guys there always need somebody to blame. They have to justify their existence by pointing
their fingers to an enemy. The enemy unites the nation and you can sell to this nation all kind of
junk as a needed stuff to fight this enemy.
People love to believe is some mystic junk - invisible Russian threat, coup theory of communists
in Moscow against Washington DC, etc.
igoraki Sceptical Walker 11 Mar 2015 08:14
Would like to recommend you a book to read, "L'Europe est morte ŕ Pristina" by Jacques Hogard.You
can learn a lot about all the good West and NATO did on Kosova and also you will see how the Albanians
treated Serbs once our army retreated from Kosova.
madeiranlotuseater jezzam 11 Mar 2015 08:03
I am NOT a Kremlin supporter. The corruption sponsored by the state at home in Russia is appalling.
That is not my point. The USA has intervened in countless countries since the end of WW2. The problems
in Ukraine are of the USA's making. It hasn't gone well for you. Europe (apart from Desperate Dave)
doesn't want to use your hawkish methods to achieve a solution. How lovely of you to believe that
you can have a war in our back yard. People such as Merkel and Hollande almost certainly did not get
it okayed by your lot. More probably they told you how is was going to be, so get used to it.
America believes that killing people is the answer to find peace. It isn't.
Babeouf 11 Mar 2015 07:26
Well who would have guessed it the the Labour Party doesn't recognize US imperialism anywhere on
planet earth. And if Labour form a government and the US/Iran negotiations fail they will happily
join the next US coalition of the Shilling. On the substantive point apparently the I.MF won't loan
Ukraine the billions of Euros unless the truce holds together. Now that really does help Vlad'the
West is led by US sycophants and outright morons' Putin. But so has the entire US coup in Ukraine.
There certainly is some Russian agent helping to formulate US State Department policy.
Orangutango 11 Mar 2015 07:14
It is utterly incoherent for our prime minister to call for tougher European action against President
Putin in one breath and then threaten to leave the EU in the next. Security is the unspoken dimension
of this European debate.
"This is no time for democratic nations to consider breaking from their allies. While Eurosceptics
crave the breaking of ties to the EU, the security situation demands common action and resolve."
Euroscepticism (sometimes Euroscepticism or Anti-EUism) is the body of criticism of the European
Union (EU), and opposition to the process of political European integration, existing throughout the
political spectrum.
A survey in 2012, conducted by TNS Opinion and Social on behalf of the European Commission, showed
that, for the European Union overall, those who think that their country's interests are looked after
well in the EU are now in a minority (42%) About 31% of EU citizens tend to trust the European Union
as an institution, and about 60% do not tend to trust it. Trust in the EU has fallen from a high of
57% in 2007 to 31% in 2012, while trust in national governments has fallen from 43% in 2007 to 28%
in 2012.
Trust in the EU is lowest in the United Kingdom (16% trust, 75% distrust)
Spain is ranked the second most distrustful of the European Union, making it one of the three most
Eurosceptic countries in the EU, along with the UK and Greece. 72 per cent of the Spanish people do
not trust the EU, comparing to only 23% that trust this Union.
Portugal is the 8th most eurosceptic country in the European Union (not counting with Croatia) as
shown by the "The Continent-wide rise of Euroscepticism", with 58% of the people tending not to trust
the EU, behind Greece (81%), Spain (72%), UK (75%), Cyprus (64%), Sweden (62%), Czech Republic (60%)
and Germany (59%).[57] The Eurosceptic parties currently hold 24 out of 230 seats in the parliament.
The Euroscepticism of the left wing prevails in Portugal.
The Irish people voted no to initial referendums on both the Nice and Lisbon Treaties. There were
second referendums held on both of these issues, and it was then, following renegotiations that the
votes were swayed in favour of the respective 'Yes' campaigns.
In relation to both the Nice and Lisbon treaties, the decision to force second referendums has been
the subject of much scrutiny and widespread criticism. It is claimed that rejection of the Irish peoples
decision to vote no stands testament to the European Union's lack of regard for democracy and lack
of regard for the right of people of nation states to decide their futures.
In Italy The Five Star Movement (M5S), an 25.5% of vote in the 2013 general election, becoming the
largest anti-establishment and Eurosceptic party in Europe. The party also in 2013 the party was particularly
strong in Sicily, Liguria and Marche, where it gained more than 30% of the vote.
In France in the European Parliament election, 2014, the National Front won the elections with 24.85%
of the vote, a swing of 18.55%, winning 24 seats, up from 3 previously.
You can't even clean up your own mess ( Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, former Yougoslavia ).
Parangaricurimicuaro PlatonKuzin 11 Mar 2015 03:28
Victoria Nuland is looking for a way out for her and her politics (save face). She realizes that
Europe is not happy with the way that the State Department hijacked the whole Ukrainian crisis
Budanevey 11 Mar 2015 03:22
The emergence of Redneck Labour is one of the genuine mysteries of our politics that historians
will one day ponder, a Party that adopted American Sub Prime finance, State Department Foreign Policy,
neo-liberal corporatism, neo-con wars, NSA total surveillance, waterboarding, secret prisons, secret
justice, indefinite detention, Anglophobia, TTIP and a de facto Eurodollar, and now the fear tactics
of Commies and Terrorists everywhere to keep us servile to the interests of Washington and their agenda
for an expanding US empire via a cloned United States of Europe, fears that were similarly misused
during the Cold War when the American umbrella was first being used to envelop us.
Didn't Labour learn anything from WW2 when we went to war to protect Polish independence, only to
have Washington give it to Stalin, along with the rest of Eastern Europe, and then surrender our own
commonwealth and independence to Washington's creature in Brussels? Who is pulling the strings when
we see demands for the UK to subordinate its interests to EU expansion in the East, just as we see
northern Eurozone interests being compromised to keep hold of southern Europe - Washington.
The largest country on Earth, Russia, has long been a sub prime performer because of its own extreme
history of imperialism and arbitrary government, which makes it an investors' nightmare and a paradise
for corporate, criminal and political gangsterism preying on its long-suffering people and their unfortunate
neighbours. The Yeltsin Privatisation era following the White Revolution compounded the problem by
making new oligarchies and dubious billionaires, leading to the latest twist in Putinism.
The answer to these differing examples and extremes of imperialism is not to join in new imperialisms,
but to re-assert the value of honesty and accountability in business, government, the rule of law,
and international relations. Redneck Labour has completely lost the plot.
madeiranlotuseater 11 Mar 2015 03:21
Soap Box Dave really believes he can hold onto power by scaring Europe into believing there is
a threat from Russia. Past UK Premiers have done well with wars, Maggie, John and Tony all got re-elected.
But Dave pitched for free flights on Air Force One and sucking up to POTUS whilst many of us felt
that the whole game plan in Ukraine was of the CIA making. Poke the Bear enough and you will get a
response. Germany and France saw through this and quickly side lined Davy and Kerry. Result: Dave,
at a stroke, has reduced Britain's influence in the world to little more than not a lot.
elias_ 11 Mar 2015 02:19
All organisations are judged on the results of their actions. In the court of world opinion we
can apply this logic to states. So let's see:
1. Iraq. We lied, killed a million people and now it is haven for Isis.
2. Libya. Far far worse now than under gadafi.
3. Syria. We wanted war but putin stopped it.
4. Egypt. Worse now than when we intervened.
5. Ukraine. Supporting neocon Victoria f*** the EU nuland doing violent regime change on Russia's
borders and expecting Russia to sit idly by. Yes the protests were about oligarchy but then got hijacked
by hired goons without which power would have transitioned peacefully.
Q. Is it any wonder we are losing credibility outside the west? Especially as many of these actions
went without UN approval.
Peter Schmidt UncleSam404 11 Mar 2015 02:14
There is no British 'foreign policy'. They do as the US says.
irishmand jezzam 11 Mar 2015 02:13
Proof that Putin planned to annex Crimea and invade E Ukraine before Yanukovych was deposed.
Who said it is truth, it is propaganda, I don't believe a word of this bull.... The western media
lied so many times, there is no credibility.
irishmand SystemD 11 Mar 2015 02:10
One might ask you for proof of CIA plots, except that there is none. Are you prepared to provide
the same standard of proof of your allegations that you demand of others?
One might. We got Crimea, that's right. And Russia is helping the rebels. Well, US is helping the
nazies in Kiev, so to make the chances equal...
Now, CIA What was CIA director doing when he was secretly visiting Ukraine? A vacation... And those
CIA operatives in Kiev Speigel wrote about? A vacation...
Калинин Юрий jezzam 11 Mar 2015 01:48
Putin sending his troops to Ukraine? Then you know way much more then CIA, MI-5, Mossad, etc all
together. Finally all these countries do not have to spent billions on the intelligence since you
alone do all the job and have all the possible evidences to present to the world.
By the way yesterday the Russian troops used secret space waves on the drivers in Ukraine so 2
of British old APC's are out of service and in a ditch outside the road. This is the proof of the
Russian regular army and thousands of dead Russian soldiers as well as billions of wounded in the
Russian hospitals. Russia sends trains to Donetsk to take out all of them and OSCE at the border crossing
station inspect them together with the Ukranian customs. Those, that have no chances to escape are
captured by the Ukranian army and been exchanged for the Ukranian soldiers in front of hundreds of
journalists. Anyway, Russian army is the most invisible army in the world.
Goodthanx 11 Mar 2015 01:20
According to McFadden, are we to presume that like NATO, one of the EU functions was/is the 'containment'
of Russia?
A sign of EU immaturity is that member countries cant voice independent views and questions of sovereignty,
without the scaremongers reducing their arguments to todays bogey man, Putin.
irishmand jezzam 10 Mar 2015 23:43
What you say is entirely true, To Kremlin supporters though, facts don't have any objective reality.
They believe that facts are simply tools in the propaganda campaign. Thus in their eyes inventing
"facts" is perfectly OK. They believe that the West does it as well - the depth of cynicism in Russia
is hard to fathom.
What facts were invented?
ultra right coup in Kiev supported by US
bombardments of Donbass civilians by Kiev
relentless russophobic campaign in US and EU
Nuland saying F...the EU
Nazi elements in the Ukranian government
Crime voting to join Russia
BorninUkraine irishmand 10 Mar 2015 23:36
The objective of current US propaganda campaign is to prevent EU and Russia from cooperating
to the point of creating a credible US competitor. As you could have noticed, this BS for European
consumption works admirably: Europe just lost its last chance of becoming something of consequence.
irishmand MentalToo 10 Mar 2015 22:50
It is only an expense to Russia preventing other urgent investments to improve living conditions
of the people in Russia. Russian leaders urgently needs to realize cooperation based on mutual respect
of both sovereignty of nations as well as civil rights of individuals is the only way to improve
relations to Europeans countries. Trying to use military force either directly or by coercion harms
Russia more than anything. Russia is not in a competition to win over it neighbor states. Russia's
mission is to win over it's own past through gaining trust of it's neighbors by peaceful cooperation.
It is a declaration of good will, which, unfortunately, is not supported by any actions in reality.
What have US/EU did recently:
organized a coup in Ukraine,
imposed sanctions,
unleashed shameless wild russophobic propaganda campaign in the media,
issued countless insults about Russians and their President.
Where is the mutual respect you are talking so much about? Where is your freedom of speech?
How can Russians trust you when you behave like bunch of liars and bullies, threatening to destroy
Russia and celebrating every time something bad happens in Russia?
To get respect from Russia you have to show your respect too.
What saved Russia from american/NATO invasion? The very same army and the nuclear weapons. If it wouldn't
be for them, americans would attack 6-8 months ago.
So, before you start teaching Russia manners turn around and look in the mirror of your society. You
are not a democracy anymore. You became a bunch of power drunk, profit greedy warmongers who only
understand "I want" and ready to sacrifice other people's lives in other countries for your personal
well being.
The German government finally wakes up, a little bit at least, and recognizes the obvious fact that
U.S. neocons want to drag Europe into a war. It is now
openly blaming certain circles within the U.S. government and NATO of sabotaging the Minsk ceasefire
agreement. Especially offensive is the fantasy talk of U.S. and NATO commander General Breedlove:
For months, Breedlove has been commenting on Russian activities in eastern Ukraine, speaking of troop
advances on the border, the amassing of munitions and alleged columns of Russian tanks. Over and over
again, Breedlove's numbers have been significantly higher than those in the possession of America's
NATO allies in Europe. As such, he is playing directly into the hands of the hardliners in the US
Congress and in NATO.
The German government is alarmed. Are the Americans trying to thwart European efforts at mediation
led by Chancellor Angela Merkel? Sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments
as "dangerous propaganda." Foreign Minister Frank-Walter Steinmeier even found it necessary recently
to bring up Breedlove's comments with NATO General Secretary Jens Stoltenberg.
But Breedlove hasn't been the only source of friction. Europeans have also begun to see others
as hindrances in their search for a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine conflict. First and foremost
among them is Victoria Nuland, head of European affairs at the US State Department. She and others
would like to see Washington deliver arms to Ukraine and are supported by Congressional Republicans
as well as many powerful Democrats.
Indeed, US President Barack Obama seems almost isolated. He has thrown his support behind Merkel's
diplomatic efforts for the time being, but he has also done little to quiet those who would seek to
increase tensions with Russia and deliver weapons to Ukraine. Sources in Washington say that
Breedlove's bellicose comments are first cleared with the White House and the Pentagon. The general,
they say, has the role of the "super hawk," whose role is that of increasing the pressure on America's
more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.
The U.S., including Obama, wants to strengthen the U.S. run NATO and thereby its influence in Europe.
And Europe, by losing business with Russia and risking war, is supposed to pay for it.
The German public, despite tons of transatlantic propaganda, has well understood the game and the
government can not escape that fact. It has to come back to some decent course and if that means trouble
with Washington so be it. The foreign ministers of Germany, France and the U.S. are currently meeting
in Paris and Secretary of State Kerry will not like what he will hear:
In Berlin, top politicians have always considered a common position vis-a-vis Russia as a necessary
prerequisite for success in peace efforts. For the time being, that common front is still holding,
but the dispute is a fundamental one -- and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful
without the threat of military action. Additionally, the trans-Atlantic partners also have differing
goals.
Whereas the aim of the Franco-German initiative is to stabilize the situation in Ukraine, it
is Russia that concerns hawks within the US administration. They want to drive back Moscow's influence
in the region and destabilize Putin's power. For them, the dream outcome would be regime change
in Moscow.
Europe has no interest in regime change in Russia. The result would likely be a much worse government
and leader then the largely liberal Putin.
The U.S., the empire of chaos, does not care what happens after a regime change. In the view of
U.S. politicians trouble and unrest in the "rest of the world" can only better the (relative) position
of the United States. If production capabilities in Europe get destroyed through war the U.S. could
revive its export industries.
It seems that at least some European leaders now understand that they got played by Washington and
they are pushing back. A Eurasian economic sphere
is in Europe's interest. Will Obama accept their view and turn off the hawks or will he escalate
and risk the alliance with Europe? A first sign looks positive. The U.S.
called
off, on short notice, a plan to train Ukrainian National Guard (i.e. Nazi) forces:
[O]n Friday, a spokesman for US forces in Europe, confirmed the delay in a statement and said: "The
US government would like to see the Minsk agreement fulfilled."
"The training mission is currently on hold but Army Europe is prepared to carry out the mission
if and when our government decides to move forward," the statement said.
Some Europeans, like the writers in the piece above, still see Obama as a reluctant warrior pushed
to war by the hawks in his own government and the Republicans in Congress. But the surge in Afghanistan,
the destruction of Libya, the war on Syria and the trouble in Ukraine have all been run by the same
propaganda scheme: Obama does not want war, gets pushed and then reluctantly agrees to it. It is a
false view. The buck stops at his desk and Nuland as well as General Breedlove and other official hawks
concerned about their precious bodily fluids
are under Obama's direct command. He can make them shut up or get them fired with a simple 30 second
phone call. As he does not do so it is clear that he wants them to talk exactly as they do talk. Obama
is the one driving the neocon lane.
The Europeans should finally get this and distance themselves from that destructive path.
Posted by b on March 7, 2015 at 01:09 PM |
Permalink
The general, they say, has the role of the "super hawk," whose role is that
of increasing the pressure on America's more reserved trans-Atlantic partners.
It's rather insulting to the EU that the dumbass, gutless, Yankees would appoint a war-mongering
chicken-hawk called Breedlove to lecture them about The Importance Of Being Ernest - about hating
Putin.
"the dispute is a fundamental one -- and hinges on the question of whether diplomacy can be successful
without the threat of military action."
Insisting that the "threat of military action" always be present during the practice of international
diplomacy is a fundamental repudiation of international law as proscribed by the United Nations at
the end of WW2. In the current Orwellian situation, the foreign policy hawks (in particularly
the Anglo 5 Eyes countries) articulate policy informed by this repudiation while on the other hand
insisting that they are motivated by upholding mid-century international law. Here is John Boehner
speaking for a bi-partisan Congressional committee quoted today in the Washington Times:
"It is even more than simply a component of a revisionist Russian strategy to redraw international
borders and impose its will on its neighbors,it is a grotesque violation of international law, a challenge
to the west and an assault on the international order established at such great cost in the wake of
World War II."
When this crisis in Ukraine first broke out last year it made no sense at all for Obama to have
let Nuland carry on as she was doing. He could have defused the whole thing simply by firing Nuland
or I thought. However, his actions over the past year seem to show that this was his policy as b says
here.
It is hard to understand why He and Kerry have pursued this policy. For sure, as was predictable
one year ago it has turned their widely touted 'pivot to asia' into irrelevancy. It has directly forced
China and Russia into a stronger alliance. Those are some big prices to pay for our provocations against
Russia.
So why did we do it? I will guess. Putin's 2010 speech proposing a common economic union from Vladivostok
to Lisbon must have been seen as a very serious threat by some powerful forces in the US. Fear of
losing or at least lessening US hegemony over Europe was probably a major factor in deciding to 'pivot
back to Europe'. Our influence there must have seemed much more important than Asia or even the ME.
Ukraine provided an opportunity to drive a wedge between Russia and Europe or so US power brokers
thought. As a secondary reason, at least one that brought the US military on board with the new policy,
is that a new cold war with Russia provided an opportunity to reinvigorate NATO, that has always been
a favorite play thing the army and airforce. After the collapse of the Soviet Union it was very difficult
to justify NATO's existence.
It would be ironies of ironies if this crisis now forces Germany to declare its independence and
work harder to rebuild relations with Russia and in the process become a major player in the Eurasian
Union. This is what Pepe Escobar just suggested this last week is a possibility.
Some Europeans, like the writers in the piece above, still see Obama as a reluctant warrior
pushed to war by the hawks in his own government and the Republicans in Congress. But ...
You may be correct. But:
You haven't established that the evident appearance of `reluctance' is a "false view". In theory,
"The buck stops at his desk". The obvious fact that it hasn't, however, is -- at best -- by no means
creditable.
I can hardly wait 'til the `progressive' Twittercrats start calling for Obama to "go nuclear" with
Putin. ...
#2, I guess he's taking his cues from Noodles, here's some highlights from her Match 4 address to
Foreign Affairs Committee, lifted from Stephen Lendman
calledd murdered US-funded, Boris Nemtsov
a "freedom fighter, Russian patriot and friend."
...called Ukraine "central to our 25 year Transatlantic quest for a 'Europe whole, free and at
peace.'
Nuland called US planned and implements year ago Maidan violence using well-trained Nazi thugs
"peaceful protest(s) by ordinary Ukrainians."
"They braved frigid temperatures, brutal beatings and sniper bullets…Ukraine began to forge a new
nation…holding free and fair election…and undertaking deep and comprehensive economic and political
reforms."
Claims-
"enhance(d) (Ukrainian) transparency in public procurement, reduce(d) government inefficiency and
corruption, (laws) making the banking system more transparent, and measures to improve the climate
for business"
"it's "building a peaceful, democratic, independent" nation
... Crimea "under illegal occupation"
in Eastern Ukraine, Russia and its separatist puppets unleashed unspeakable violence and pillage."
"MH17 was shot down. Hundreds of Russian heavy weapons and troops poured across the border, fueling
the conflict."
"Sixteen Russian uninspected 'humanitarian convoys' entered Ukraine in violation of agreements
with the Ukrainian government, the ICRC and the international community."
"Donetsk airport was obliterated…Debaltseve, a key rail hub beyond the ceasefire lines, fell to
separatist and Russian forces six days after Minsk was signed…"
"This is a manufactured conflict controlled by the Kremlin, fueled by Russian tanks and heavy weapons;
financed at Russian taxpayers' expense and costing the lives of young Russians…"
Bizzaro world. Completely upside down from reality. And no I'm not trying to one up you #2! It's
just crazy stuff coming out of the mouths of every politician and official and media whore, I've never
seen anything like it.
Good report, b especially including the fact that this is a bipartisan project led by the Liberal
Democrats.
The European actions especially Germanys may be more or less than they appear to be. I doubt
that Germany would or could stand in the way of US demands but they may be facilitating an escape
path for the US to use to avoid a more dangerous confrontation with Russia.
thanks b.. some good points in your post which i strongly share, this one in particular - The U.S.,
the empire of chaos, does not care what happens after a regime change. In the view of U.S. politicians
trouble and unrest in the "rest of the world" can only better the (relative) position of the United
States.
when does this nightmare called us foreign policy die?
"Europe has no interest in regime change in Russia. The result would likely be a much worse government
and leader then the largely liberal Putin."
What is wrong with those two sentences? First, "Europe",
a landmass in western Eurasia usually demarcated by the crests of Ural and Caucasus mountain chains
and Ural river. The text refers mostly to the governments of France and Germany. Who are "NATO hawks"?
Danes and Norwegians, latter day Varangians? Or Latvians and Estonians who would like to have a re-match
of Battle on Ice?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_on_the_Ice_(Lake_Peipus)
Second, "The result …" This has to be a joke. "Europe" has many headaches with the governments
of Greece and Hungary, but can they change them? Actually, in the case of Greece, this sentence could
make sense, because in Greece they have a real opportunity of causing a government crisis and getting
a more extreme government. But in the case of Russia, it is only a question of having a long-term
gain in mutually assured economic destruction, or not.
Double-talk is bread and butter of diplomacy, but we simple folk can afford to express ourselves
more directly. The real problem in arming Ukraine is that the government there is untrustworthy and
it would probably use the aid to further neglect the economy and concentrate even more on futile military
endeavor, and it could also commit some atrocities as it would be at it. Being "a little bit Nazi"
is perfectly fine with Baltic governments and Croatia, plus USA and Canada, could be fine with Hungary
but the leader there is constantly on the prowl for good deals and just now got one from Putin, and
causes mixed feeling elsewhere.
So the trillion dollar question for most responsible European leaders is if US is more trustworthy
than Poroshenko crew?
Yes, good analysis. Especially the Empire of Chaos' goal of reimplementing the aftermath of WWII
: everyone outside North America flat on their backs and the US the colossus by virtue of still standing.
But ...
' Will Obama accept their view and turn off the hawks or will he escalate and risk the alliance
with Europe? ... Obama is the one driving the neocon lane. '
Whether it's the neocon line or in the neocon lane, Obama's not driving. Never has been. He was
hired to sit behind the wheel of the neoliberal, neocon drone of state, operated by 'pilots' from
Langley, the Pentagon, Wall Street - seemingly by all three, via rapid context switch in pseudo-parallel.
The reason US policy seems to lurch ever more violently toward disaster is because none of the
actors actually implementing it by turn are identified. The Nihilist Nobel Peace Prize Laureate gets
dunked everytime, hauls himself out of the tank, climbs back up on the stool, makes faces and jeers
at the crowd throwing balls at the trip target ... all absurdly trying to effect a change in policy.
It's just a job ... 2,236 days down, 686 days till payday.
Thanks for the analysis with Russia at the center rather than the USA. Catchy restatement
of the difference between 'the chicken then the egg' vs 'the egg then the chicken'.
I'm rooting for
Russia, and Putin's been in charge there. Of course, I'm really rooting for my USA, but for my USA
to survive the present oligarchy must be defeated : the Chicken's neck must be wrung and its carcasse
flung into the stew pot.
it is my opinion that the German government led by Mrs Merkel is a lot more involved in the crisis
that is Ukraine than is being discussed in this forum. There was quite a lot of support for Tymoshenko
from Merkel including her drive to boycott the Ukraine when Tymoshenko had been imprisoned for embezzlement.
she was also promoting Vitaly Klitschko for the longest time abruptly ending when Vickie Nuland
let it be known that he was not accceptable as a leader of Ukraine.
The German government has been a very willing stooge of the US in causing or continuing the unrest
in Ukraine. That many people in Germany have suffered due to this behavior from sanctions and embargoes
on both the European side as well as the Russian side might be a consequence that the German elite
decided they could live with rather than simply something forced upon them from the US.
As far as I can tell, the fecal matter hit the air moving device right after Yanukovich decided
to maintain close economic ties with Russia rather than throw in with the EU. EU for all intents and
purposes Germany.
"The U.S., the empire of chaos, does not care what happens after a regime change. In the view
of U.S. politicians trouble and unrest in the "rest of the world" can only better the (relative) position
of the United States."
And it does not appear that the US cares what happens to Europe, either. If sanctions on Iran hurt
European business, meh. If sanctions on Russia push Europe back into recession...meh.
I felt like I was reading the lyin-ass New York Times. (How do these so-called journalists get ANY
work done with all that CIA/StateDept/JSOC cock in their mouth? Inquiring minds want to know. Anyway…)
Germany is presented like an old grandma, wringing her hands and saying, "Oh, mercy me! Can't we
all just get along?" … If it wasn't for that dang Gen. Breedlove…except, well, he's actually right,
don't you know, except, OK, he exaggerates a bit. There's LOTS of Russia aggression, and we have proof
we won't show you…but not as much as he says. I mean, credibility, and all, right?…And that
Vicki Nuland, well, she's bitch we all agree, but she gets things done and sometimes you need to get
tough, don't ya know. She "loves Russia" (yeah, I bet…like I love a nice rare steak….sliced sooooo
thin.) So…come on, dial it back a little won't you guys over in Langley…?
This seemed to me like CIA drizzle from Der Spigot!
A few carefully breaded pieces of True served with a piquant sauce of Lies and a side of Dissembling
and Disinformation. One of those articles that is structured like, "yeah, true…BUT!"
ToivoS @ | 3
Putin's 2010 speech proposing a common economic union from Vladivostok to Lisbon must have been
seen as a very serious threat by some powerful forces in the US.
So says Mike Whitney in an important post re Nemtsov's assassination over at Counterpunch. I agree
with you and him. I wonder what Uncle Ruslan thinks? He must have some ideas, having lived with Graham
Fuller for all this those years.
Colinjames @ 5
Those excerpts really infuriated me. I have the most terrible desire to bitch slap Vicki Nudelman
until she falls down and begs me to stop. I see her face and my hand itches. I need to stop watching
Jess Franco movies.
Wayoutwest @ 6
The European actions especially Germanys may be more or less than they appear to be. I doubt
that Germany would or could stand in the way of US demands but they may be facilitating an escape
path for the US to use to avoid a more dangerous confrontation with Russia.
Ayuh. I agree, with you (see above) --and dan of steele's very excellent and needful post at
13. Germany's in this shit up to their eyeballs. I recall reading in "The Brothers" that after
WW2 the CIA just basically took over (and presumably still owns) German intelligence. Took their Nazis
in and kept all the spy lines and assets. Gladio was an outgrowth of that, I guess.
But I don't think the blood-thirsty vampires in the US can dial it back. They are all up in that
snatch (to slightly paraphrase a vulgar version of the Petraeus bio's title that actually got shown
on US news.)
Piotr Berman's delightful rants at 18 @ 19
What interesting ideas and insights you bring to the discussion. If you don't mind saying, are
you German? If I was a German citizen I would be very upset and I have read that, like here in the
States, this Ukraine shit combined with NSA spying combined with that book about how all the media
are CIA assets has caused a crisis of confidence between reasonably-informed citizens and dissembling
government, media, military, etc.
I agree with all the posters here saying that Obama has never had hold of the levers of power. A few,
yes. But what with the "tunneling" of political appointees transformed into civil servants at the
end of the Bush admin…yeah, no. And that's not the only reason…just one.
Certainly Germany is covetous of Russia/the Ukraine. And Merkel, like Obama, knows how to get
along by going along with the ones who brung her. Used to be the Russians in East Germany, are now
the Americans in West/Unified Germany.
Both are puppets, 'loyal' to the their puppeteers. The rest of the EU apparat are in the pocket
of the US, and dance to the same tune piped to Obama.
Germany on its own is not capable of subduing Russia, yet hopes to be in position to reap the benefits
of the US' destruction of same.
They're all losers, betting on making a killing, benefiting from their neighbors' collapse. Their
neighbors have other ideas ... must have to survive. TIAA.
Love your vampires and vultures scenario. Tolstoy's Vourdalak or the folkloric Russian
Волколак or Volkolak is what I've been thinking of late, because I am a Mario Bava kind of gal.
You know, Russia is one of the few countries NOT 110% indebted to German/London/Wall Street/Brussels
banks. Seems to me that definitely has something to do with all this. They've got something to plunder.
(Lotta gold. yum!) I bet there's some truth to the assertion that the flaming tire of blame for global
economic collapse is being readied for Russia's neck...just in case. We're very close.
But perhaps there is no one Germany. I can only suppose that it must be like it is here in the
US...different factions with their own power bases pulling their own levers.
@24 I think the plan was for a rapid victory in Ukraine and Putin just stomping his feet. Keeping
Crimea, the uprisings, and the general thuggery/incompetence in Kiev weren't in the plans. The Chinese
didn't defend Russia against accusations about flight #mh17, the Chinese openly scoffed at the West
not even giving fools like Kerry the time of day.
German firms were supposed to win contracts
replacing Russian firms not see the SCO grow and face losses from self-imposed sanctions. Merkel
and people in her sphere overdid the rhetoric. Voters won't forget a major propaganda change, and
Merkel and her ilk know this but can't see how to get out of the mess especially with Kiev in need
of European cash.
So, you seem to be saying that this is rather like what WoW maintains...an offering
of an exit ramp to the US...because Germany really, really wants off this highway to hell.
Hideous to think they were all for it when it looked like easy rapings and little to no consequences.
International finance needs to be dismantled. That's what's behind all this shit. Bankster's wars.
The practices of Ms. Nuland (taking cookies out to support the demonstrators during the "Maidan" actions)
echoed exactly those of Amb. Robert Ford in Syria. In both cases it was a strange perversion and repudiation
of traditional standards of diplomatic practice. It was not just a Nuland aberration.
And we've
seen the outcome, a few years later, in both these war-ravaged countries. God help the people of both
countries.
Interesting points you make. I believe what we have here IS the pivot to Asia, - through
the backdoor. The US is haunted by the inevitable rise of Eurasia as a superpower. And, the fact is,
the "pivot" was unrealistic and a rather silly strategy. China's New Silk Road Economic Belt, both
rail and maritime - stretching from Beijing through Russia and across Europe to Madrid (with spurs
to India, Iran, the ME and down the African continent) - was a preemptive strike that neutered US
aspirations. Even worse, it's already funded.
Picture the US on the globe: Isolated and alone, separated from the lively Eastern Hemisphere by
two vast oceans. Adrift, stewing in its own juices, in desperate need of a world war to elevate it
once again out of its economic doom and into super-stardom.
This is further evidenced by the US desperation over the TPP and TTIF. It has reached a fever pitch,
with endless negotiations inside the super-secret US "cone of silence." For the US, these corporate-ruled
trade agreements are their last hope for hegemony over global trade, especially now that the Petrodollar
is dead. (Another consequence of the Ukraine stupidity.) But, both trade treaties seem to be failing
badly (there are anti-TTIF demonstrations throughout Germany today). In any event, China rendered
them both irrelevant with APEC and the New Silk Road, which popped into existence the very instant
that the US stepped into the Ukraine tar pit. For China, they are done deals. Even Australia and New
Zealand have come to their senses and seem to be climbing on board.
Surely, Europe already knows this. They've seen many empires decline. I suppose its only prudent
to string the US along and contain the chaos....
Well, no one knows whether either one of them will continue to exist, do they? The Kremlin's intention
is clearly to keep Ukraine's territory as it is (sans Crimea; that question is closed), but
Ukraine is increasingly entering into full-spectrum social collapse, so wha the outcome will be is
unpredictable, especially since the Ukraine was an artificial country to begin with, patched together
from the territories of other countries.
As for Syria, I am all for secular states in the Islamic world, like Syria and Iraq, Afghanistan,
and Libya before the US destroyed them. Our fan of the Islamic State Wayoutwest can say much
more about this than I can, but it is possible that states created by Sykes-Picot will disappear,
to be replaced by a caliphate. In the larger scheme of things, that would be a good thing because
(1) even though the caliphate would initially have a regressive form of Islam, once Arabs are in
control of their own destiny, they will not fear engaging in reforms;
(2) a caliphate would create one more pole for the emerging multipolar world.
@26 They are giving Obama an out and blame can be heaped on Nuland and Breedlove. Rasmussen didn't
make the Der Spiegel article, and he is completely deranged as anyone outside of GOP politics.
IMHO
Obama only responds to extreme embarrassment. Offering him an out won't work without tying Obama and
Nuland at the hip.
It's overlooked, but in 2012 when Obama came out for gay marriage, he cloaked his support in nonsense
about state rights but only after his campaign machine had worked against an effort in North Carolina
to defeat anti-gay/woman/child referendum. There were political reasons, but there was a growing anger.
Biden saw this and just randomly announced Obama's pro gay marriage views. It took three days, but
Obama got around to tepidly endorsing a form of gay marriage. Obama only acted because Biden forced
his hand. It took almost two weeks after everyone in the U.S. knew Shinseki from the Veteran Affairs
Department for Obama to dismiss him when Shinseki should have been fired right away, but Obama only
acts when faced with total embarrassment.
Obama is a puppet. Cheney, Kissinger, Negroponte, GHWBush and friends, CIA, Brzezinski, Rockefeller,
etc. Deep State pulls his strings. Obama was himself a CIA protege at BIC. There are no pesky
principles to contend with.
And he is not allowed to fire Nuland or any other neocon warmonger.
Did you see what they did to JFK for stepping out of line?
@ jfl | 11
But exactly!
Obama's not driving. Never has been. He was hired to sit behind the wheel of the neoliberal,
neocon drone of state, operated by 'pilots' from Langley, the Pentagon, Wall Street - seemingly by
all three, via rapid context switch in pseudo-parallel.
The reason US policy seems to lurch ever more violently toward disaster is because none of the
actors actually implementing it by turn are identified.
Although it seems there are two schools of thought about that around here, this has been my assumption
from the beginning.
@3 ToivoS
Forgot to mention,: You spoke of consequences. That is of particular interest, I believe, and speaks
to the destiny of the US as it stumbles about on the world stage, without future awareness.
It is hard to understand why He and Kerry have pursued this policy. For sure, as was predictable
one year ago it has turned their widely touted 'pivot to asia' into irrelevancy. It has directly
forced China and Russia into a stronger alliance. Those are some big prices to pay for our provocations
against Russia.
There are more than a few significant unintended consequences that have come in short order as a result
of the Ukraine blunder. For example:
Certainly killing the Petrodollar is a big one, which was the natural result of pushing China and
Russia into the biggest oil/gas deal in world history, specifically written to bypass the dollar.
Compelling Gazprom to divert the destination of the South Stream pipeline under the Black Sea
from Bulgaria to Turkey, with the distribution hub ending in Greece. So now Turkey and Greece control
the fuel coming into West and South Europe. That's quite the geopolitical accomplishment.
Pushing Iran into the BRICS. Russian allies are pulling together in many interesting ways these
days. US sanctions have become toothless.
The oil pricing scheme backfiring on the US economy. I'm of the school that oil overproduction
was a direct attack on Russia and the usual suspects: Syria, Iran, and Venezuela. I'm also of the
opinion that the US has lost control of OPEC.
The US is paying a mighty high price for its neocon folly.
In response to questions, I used my real name, I am Polish citizen living in USA.
European elite,
including Germany and France, are almost instinctively aligning themselves with American elite, but
they take exception to a favorite American trick: penciling a grandiose plan to be paid by EU.
Russian counter-sanctions fall on Europeans, and it is pointless to quibble if "dollar is dead"
-- it is not, but USA will not pay to integrate Turkey and Ukraine with EU, to cite some of the grandiose
ideas. German conservatives in particular are notorious bean counters, they generously paid to integrate
Eastern Germany, but are much less enthusiastic to have foreign beneficiaries. (In Poland, the consensus
is that it is OK to help Ukrainians, provided that it will not cost anything. There is also a minority
that hates Ukrainians more than Russians, and younger folks seem not to care at all.)
As it is, EU duly enacted sanctions on Iran, Syria and Russia, and Merkel is resolute at sending
mixed signals, so to some extend there is no "divorce". If anything, they are on the same wavelength
as Obama. Recall how Europe resisted joining Bush jr. war in Iraq. "New Europe", including Poland,
provided a bunch of little contingents, and that proved to be quite unpopular domestically. Even so,
regime change in Libya was accomplished mostly by Europeans, and this is perhaps one of the unique
successes in history that has a dearth of claimants. On the heals of that feat, even ever supine Brits
rebelled when they had a chance to repeat the success in Syria. The belief that "Americans surely
know what they are doing" is eroding even as we scribble. But so far, there is hardly any "European
alternative".
I guess Putin will graciously lift sanctions on Hungarian and Greek produce, Ukraine will get some
weapons and training, but not a hell lot -- seriously, what scale of military aid would truly make
a difference?
@35 piotr.. thanks for pointing out euro's role in libya and how nothing is going to change, as i
personally believe just like the usa is bought and paid for, so is germany and france.. to suggest
there will be much of a fracture is to suggest the international banker mafia don't have these politicians
on the same page. i think they do.. whether they get elected again, or the required politicians to
do the job of the bankers do - i think they do..
as for obama being anything other then a rubber
stamp - i agree with @31 fast freddy.. step out of line and look what you will get.. it is hard not
to be cynical..
@36 tiktok.. what a pathetic pos we have for a leader here in canada, but like i say about most
of these western leaders and to which i include harper - they are all beholden to the same narrow
interests that have nothing to do with the common people's interest.. they continue to think we are
stupid or worse..
so far, there is hardly any "European alternative".
There does not need to be any European alternative. And the EU is dominated by Germany, the intelligence
services of which, as someone here observed recently, are infiltrated by the CIA (although there was
a report that Germany is now setting up a branch of its intelligence service independent of USG).
The alternative is Russia. It is too late for Europeans to come up with alternatives. (They
did that first with Hegel and then with Marx, but neither attempt held.) Europeans just need to realize
that since the world is becoming multipolar, they belong in the Eurasian pole, not a contrived Atlanticist
one.
Russia has grave flaws, an Europeans can help Russians fix those, if Europeans make a break with
the predatory and anti-human Anglosphere.
The push back is far too late. The gorgon Nuland and Dr Strangelove himself Zed Breszinski testifying
before the mouth breathers of the foreign affairs committee this week continued to ratchet up the
rhetoric:
"I wonder how many people in this room or this very important senatorial committee really anticipated
that one day Putin would land military personnel in Crimea and seize it. I think if anybody said
that's what he is going to do, he or she would be labeled as a warmonger. He did it. And he got away
with it. I think he's also drawing lessons from that. And I'll tell you what my horror, night-dream,
is: that one day, I literally mean one day, he just seizes Riga, and Talinn. Latvia and Estonia.
It would literally take him one day. There is no way they could resist. And then we will say, how
horrible, how shocking, how outrageous, but of course we can't do anything about it. It's happened.
We aren't going to assemble a fleet in the Baltic, and then engage in amphibious landings, and then
storm ashore, like in Normandy, to take it back. We have to respond in some larger fashion perhaps,
but then there will be voices that this will plunge us into a nuclear war
I'll tell you what Brezinski's real horror night dream is dying before the US attempts a full on
takeover of Russia. Whether Germany likes it or not they'll continue to be a pawn in the dark lords
8 dimensional chess game. It's a little late to be thinking twice now that the breadbasket of Europe
is a basket case. The hope is that the whooping that's coming to the USSA shakes out the aristocracy
that brought it about and sends them fleeing with nothing but their assholes.
Oddly, Brzezinski himself not too long ago recommended the "Finlandization" of Ukraine. The neo-cons
and armaments industry have adopted a cartoonish version of his theories -- which, in any case, hark
back to the Geographical Pivot theory dating to 1904! It's become a crude dogma that doesn't even
rise to the level of ideology.
1) "Special British-US relationship" - US has been
a British colony for at least last 100 years, ie. a muscle-man for the Rothschildes-Jewish-Zionist
cabal with its HQ in the City of London, Israel plays a "mad dog" role for them, Canada, Australia,
and many other in the Commonwealth have their parts to play too. Because Obama since the evening of
his reelection turned against the Crow Corporation, they have been forced to increasingly rely on
themselves and other subjects - notice rapidly intensifying British military presence in the Central
(Poland, which is situated at the very heart of the continent) and Eastern Europe (Baltic republics),
as well as in the ME - Bahrain, police force now on the Turkish-Syrian border. Also British lying
propaganda has been very intense, by far the worst in the EU. The neocons, McCain, Soros et al respond
to the Rothschildes, always have. The British have been leading the charge recently and you will see
more and more of this soon.
2) Obama's team has been under the threats form the global criminal cabal many times itself. Security
breaches at the White House, warnings of assassination, "third force" trying to start a civil war
in the US by abusing the police powers and killing the police officers, fake social movements menacing
the White House with "marches" like the one of Jewish Adam Kokesh...
Summing up - it's been the City of London pulling the strings all along and Obama have been in
danger of a violent overthrow already for some time.
Juncker wies zugleich auf die organisatorischen und finanziellen Vorteile des Vorhabens hin. So würde
es zu einer intensiven Zusammenarbeit bei Entwicklung und Kauf von militärischem Gerät führen und
erhebliche Einsparungen bringen.
Brief translation: Juncker highlighted the organizatorial and financial advantages. Cooperation
in the development and procurement of military equipment could be shared and save considerable amounts.
[Vice President of the German Parliament (Bundestag) Claudia] Roth called Riyadh "the top terror
exporter in the Middle East," adding that "a large portion" of extremist militants in Syria, Afghanistan
and Iraq hail from Saudi Arabia.
Germany's guidelines on weapons exports make it "crystal clear
that deliveries cannot be made to such countries," she stressed.
"Besides the weapons deals, Germany is also discussing other trade ties with Saudi Arabia," she
said. "Pressure could certainly be brought to bear using these."
The results of a recent survey conducted for German daily Bild have shown that 78 percent of Germans
believe Berlin should stop selling arms to Saudi Arabia, while a further 60 percent favor breaking
off trade relations all together with the Persian Gulf monarchy due to its human rights violations.
Great place for the crack to open up/spread from/to Ukraine.
I would note that Merkel working with Timoshenko was more likely a tactical move - one in which Germany
would get some leverage vs. Russia regarding natural gas moving through Ukraine as well as benefits
within Ukraine.
This is very different than the American tactic of exaggerating ethnic tensions on order to create
a failed state a la Iraq, Libya, Afghanistan, ad nauseam. American doesn't necessarily intend to create
a failed state - the correct view is that the goal is a puppet regime, but a failed state in someone
else's backyard is almost as good...or good enough.
I'd also note that this is different than the British Empire tactic - the British would also arm
"their" rebels, but they would put skin in the game (soldiers on the ground) in order to ensure that
they wound up with the correct puppet regime.
It is still unclear to me whether the American abridgement of Byzantine/Ottoman/British Empire
tactics is an evolution or a devolution.
If the EU and Russia can edge the United States out of the situation, it is a win/win for everyone
except the US, who will have seen $5B and an old Cold War dream go up in smoke.
If the US can be ejected, it will be the EU and especially the Germans who have gained the most
mightily by the Maidan. The partition of Ukraine - getting rid of those parts that did vote more heavily
for the Party of Regions and the Communists, leaves the EU with a "Orange", oligarchical Ukraine forever.
A Ukrainian horse that the EU can hitch their currently broken cart to, a huge area for Germany to
dominate in the heart of Europe - (one of Germany's oldest dreams). It's not something I'd personally
wish on the Ukrainian population, but Ukraine becoming a proper EU member would require the suppression
of the Nazis who, if they are not, would at least be loud, violent, internal opposition allied with
the trouble-making USA, or at worst would try and wage a disruptive terrorist war over Crimea and
the East.
Would this situation be acceptable to Russia? Wins there would be the retention of Crimea with
no question as to its return to the rump Ukraine, plus the advantage of having the US out of the Ukraine
completely and having caused an EU/US fissure. The status of the East would have to be determined,
but it would seem that independence or becoming part of Russia would be the best bets there now that
they'd no longer be able to offset the vote of the far west.
Anyway, that's all details. The real good thing here - for people all over the globe - would be
that the war-making US elite would have been ejected from another region where they've been making
trouble.
So far when it comes to any "divide" all I've seen is rhetoric and posturing. Considering the Fourth
Reich and it's vassals are owned and controlled by the same puppet-masters I don't see any actual
schism happening. Small European countries that actively resist will find a "color" revolution brewing.
Large nations who actually push back will be hit with economic warfare. The courage to stand up for
their people and stop the lunatics in D.C. doesn't exist in the currant political actors in Europe.
I truly hope I'm wrong, but until we see DEEDS instead of mere WORDS...the steady slide toward war
will continue.
...To get back on topic, Russia Insider considers the broader question of the regime's attitudes;
the open fascism of the junta is I think at root of much of European unease.
Kiev's Drive to Dehumanize East
Ukrainians is certainly a key component of that mentality.
All the European leaders are compromised in some way, the NSA probably has everything they have written,
said, or done in a database. Merkel looks to have been involved in some shady activities in East Germany
if you look closely enough. Don't expect Europe to break from Pax Americana.
I think that the unease in Europe about the rise of open fascism is superficial and more a
PR concern than true opposition at least among the Ruling Class. So long as fascism serve their purposes
and feeds their true agendas but remains obscured it is supported and protected.
OT again, many of us Oldies experienced music somewhat differently than today where albums or sides
of albums were how we enjoyed the performances. Even radio DJs were judged by the way they programmed
their shows and we were always in search of the perfect segway.
...On topic -- the fascism by itself is not too great a worry. That they're incompetent and it
will cost someone lots of money to fix things more so. Events may not break up "the Allies" now, but
with the proper moves and missteps by the varied parties involved.... Someone's planning a few moves
ahead, and I don't think it's DC. Sadly, we can't overlook the power of short-sighted deviousness.
It looks to me as if the differences between Obama and Merkel on Ukraine are tactical not strategic,
viz:
Merkel doesn't have to deal with the infamous American "bottom line" every 90 days, and this
gives her leisure to actually think about what she is doing.
German voters have a mind of their own and are not compliant stooges like American voters, who
only require a few weeks of cheap propaganda to go along with the most crackpot of schemes. The saying
"the burned child fears the fire" does not apply in their case.
The goal from Merkels point of view must be the neoliberal exploitation of Russia - not bringing
Ukraine into NATO, which is only useful in an aggressive war against Russia; or for use as a provocation
resulting in the removal of Putin.
Therefore Merkel has no qualms about putting the Western project against Russia on hold until a
more opportune time.
Hm, excellent article b, as always, though my first thoughts were, 'overly optimistic' ...
However, upon some reflection and reconsideration, there does seem to be a confluence/pattern of
events occurring recently, which may signal that a real 'Newer Great Game' may be afoot, in our currently
Unipolar, sole superpower, Empire dominated world.
The Minsk agreement was done without US involvement, in fact explicitly excluded US involvement,
and the subsequent events of the EU players give every indication of having continued in that vein
... ie. Germany and France clearly acting independent of the Empire ... Poroschenko exposed as
a powerless puppet, purely a pawn, a mere agent of influence of the US.
Now there are firm calls for no new sanctions by the EU, 'give Minsk a chance' ...
The reports re Breedlove/NATO and German governments new 'perspective' re Ukraine/Russia in this
thread ... effectively denouncing the Empires warmongering, baseless propaganda, and willingness to
have the EU 'go fuck itself' re Russia/Ukraine for no-ones benefit except the US. History, and US
geopolitical strategy repeats ...
Now the EU (President Junckers) calling for the creation of an EU Integrated Army ... with only
the UK and France so far having expressed concerns. France has always had a firm view to an independent
military, regardless of NATO. UK view is irrelevant as they are merely viewed as the US suborned 'spoiler'
in the EU, so again no surprise and no leverage/clout. Reports are Germany support the EU/Junckers
proposal ... claims an integrated EU army would be far more effective and significantly less costly,
as well as utilizing EU resources for the EU's benefit, not that of the US. Which would be quite true
if micro and macro duplication at all levels was reduced by allocating specific functions and roles
to relevant EU nations militaries within such a 'truly integrated' force ... for example, German Armored
Corps, French Naval/Marine forces, Spanish Airborne/Airmobile, Italian Air Defence, a smaller member
state to speciliaze as MPs, etc. The very proposal implicitly and explicitly would result in the dissolution
of NATO, which has only ever been a US political-military agency within Europe serving exclusively
the US interest. Such a proposal is NOT for the Empires benefit and very far from a trivial event.
The Empire appears to have completely missed this coming ...
Reports the German government has created a new 'independent' offshoot of the BND, ie. a true German
Intelligence service (or the seeds of ?) actually serving German National interests, as opposed to
the US created and ever since suborned BND since the end of WWII ... is this also happening 'under
the radar' in other EU states ?
Escalation of explicit diplomatic rhetoric calling out the prime US ally and Empire linchpin in
the ME, Saudi Arabia, as the major source of terrorism, in the War on Terra ...
The extensive Snowden revelations, and fallout (latest blatant example - GEMALTO sims), re AUSCANUKUSNZ
(Five-Eyes), could probably have led to the actual realization that there is the US and its four privileged
'Vassals', Australia, Canada, United Kingdom and New Zealand, first and foremost actually comprising
the 'West' as far as the Empire is concerned, and only then so called 'third tier' pseudo allies,
such as Germany, France, etc (which are treated as actual 'potential hostiles' by the five eyes),
and then lastly all the rest of the 'Barbarians' in the world ... all the Empires sweet words and
false comforts/assurances over the years may have finally come home to roost.
China and Russia, are clearly progressively entering ever closer into an integrated Political/economic/defence
anti Empire bloc at multiple levels ... significant overtures between Egypt and Russia, Russia and
Iran ... the BRICS economic and South American economic 'exit' from the domination of the Empires
Petrodollar and previous economic/political exploitation/dominance.
Perhaps the Empire and the five eyes have been so busy attempting to 'collect it all' and endlessly
pivot from here to there and back again, whilst playing divide and rule from one nation state to the
other, filled to the brim with their own exceptionalism, that they have missed the bigger picture,
missed seeing the new 'forest' emerging, having paid far to close attention to their brushfires and
all those individual trees ...
OTOH, however, there would appear to be enough concurrent events occurring quickly enough to envisage
the ground moving from under the feet of the Empire and the five eyes ... and in plain view ...
.. it is my opinion that the German government led by Mrs Merkel is a lot more involved in the
crisis that is Ukraine than is being discussed in this forum. -- dan of steele at 13.
You bet. Merkel is an unexamined mover in these stories. (Germany has paid penance and is so cool…not.)
Recall the break-up of Yugoslavia, under the radar Germany was the no 1 champion and mover, with the
US.
Merkel has been meddling in Ukraine since forever, due to for a large part to up EU expansionism
(Germany is the only country that benefits from the Eurozone, not in an evil or illegit way, all the
other countries agreed..), to stretch out again, for more territory, cheap labor, factories run at
low labor costs, the well-off in 'satellite' countries and elsewhere buying German products, finance
ad loans, and so on. See Poland.
German expansionism! (Not that France is any better but they have less clout so are wimpy followers.)
The Eurozone works like that: lend, give, money to poor 'southern' countries so that they buy your
goods, when they stop buying or believing, you cut them off, and look for new markets. Or downscale
etc.
Re. Ukraine, the fantasy was it could join the EU (not considered realistic by any reasoned analysts
or actors unless talking about 20 years down the road without war) and Merkel pushed that.
Cuddled up to the US who had other aims, to make it short, provoke Russia, the whole thing was
to be wrapped up with a lot of love-handshakes, as the Coup-Kiev Gvmt. was expected to maintain it's
hold on a 'unitary' country which would be, it goes without stating, open to new 'industrialism',
'farming', 'reforms' (open up for foreign capital to make huge profits), and/or from the Nuland-type
side, attack Russia by cutting ties, banning trade with Russia (see sanctions), forbidding Russian
influence, media, commerce, and pushing for war, etc.
Donbass ppl objected, rose up, and it turned out that the Ukr. Gvmt could not deliver, - no army
that could perform, no will, incompetence, also thieves...
These completely contradictory aims, of the EU and the US, are now public.
Many 'perhaps's and certainly not clear yet what the EU Army proposal truly indicates
yet, but Germany is clearly behind and for it ... Ultimately the EU is Germany-France and there are
many new possibilities emerging.
The geopolitical consequences of the reality of the Snowden revelations re the five-eyes conduct/actions/objectives
and falsity of supposed alliances for 'mutual' as opposed to exclusive benefit of the Empire at every
level may well have triggered recalculations amongst the 'pseudo allies' governments, this may well
be the case with Germany, at least.
Usually very pessimistic, in this instance 'overly optimistic', or momentarily envisioning an alternate
possible ?
Is it really in the EU interests to take a hit for the Empires benefit re Cold War 2.0 or the possibility
of WW3 or move towards a less Atlanticist future ?
@dh #50
With the single exception of the Romans - because they literally ruled everything - every other empire
always tries very hard to present the best front.
The British had their "White Man's Burden", the
US had the "American Dream" but which has since been switched with the "War on Terror".
No doubt because only the least informed believe that old lie anymore.
An European Army would be the final act of the divorce from US, since it would be
a de facto ending of NATO. No wonder why both US and their major "European" puppet UK radically
oppose the idea. NATO's purpose was not only to counter Soviet military, but also to make sure Germany
would never "rise again". That purpose is still biding and Germans know it. But under NATO umbrella,
there's not much they can do to restore even a glimpse of the military power they had in the past.
They "voluntarily" abdicate from developing nuclear weapons and most of their military spending is
restricted to defensive air/ground capabilities, instead of means of projecting power such as naval
vessels and long-range missiles. However, in an European unified defense system most of these restrictions
should be lifted so to allow Germany to fulfill its obligations to the European allies. Most of American
military bases would be rendered futile, and it's almost certain that NATO's nuclear silos stationed
in Europe would have to be redeployed elsewhere, since an European defense agreement would demand
full control of all military assets in European territory. Finally, Eastern Europe would turn to Germany
and France instead of US when dealing with Russia, thus bringing more political stability to the region
(violent "Maidans" would be less likely in the presence of foreign troops who, unlike Americans, have
to answer for their actions when they come back home).
Needless to say, all these events would be catastrophic for US global domination strategy, since
they would lose not only military control over strategic assets in Western Europe, but also major
influence in the only part of the European Union they are actually welcome today. But one should remember
none of this is new: since its creation European Union was conceived to have its own unified defense
system, but this part of the European pact was sabotaged by British and Americans from the beginning.
Even French nationalist leader De Gaulle became fond of the idea, but his efforts would be futile
while Germany was not reunified and European Union was still a project. And one should notice an unified
Europe is still a project today. Eurozone is crumbling, resentment among the periphery is running
high and both Germans and French know it. One of the necessary solutions for preserving European Union
is a unified defense system, for it would lift the minor associates defense spending burden while
allowing the major ones to exert much more effective political influence among them, so to prevent
that every economic crisis in those countries become a threat to the stability of the entire bloc
itself.
Noirette #63
Undoubtedly Germany played a role in Maidan and there's enough evidence of that, but I don't think
their objective was to produce a violent divorce between Ukraine and Russia. As far as I know German
ambassadors were the major force in bringing to the negotiating table both President Yanukovitch and
the opposition groups, who then signed the 21st of February agreement for Constitutional reform and
anticipated elections. This agreement was also supported by Russia, and since Germany is the natural
interlocutor for Moscow in "European" affairs, I assume the whole thing was arranged by Berlin. Problem
is, no one really expected what happened the day after - except of course the Americans who had already
decided to sabotage the deal and take it all for themselves, bypassing both Europe and Ukrainian "moderates"
(like Yulia Timoshenko) through bribing the major oligarchs and former members of Yanukovitch's cabinet
and the use of Right Sector thugs to attack Government buildings and seize power at once.
Germany won absolutely nothing with this outcome. Sure, Ukraine turned to West, but at what price?
Now it's a devastated and bankrupted country with no control over a large portion of its own territory.
And guess who will have to pay for their reconstruction? Yes, Germany. Merkel is anything but stupid.
She knew from the beginning how Russia would react if threatened in her most sensitive interests.
Georgia is not a far off memory for them. So yes, Germans would sure act to topple Yanukovicth if
they had the chance, but only in a way "negotiated" with Russia. And that's exactly what they thought
they had achieved in February 21st, 2014. Yanukovicth would be turned into a powerless President;
there was to be new elections and Merkel's favorite Timoshenko would certainly win; Ukraine would
join EU soon; and Russia would have to be satisfied with her Crimea's bases, and nothing more than
that. The German plan was going too well, until Vic Nuland decided to f.. the EU once again. And here
we are now.
It seems obvious to me that the EU - Germany - is much better off with Russia, the junior partner,
than it is with the USA, the dominant partner.
Ok... but that's the way Germany sees itself vis a vis Russia and the way the US sees itself vis
a vis Germany.
I guess the only question is on the downside of the switch ... how much pain can the US inflict
on Germany thereafter?
And that's relative to how much pain the US' vicious, one-sided schemes can elicit for Germany
(the EU) from the Russians. And that seems, everyday in every way, to be increasing.
I imagine that if the US does get a real war going with Russia they will have tipped the balance
... everything will then get unfrozen and move really quickly.
The reality will be apparent before news of it reaches our ears. Supersonically.
If the intent is to replace NATO would you declare it or justify it 'falsely' by using
the Empires propaganda justifications as a false cover ?
Again with the US puppet proposal crap, and why would the US want to create such a force when it
would undermine nay invalidate NATOs very reason for existence for the last 60 plus years. NATO has
been a political-military Trojan within Europe effectively controlled and literally commanded by the
US, serving US interests for all that time.
Respectively, and reluctantly your 'point' suggests you are either naive, a fool or trollish, perhaps.
Ed Lozano #66 touches on some relevant history and context if you are not aware of it ...
Ultimately nations only have and act on thier 'interests'.
Too much optimism in this thread. Heads of NATO, both European and US, have been urging NATO countries
to "spend more on defense" - also many US politicians. There is a faction in Germany that have
'dreams' of their own MIC. Ukraine offers the chance to fulfill those dreams, they're pushing hard
while they see the chance.
All but two of NATO members are headed by neoliberal scumbags, Greece and Hungary are the exceptions.
France and Germany lead the way. Merkel has always been a neoliberal, Hollande has come to it only
slightly reluctantly.
Neoliberalism is what US and EU have most in common - politically/economically. Very important.
I don't think Germany has given up on buying up and privatizing as much of Ukraine as they can; and
certainly the US based multinational corps are already buying Ukraine's assets - probably those corps
in Europe too.
Perhaps the Spiegel article is a kind of false flag - or not; nonetheless it airs out what I see
as a false resistance meme. Merkel, like Thatcher before her, is a committed neoliberal. THERE IS
NO ALTERNATIVE!
The fact that the main "cause" for EU Army is the need containing Russia changes nothing on the
discussion about EU-US "divorce". Containing Russia has always been the issue of any Western alliance.
Problem is, US and EU have major divergences about how to do it. US favors a far more provocative
and offensive approach, by positioning military bases, missile shields and naval fleets around Russian
border, and encouraging Russia's neighbors to cut their ties with Moscow and join Western partnerships.
Europe on the other hand advocate a strictly defensive pact, that respects Russia's interests and
influence over its near abroad.
The main reason for this divergence is quite easy to understand. European leaders know that in
the event of war with Russia, the battlefield will be in their own lands. US on the other hand has
nothing to risk and much to gain with a conflict between Russia and Europe, unless of course Russia
decides to end the World (but for some odd reason that possibility never comes into account for neocons).
But again, the divorce between US and EU is quite clear in this case. And I believe it's needless
to say Russia would strongly support an European Army proposal, even if it's main purpose was to counter
Russian military. For threats should be perceived not by one's alleged purposes, but by the means
one employs to achieve those purposes.
Yes, the powers that be did that to JFK when he stepped out of line. But they must know that, if they
did the same thing to Obama, there would be riots all over the country. So Obama has power that JFK
never had, but he's too cowardly or opportunistic to use that power.
Agreed, though the US has always been cowardly, has always avoided risking open conflict with
first world countries. It far prefers to have others fight it out between or amongst themselves and
benefit from picking up the spoils at little cost afterwards. Everyone else is weaker thier economies
damaged and the US relevant power enhanced.
See the Iran-Iraq war, see the US conduct in WWI, profiting handsomely throughout and only entering
the conflict at the last moment once Germany was already on her knees and France and UK were crippled.
Rinse and repeat in WwII letting the Nazis and Japanese Empire do their worst and handsomely profiting
from all sides until they were dragged in on Dec 07 41. The cost exacted from 'helping' the UK was
a takeover of their former empire and relegation to junior poodle vassal status. The UK was required
to pay every single last dollar owed including interest accrued for Lend Lease during WWII and they
only cleared the debt a few years ago.
The US doesn't want actual war with Russia, however, ongoing conflict both economic and low-medium
military in Europe weakens all the europeans at no cost to and for the further benefit of the Five-eyes.
It would seem the economic cost to Germany and to a lesser extent the rest of the EU regarding
Russia is more than acceptable to the US, which ultimately has little skin in the game, for the US
its a win-win, though apparently Germany and the EU? may be developing an entire different perspective,
again all comes back to national 'interests'. And there appears to be no upside for Europe's interests
re 'fuck the EU' ... even the somewhat rabid Poles are questioning the economic cost of Russia baiting
re sanctions which are only hurting Russia and EU, US cost/pain=nil.
You are right, too much naive folks here suddenly. When people say that the EU army
will somehow be "defensive" and will go against America's policies its just get too much to even comment
further.
The Military Commander of NATO (Supreme Allied Commander Europe - *barf*) is always a US General
Officer and says publicly exactly what he is instructed to say by DC (ie. Breedlove), his counterpart
the NATO Secretary-General supposedly speaks for all NATO members however due to the US largely rigging
the appointments has most often been little more than a rabid Atlanticist warmonger also receiving
his talking points from DC, former Anders Fogh Rasmussen having been one of the worst, and the current
Jens Stoltenberg is no better (he's a champion for NATO getting its very own Nukes, yay), hence there
isn't much room for other individual members of NATO to even get airtime re issues relative NATO.
Yes, the US Commander of NATO and the effectively US appointed Secretary-General sockpuppet and
lots of US politicians want the Europeans to spend a lot more of their Euros on an expanded NATO military
that the US commands, especially if its US armaments, and even more so if that caused the Russians
to have to waste more money to further counter/offset a NATO expansion, for the benefit of US interests.
Cost/pain to US=nil.
However, there has been little discernable success because of sustained resistance to this call
for some time now by NATO member countries, regardless of the over-the-top US propaganda re Russia
and Ukraine, as NATO members have better things to do with those Euros given the state of the EU economy
(austerity - public antipathy to military expenditure) since the GFC and the only beneficiary would
be the US including indirectly by further weakening the EU economy to further US economic advantage
globally. The indications are that even the UK poodle intends to further cutback, not expand, its
military budget after the upcoming election.
The selling points of this possible EU Army apparently being put forward by Junckers/Germany are
an EU Commander (ie. Not a US officer, rotating national appointment ?), under EU command serving
EU interests, supposedly greater effectiveness/efficiency/reduced duplication, and therefore purportedly
costing less Euros overall re current military expenditure (compared to US controlled NATO ?).
Nah, can't for the life of me see why the UK and US would be adamantly opposed ... *cough*
I would separate German policies in the rest of the EU/world with German policies within their
own borders.
A strong proxy for the presence of neoliberal economic policies is property prices. Nations which
undergo a property bubble - are almost always neoliberal. Germany in this respect had pretty much
the lowest property price growth of any EU nation.
If American foreign policy can engineer a war based around the Ukraine where European troops fight
russian troops at the same time as a major schism develops in Europe between the 'new Europeans' of
the Baltic states, Poland and the Czech republic and the old Europeans of France germany italy and
spain, the amerikan empire will have killed two birds with one stone.
I reckon the European schism
won't be splintering along such neat and tidy fault lines if it splinters at all, however.
While the old school euro politicians may be reluctant to go to war, I am unsure their military
leadership shares that view.
For too long Nato command structures have been trained with an American ethos and a value set likely
to see war as being 'a good thing'. The alacrity with which Nato tossed its European defense goal
aside to jump into Afghanistan and then encouraged Nato members to deploy to then, despite both deployments
being at odds with the wishes of their fellow citizens, ably illustrates the fault line between political
and military leadership which successive euro pols have desperately tried to conceal from their voters
In the immediate post war period the euro governments had little say in the matter but with the
occasional exception of france the bulk of european pols have been content to let amerika pick up
the training tab for staff officers. With the short term goal orientation typical of elected leaders,
most euro pols chose to believe they were getting 'free' training for their military commanders, rather
than the truth - that europe was paying vast sums for a military whose commanders would dance the
washington jig.
The short-sightedness of europe's pols has them choking their Greek brothers and sisters while
the euro continues to decline yet the US$ arcs ever upwards, and never asking themselves "why are
we working so hard to help amerika at the expense of fellow europeans?"
I have no doubt however much Merkel and co claim to oppose a full on war with Ukraine; instigated
at least in part by their own military leaders whose patriotism must be open to question, that in
the end they will acquiese to Nuland's strategy.
Not to do so would rquire vision and personal courage both of these in short supply among euro
neo-liberals.
Especially for Merkel there is an easy out. All she needs to do is to tap into the just below
the surface and rarely enunciated beliefs of a substantial number of her fellow citizens - that Germany
has the 'right' to expand its influence further east.
He is "President" yes, but is he really? Or is he just a token face for the McCain´s and the other
white House plantation owners to hold up for the 99%, a mere House n*gger?
Everytime the man open his mouth accompanied as always by his Telepromter or advisors, even then
puerile stupidities ansd ridicolous threats comes out. I think he is doing a better characterization
of himself than the North Koreans possibly could imagine...
The whole purpose of NATO from inception was to undermine and suborn the military
command of the NATO members military forces to US control for the benefit of the Empire. To have
leverage of those militaries and direct command influence outside of their 'sovereign' governments.
To keep Germany 'down'. Many Non-US-UK NATO officers are very aware indeed of what NATO really is,
US provided 'training' or not. De Gaulle was well aware of the threat and gave NATO 'the finger' many
times.
Five-eyes military officers are routinely utilized by their intelligence agencies to actively and
aggressively cultivate and suborn any military officer who is not Five-eyes. The same process is aggressively
pursued by the intelligence agencies against their counterparts amongst their tier three and four
pseudo-allies such as Germany, France, Italy, etc. This has been going on for many decades.
The Chinese learnt this lesson during WWII and under no circumstances allow any officer with Operational/Line
command in the PLA to have direct contact with US military counterparts except under very strict circumstances.
The PLA has a dedicated corps of officers to conduct such interaction and liasion who will never
be given PLA Operational/Line commands in their career as a result. To say the least, this really
pisses the US off no end. A PR/Liaison officer in the PLA is of no use as an agent or future agent
of influence given such policies, bummer.
These 'harmless' military-military and intelligence-intelligence interactions have been the very
basis/foundation stone of the vast majority of the coups and destabilization operations the US has
conducted on every continent since WWII.
There is the Five-eyes and then every other country on the planet, who are merely given different
ratings of 'hostile' or 'enemy' and treated accordingly, regardless of any public utterings re so
called 'alliances' and 'partnerships'.
'Old Europe' has dragged its feet and more many times despite dictats from the US. Latin America
provides many examples of where the US polices/actions are ultimately counter-productive, compare
its current state to the 60's-70's-80's absolute US dominance.
Regardless of US Neoliberal politics/virus the serving militaries of NATO as a whole would be bound
more tightly to their own communities and individual national interests, should push come to shove,
me thinks, given histories lessons.
IF the EU is to get out from under US domination/control/influence which is more and more
counter to its own and europes interests (and many of its individual nations interests), it has to
create separation of its intelligence services from the Five-eyes and take back control of its own
military commands and agencies. A very big IF indeed ...
They still want to play the war propaganda game. Here we go. Shawn Walker writings. Foreign Office
talking points. What not this Illya Yashin (not sure if he was co-leader
of Nemtsov's opposition party then), involved with distribution to protesters several millions
in West-supplied cash that were discovered at Ksenia Sobchak apartment during Russian color revolution
of 2012 ?
The NEW Cold War is back with a vengeance. Similar lineup but very different ideologies in conflict.
Before you had atheistic communism against religious capitalism, now the roles are reversed. America
and England are now resembling the old socialist USSR and Red China, while Russia and China are now
increasingly coming to resemble the formerly religious and capitalistic America and England. What
irony... OMG one thing is the same, eminent Nuclear War...
richiep40 -> Jose C. Sandoval
We will never know who started the fire in Odessa, The Guardian.
What happened to the open and transparent investigations into the shootings in Maidan, the fire in
Odessa and the downing of the Malaysian aircraft I wonder ?
VladimirM
"Putin has said he has taken "personal control" of the investigation"
The phrase has sparked a sort of controversy here, some people are even using it as a proof of conspiracy.
It's mainly because they are not aware of what this expression actually means. The phrase "взять под личный контроль" in Russian does not mean that Putin is personally in charge
of the team of investigators giving orders which line to follow or not, who to charge or arrest or
not.
It simply means that police and security service are informing him regularly about the progress
in the investigation, meetings or briefings may be held, reports are being made, etc., etc. The importance
of the case is unprecedented, so the people, resources, etc. must be involved, engaged in the same
unprecedented scale. The highest level of control is just facilitating all this as well as cooperation
and coordination of law-enforcement agencies.
That's what this eye-catching phrase means.
This is what a political assassination looks like American-style. "After two years of guerrilla warfare,
leading Péralte to declare a provisional government in the north of Haiti, Charlemagne Péralte was
betrayed by one of his officers, Jean-Baptiste Conzé, who led disguised US Marines Sergeant Herman
H. Hanneken (later meritoriously promoted to Second Lieutenant for his exploits) and Corporal William
Button into the rebels camp, near Grand-Rivičre Du Nord.[1]:215-217"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charlemagne_P%C3%A9ralte
Solongmariane 9 Mar 2015 14:41
Contrary to JFK & Robert Kennedy, Martin Luther King, Isaac Rabin .!!!! .we get a lot of arrested
suspects. It's a conjuration, and with so much complices it will possible to get informations. Objectivily,
I don't see why Putin will need to eliminate physically Nemtsov, because he didn't exist before his
assassination.
It was so easy to destroy him politically, with the kind of life he has ( too much women). It's
the west who created a anti-Putin heros, for his propaganda..
Andrew -> Oldtruster
I think Ramzan Kadyrov said the truth. He illustrated the motivation of the killer. The killer
seems a simple-minded person. It was easy to convince him that Nemtsov had outraged the prophet. This
have nothing to do with real motives of the murder but we will never get to know them as a man who
convinced the killer has died. Investigators are off the trail, case closed.
susandbs12 9 Mar 2015 14:38
Rather than speculation we should wait for the results of the investigation to be published.
The Russia haters are too quick to expect instantaneous results, and jump to preposterous conclusions
based on nothing.
Wait for the investigation to be completed. This constant sniping will not have a positive effect
on those who are doubtlessly working very hard to find out what happened and why.
seaspan -> Standupwoman 9 Mar 2015 15:13
Nemtsov's allies, the US/CIA, and Kiev.
Or Muslims...
The list was rather short for Sherlock, and you cant convict them all. Muslims are the perfect patsie
and the crazy fundies can and are indirectly connected to any number of third "western" parties already.
So all in all, a good choice. I can just see the conspiracy loons at RT and elsewhere busy connecting
the dots, to defend their main man Putin.
Ciarán Here 9 Mar 2015 14:38
Boris Nemtsov ALLY and the guardian make fine cocktail Islamist speculation over murder 'useful
for Kremlin' ....but not useful for the USA UK EU....
Psychological projection is a theory in psychology in which humans defend themselves against
unpleasant impulses by denying their existence in themselves
Ciarán Here -> tjmars 9 Mar 2015 14:34
Yes you spotted it, it is called pointing the finger away from oneself - look over there! No not
there in Detroit or Greece for example but there in Russia we need to demonize a enemy to distract
the plebs from our mistreatment of them...and to justify our wars against those who simply say no
and that we are a sovereign state not a vassal of your greed ...
aucontraire2 MasonInNY 9 Mar 2015 14:19
You are not naive if you are from NY. You know that the Putin saga is all a made up story to
hide the failures of the west on the international scene.
The US is a failed leader now because it has failed the world in not providing justice to Palestinians.
The world needs a moral leader. Obviously the Chinese aren't interested at becoming the world's moral
leader, Russia can't become a moral leader for obvious reasons, Canada was on its way to take the
leadership, but the US republicans saw to it by forcing a nutcase called Harper who hides in a closet
at the first sound of firecrackers.
tjmars 9 Mar 2015 14:18
The Guardian Trusts's new way of keeping privileged access to governmental news is to promote propaganda
pieces for the government. The Guardian had to do a 180 after Snowden, so we'll forever more get the
likes of subjective opinions of young idealists from a Russian political party that couldn't afford
a security detail for its leader.
I guess with the ceasefire in Ukraine and the arrests of two conspirators so far from Chechnya,
they are running out of angles to spread the BS around with.
How about switching over to the not-so breaking news that globalization is devastating currencies
and economies, politics and human rights and resources and environmernts; the monetising and marketing
on everything worldwide.
Why report on the failure of politics and economics in one lousy country, when there's a "failure
du jour" everyday caused by globalization.
Why not cover the wars resulting from it on a daily rotation?
Who could have predicted that World War 3 would be a protracted economic war that would plunge
the world into a neo-Dark Age for hundreds of years?
The real wars are now suicides where people, who can't stand the stifling boredom of repititous
consumer product variations, sign up to commit suicide en mass in a foreign country. That, adversely,
is video gaming creating its own reality...
Standupwoman 9 Mar 2015 14:12
A predictable approach, but it misses something rather important. If the murder is indeed brought
home to the Chechens, then that is very convenient for all the other and much more likely suspects
- Nemtsov's allies, the US/CIA, and Kiev. Putin had no motive, but each of those three had much to
gain from a Nemtsov assassination, and have been gleefully cashing in ever since.
If Putin wanted to deflect blame onto someone else, why on earth wouldn't he choose one of those?
If Russia is the gangland state so many seem to think, then it would be simple to 'do a Kiev' and
stage a 'confession' implicating the CIA, Poroshenko, or anyone it wanted. So why hasn't it?
Unless of course the investigation is genuine and the Chechens did it after all...
irishmand -> seaspan 9 Mar 2015 15:06
It is my understanding that his area of influence and political activity was limited to Moscow,
the place Stalin over defended as he correctly surmised it was the brain of the USSR. Yeltsin also
understood Moscow as the place to agitate to shake up the national leadership.
If you want to start a coup, you have to do it in Moscow. Nemtsov was losing his influence in Moscow.
He was an member of the local duma in Yaroslavl'.
therealbillythefish 9 Mar 2015 15:05
Unfortunately for those on the West and their agents in Russia, the killers have been caught fairly
quickly and at least one has already confessed.
So, better go find something else to scream and shout about.
irishmand McStep 9 Mar 2015 15:03
I have no shame. Sorry, I lost it somewhere on my way... Maybe, after reading the western press
for a while, I started mimicking them.
But, in my defense, I only troll the trolls. If somebody wants to have a meaningful discussion
I am ready to have it too..
artdeco McStep 9 Mar 2015 15:02
Yeah, suspected so (Not that there's anything wrong with being Russian!, to paraphrase Seinfeld)
- the frequent absence of the little word the in sentences is a quite reliable "tell"...
;)
seaspan -> 1waldo1 9 Mar 2015 15:00
Why would he have to be in the "western press" to be considered important by the Kremlin? He was
involved in Moscow and was assassinated for his political activity there, not in Chechnya or London.
Doesn't Russia have its own independent domestic political dynamic?
No one else outside that venue should have given a damn about him.
rodney9 -> UBX525AEZ 9 Mar 2015 14:58
They even had a snow removal truck come by there to obstruct any potential witnesses at that
exact moment of the murder.The snow truck seemed to be slowed down at the point of the murder to
provide the killer or killers cover
You clearly belong to the Gary Kasparov school of en passant criminologists.
McStep -> crystaltips2 9 Mar 2015 14:55
mate, there are so many apparatchik trolls on this and other related threads, it's a joke. the
laughable thing about them is that most Russians know their media system is woefully centrally controlled
and censored, but they actually agree with this because they think the function of news media is to
tell the people want they want to hear in order to maintain solidarity in times of trouble.
in essence, they know, or a part of them knows, that they're talking utter **** but i guess like some
poor domestically abused partner it's a case, of, " SHUT UP, WHAT DO YOU KNOW??? HE LOVES ME!!!!!"
but it's understandable. if your leader is perpetuating generations of the indoctrinated notion that
the tsar has every right to pillage the state, murder its people and incite conflict on a whim, then
its probably is very difficult to come to terms with the abject sense of shame they should be feeling.
therealbillythefish
Unfortunately for those on the West and their agents in Russia, the killers have been caught fairly
quickly and at least one has already confessed.
So, better go find something else to scream and shout about.
Fromrussia1976 -> therealbillythefish
Or you'd better to investigate who has downed that plane in the Ukraine... Half a year has left,
but no result!
vr13vr
We don't know yet all the details and we are not sure what is behind this Chechen link. But no
matter what the working hypothesis are and what the results are, this opposition is going to criticize
it. That's why he is in anti-government opposition. There is no need to put his doubts into a front
page article.
SonnyTuckson
Scripted by the Kremlin. Again. Nothing new here. Getting rid of one opponent by blaming another.
irishmand -> SonnyTuckson
Scripted by CIA Again. Nothing new here. Stage a murder, blame on somebody else.
rodney9
Perhaps it would be more to the point, and better journalism, to elaborate and contexualise the
comments made by Nemtsov on Charlie Hebdo, or the German cartoon he published on his facebook side,
as well as Nemtsov's personal attack on Kadyrov, rather than blanket denials that it has anything
to do with insulting the prophet Mohammed. Fortunately, following a few links here in the comment
section makes that all possible. That they are ignored here in the article is evidence once again
of poor journalism, it's almost like being told don't bother to go there, it's not worth it, just
keep on believing it was Putin. The Guardian published an editorial not so very long ago about " a
cynical post-modern media strategy" all those Kremlin controlled channels manipulating the truth for
daring to suggest 5 (sic) lines of enquiry, and how truth itself was "vanishing" in a flurry of what
they called "weaponised relativism". CCTV cameras were conspicuously inoperative, some bigots speculated
that a snow plough had been strategically sent in (Gary Kasparov) to mask the actual footage of the
moment of the killing.
We realise that this must be very disppointing for all those who wanted this to be a sure fire
mafia hit in a "mafia state" carried out by a mafia boss, rather than an act of Islamic terrorism
from fanatics that we have recently seen elsewhere in Paris and Copenhagen.
We shouldn't forget that hundreds of thousands demonstrated in Chechnya against Charlie Hebdo,
finding it all very provocative. I will probably watch France 24, that news channel might not be so
hostile to looking at the real connections and Nemtsov's comments in depth rather than denials by
an English newspaper.
Simon311 -> rodney9
Well the Guardian and others who have spent months telling us that the Russian media is not worth
reading and watching, now quotes the Russian media when it agrees with thier view.
This is almost mental illness in its inconsistency.
Ludicrous - the Russian media is always wrong, until it says someting we like, then it is completely
right.
MentalToo
Saw this headline at TASS:
First suspects in Nemtsov murder identified - Federal Security Service
Surprisingly it turned out the suspects was not FSB after all, but some of Kadyrov's lunatics arrested
by FSB. Who could have guessed that.
It seems they have found some, who are even more crazy than he is.
daltonbernard
...some of Nemtsov's associates ... do not believe fanatics acting alone could have shot someone
dead so close to the Kremlin.
I mean, that's just dumb. It's not hard to shoot somebody. I don't see how the proximity to the
Kremlin makes it any more difficult. You just ... do it. It takes all of a second or two to pull a
trigger a few times. Unless the Russians have installed some kind of electromagnetic field around
the Kremlin that magically stops guns from firing. But the article doesn't say they have, so I'm at
a loss as to how "some of Nemtsov's associates" could be so irrational.
seaspan -> daltonbernard
Rumour's are flying in Moscow, and lazy journalists will report whatever they hear without putting
it into a more understandable context or making better sense of it. What I've heard that makes more
sense is that a Chechen fanatic muslim "motive" doesn't make any sense, even though someone from there
could have been hired to kill Nemtsov -- the important point is that the motive remains open and officially
obscured...
Simon311 -> Havingalavrov
Howd o you know
a) He was a "complete professional"?
b) Criminals make mistakes all the time
c) You appear to be beleieving Russian media which you have said is full of lies.
So self contradictory pompous rubbish.
Yes you do not like Putin - got it.
BunglyPete
Make of this what you will but this seems to be the official line so don't expect much else
In 2007 Boris Nemtsov gave an interview to the magazine "Expert", in which he stated that all
the measures of President Vladimir Putin are aimed at increasing the birth rate, primarily in the
regions populated by Muslims, and it is "extremely dangerous for the future of Russia". After that
Nemtsov was accused by well-known representatives of the Muslim world of Islamophobia.
In January 2015, the year after the execution of cartoonists from the French magazine Charlie Hebdo,
the politician in his blog on the website of "Echo of Moscow" had justified the actions of the cartoonists,
and wrote that "Islam is stuck in the middle ages", and called recent events the "Islamic Inquisition".
A few days later, Nemtsov said that "Everyone is tired of Kadyrov's threats", and "it is time to
arrest him". This happened after the head of Chechnya said very unflattering things about the opposition
leader Mikhail Khodorkovsky and journalist Alexey Venediktov because of their support for the cartoonists
of Charlie Hebdo.
Zaur Dadaev decided that Boris Nemtsov offended Muslims, and out of a false sense of patriotism and
defense of religion decided to punish the politician
The US, Russia and Germany - you can't beat any of them for producing weird types.
Simon311 -> RedTelecaster
Whatever a "Putinbot" may be. SOunds like a new word for "commie" as it was used 40 years ago.
Renfrow
Reading the posts here it is clear to me that people that blamed Putin for this will continue
to do so regardless of what evidence to the contrary is presented simply because it suits their agenda.
FrancesSmith -> RedTelecaster
go on help the neocons destroy eastern europe. do nuland and breedlove pay you are or do you
do it for free?
but in truth you just reveal the ugliness that lies at the heart of the demonisation of putin, and
repel people. keep it up..................
midnightschild10
It's the silly season again. The Obama administration is demanding a thorough investigation of
Nemtsov' s death. They don't want a whitewash. The US certainly knows a whitewash when it sees one.
Our Justicell Department looked high and low in the White House and couldn't find one banker or CEO
to hold responsible for the housing crises. ( They all hang out on Wall Street.) Given a second chance
to do their job, they couldn't find any military/industrial contractor who committed fraud in either
not building incinerators on US bases in Iraq and Afghanistan or built them but they could not be
used because of shoddy workmanship. ( Should have asked soldiers returning home with respiratory problems
due to trash pits.) And finally the DOJ was unable to find anyone responsible for the torture and
rendition programs ( could have found Cheyney on Fox News continuing to do interviews.)
So it shouldn't be too difficult for Russia to do a better job investigating the death of Nemtsov,
since the US has set the bar so low.
irgun777
Shaun Walker writes about " Islamic speculation convenient for Kremlin '
One of the suspects blow himself in traditional Islamic suicide tradition, others were charged in
court hiding their faces from reporters. This is where Mr Walker, the speculation stops.
Boris Nemtsov's killing last week was probably not a political assassination, as it was carried out
by amateurs, said former professional assassin Alexei Sherstobitov.
Gunmen who killed Russian politician Boris Nemtsov last week in central Moscow were amateurs and
the pattern of the murder indicates that it was carried out unprofessionally, former hitman Alexei
Sherstobitov, currently serving a prison term for 12 assassinations, told Russian news site Gazeta.
Every hitman, first and foremost, is concerned about one thing – how to carry out an assassination
with the least amount of risk of being exposed. The most logical choice for a killer would have been
to shoot the victim from as far as possible. In Nemtsov's case, given where the killing took place,
the simplest way to execute the assassination would have been to drive along the street, on which the
victim was walking, park the car and wait until he approached.
Once he was at a shooting distance, the shooter should have slightly opened the car's window, shot
the victim and escaped without putting himself at the risk of exposure. Even an average shooter should
be able to hit a person's head at the distance between 15 and 25 meters. The fact that Nemtsov's killers
made six shots, while only hitting him four times, at a close distance shows their unprofessionalism,
Sherstobitov told Gazeta.
"A professional shooter, who often uses his weapon, is unlikely to fire this many shots," said the
former assassin. One of two shots are usually enough.
Sherstobitov said the killing reminded him of incidents that frequently occurred during the 1990s,
when gang members accidentally came across someone from a rival gang in a public place. In situations
like that, killings were often carried out on short notice, without much preparation.
Those, who
spotted a member or members from a rival gang, made a phone call and killers would soon arrive, take
positions near the victims' car or outside of a restaurant, where their victims were. Assassinations
like this were often ill-organized, chaotic and took place in public places, Sherstobitov explained.
The former hitman concluded that Nemtsov's killing was likely a non-political assassination.
"In my opinion, this [Nemtsov] is not a politician who could really influence something. Many people
had already forgotten about him," Sherstobitov said, adding that there are more important and influential
politicians out there to assassinate, if one really wanted to cause a real political chaos in the country.
The killing of Nemtsov was not even carried out professionally, the former hitman said, ruling out
the political version of the last week assassination.
Sherstobitov was a member of one of Moscow's organized crime groups during the 1990s, when he became
known as one of Russia's most notorious assassins. In 2008, he was found guilty of assassinating 12
people and currently serving a 23-year prison term.
"... U.S. media is quick to blame Putin for the assassination of opposition leader Boris Nemtsov. ..."
"... This is a classic sacrificial lamb, textbook case. Good job Americans, good job Nazis, good job liberals. I dont know who of them did this. But it was done beautifully. ..."
"... Even the U.S. governments Voice of America states – in an article entitled Could Nemtsov Threaten Putin in Death as in Life? – that Putin loses much more than he gains by the assassination: ..."
Mikhail Delyagin – a top advisor to Nemtsov for a year and a half –
said that Putin didn't do it, and compared it to the shoot down of Malaysian Flight 17 over Ukraine:
The fact is obvious: this is a Malaysian Boeing, shot down by the Nazis at the walls of the
Kremlin.
***
This is a classic sacrificial lamb, textbook case. Good job Americans, good job Nazis, good
job liberals. I don't know who of them did this. But it was done beautifully.
***
We have to be prepared that Ukraine will be brought to Russia a lot faster then I thought just
recently.
Before I thought that we are safe from Maidan until November, now it is clear that Maidan may
be lit up already in the spring. The sacrificial lamb has been slaughtered.
With the murder of Russian opposition leader Boris Nemtsov, gunned down on a Moscow street,
the fiercest critic of President Vladimir Putin has been removed from the political stage.
But it remains to be seen whether, in death as in life, Nemtsov will remain a threat to Putin's
rule.
Already, city authorities have approved a mass march for up to 50,000 people in central Moscow
on Sunday. The march, expected to be far larger than the scheduled protest rally it replaces,
will provide a powerful platform for Kremlin critics who suspect a government hand in Nemtsov's
death.
Even officials in Putin's government seem to sense the danger that the former first deputy
prime minister's martyrdom might pose, hinting darkly that Friday night's drive-by shooting may
have been an deliberate "provocation" ahead of the planned weekend rally.
Dr_NOS
Apparently Jen Psaki is pregnant. Let's blame Putin for this
What is it about America's women diplomats? They seem so hard and cloned - bereft of any humanity
or intelligence. Smear Campaigns, Bullying, Flattery ... All set of tricks of female sociopaths...
What is it about America's women diplomats? They seem so hard and cloned - bereft of any humanity
or intelligence. Presumably, these women are supposed to represent social advance for the female gender.
But, far from displaying female independence, they are just a pathetic copy of the worst traits in
American male politicians - aggressive, arrogant and completely arrant in their views.
Take Victoria Nuland - the US Assistant Secretary of State - who was caught using obscene language
in a phone call about the European Union and the political affairs of Ukraine. In her previous posting
as a spokeswoman for the US State Department, Nuland had the demeanor of a robotic matron with a swivel
eye.
Now in her new role of covertly rallying anti-government protesters in Ukraine, Nuland has emerged
to sound like a bubblegum-chewing Mafia doll. In her leaked private conversation with the US ambassador
to Kiev, the American female diplomat is heard laying down in imperious tones how a new government
in Ukraine should be constituted. Nuland talks about "gluing together" a sovereign country as if it
is a mere plaything, and she stipulates which members of the US-backed street rabble in Kiev should
or should not be included in any Washington-approved new government in the former Soviet republic.
We don't know who actually tapped and leaked Nuland's private call to the US ambassador in Kiev,
Geoffrey Pyatt. It could have been the Ukrainian or Russian secret services, but, regardless, it was
an inspired move to reveal it. For the disclosure, which has been posted on the internet, lays bare
the subversive meddling agenda of Washington in Ukrainian internal affairs. Up to now, the Americans
have been piously pretending that their involvement is one of a bystander supporting democracy from
afar.
But, thanks to the Nuland's foul-mouthed indiscretion, the truth is out. Washington, from her own
admission, is acting like an agent provocateur in Ukraine's political turmoil. That is an illegal
breach of international rules of sovereignty. Nuland finishes her phone call like a gangster ordering
a hit on a rival, referring to incompetent European interference in Ukraine with disdain - "F...k
the EU."
What we are witnessing here is the real, ugly face of American government and its uncouth contempt
for international law and norms.
Next up is Wendy Sherman, the Under Secretary for Political Affairs, who is also Washington's top
negotiator in the P5+1 nuclear talks with Iran. Sherman is another flinty-eyed female specimen of the
American political class, who, like Nuland, seems to have a block of ice for a heart and a frozen Popsicle
for a brain.
Again, like Nuland, Sherman aims to excel in her political career by sounding even more macho, morose
and moronic than her male American peers.
Last week, Sherman was giving testimony before the US Senate foreign affairs committee on the upcoming
negotiations with Iran over the interim nuclear agreement. The panel was chaired by the warmongering
Democrat Senator Robert Menendez, who wants to immediately ramp up more sanctions on Iran, as well
as back the Israeli regime in any preemptive military strike on the Islamic Republic.
Sherman's performance was a craven display of someone who has been brainwashed to mouth a mantra
of falsehoods with no apparent ability to think for herself. It's scary that such people comprise the
government of the most nuclear-armed-and-dangerous state in the world.
Programmed Sherman accused Iran of harboring ambitions to build nuclear weapons. "We share the
same goal [as the warmonger Menendez] to prevent Iran from obtaining a nuclear weapon." And she went
on to repeat threadbare, risible allegations that Iran is supporting international terrorism. That
is a disturbing indication of the low level of political intelligence possessed by the US chief negotiator.
"Iran also continues to arm and train militants in Lebanon, Gaza, Iraq, Afghanistan, Yemen, and
Bahrain. And Iran and Lebanese Hezbollah continue," asserted Sherman without citing an iota of proof
and instead relying on a stale-old propaganda narrative.
The number three in the US State Department went on to say of the interim nuclear deal with Iran:
"What is also important to understand is that we remain in control over whether to accept the terms
of a final deal or not. We have made it clear to Iran that, if it fails to live up to its commitments,
or if we are unable to reach agreement on a comprehensive solution, we would ask the Congress to ramp
up new sanctions."
Remember that Sherman and her State Department boss John Kerry are considered "soft on Iran" by
the likes of Menendez, John McCain, Lyndsey Graham, Mark Kirk, and the other political psychopaths
in Washington. So, we can tell from Sherman's callous words and mean-minded logic that the scope for
genuine rapprochement between the US and Iran is extremely limited.
Sherman finished her performance before the Senate panel with the obligatory illegal threat of
war that Washington continually issues against Iran: "We retain all options to ensure that Iran cannot
obtain a nuclear weapon."
In the goldfish-bowl environment of Washington politics, perhaps such female officials are to be
even more feared. The uniform monopoly of America's political class is dictated by militarism – weapons
manufacturers, oil companies and Zionist lobbyists. The only way to "succeed" in this cesspool is to
be even more aggressive and imperialist than your peers.
Nuland and Sherman illustrate the cold-hearted logic at work in American robotic politics: it's
a system programmed for imperialism and war, and it doesn't matter whether the officials are Democrat,
Republic, male or female. They are all clones of a war criminal state.
Finian Cunningham (born 1963) has written extensively on international affairs, with articles
published in several languages. He is a Master's graduate in Agricultural Chemistry and worked as a
scientific editor for the Royal Society of Chemistry, Cambridge, England, before pursuing a career
in journalism.
Nuland somewhat reminds Madeleine
Albright. Both are so fund of bulling their opponents, that probably might be classified as female
psychopaths... As one commenters
noted "I take it that
"hard-charging" is an American euphemism for foul of mouth and coarse of temperament?"
While Russia's envoy to NATO notes that statements by the deputy head of NATO testify to the
fact that the leaders of the bloc want to intervene in Russia's internal politics, and are "dreaming of Russian Maidan," Washington has a bigger problem... Germany.
As Der Spiegel reports, while US President Obama 'supports' Chancellor Merkel's efforts at
finding a diplomatic solution to the Ukraine crisis, hawks in Washington seem determined to
torpedo Berlin's approach. And NATO's top commander in Europe hasn't been helping either
with sources in the Chancellery have referred to Breedlove's comments as "dangerous
propaganda."
Nuland, who is seen as a possible secretary of state should the Republicans win back
the White House in next year's presidential election, is an important voice in US policy
concerning Ukraine and Russia. She has never sought to hide her emotional bond to Russia,
even saying "I love Russia." Her grandparents immigrated to the US from Bessarabia, which belonged
to the Russian empire at the time. Nuland speaks Russian fluently.
She is also very direct. She can be very keen and entertaining, but has been
known to take on an undiplomatic tone -- and has not always been wrong to do so. Mykola Asarov,
who was prime minister under toppled Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych, recalls that Nuland
basically blackmailed Yanukovych in order to prevent greater bloodshed in Kiev during the Maidan
protests. "No violence against the protesters or you'll fall," Nuland told him according to Asarov.
She also, he said, threatened tough economic and political sanctions against both Ukraine and the
country's leaders. According to Asarov, Nuland said that, were violence used against the
protesters on Maidan Square, information about the money he and his cronies had taken out of the
country would be made public.
Nuland has also been open -- at least internally -- about her contempt for European
weakness and is famous for having said "Fuck the EU" during the initial days of the Ukraine crisis
in February of 2014. Her husband, the neo-conservative Robert Kagan, is, after all, the
originator of the idea that Americans are from Mars and Europeans, unwilling as they are to
realize that true security depends on military power, are from Venus.
When it comes to the goal of delivering weapons to Ukraine, Nuland and Breedlove
work hand-in-hand. On the first day of the Munich Security Conference, the two
gathered the US delegation behind closed doors to discuss their strategy for breaking Europe's
resistance to arming Ukraine.
On the seventh floor of the Bayerischer Hof hotel in the heart of Munich, it was Nuland who
began coaching. "While talking to the Europeans this weekend, you need to make the case
that Russia is putting in more and more offensive stuff while we want to help the Ukrainians
defend against these systems," Nuland said. "It is defensive in nature although some of it has
lethality."
Jurassic
general Breedwar or Breedhatred? Hes war maniac!
cossack55
Typical wingnut general. Notice you don't hear the grunts talkin' shit. Gotta go. Dr.
Strangelove is about to start.
XqWretch
Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to
risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one
piece? Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia nor in England nor in
America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of
the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along,
whether it is a democracy or a fascist dictatorship or a Parliament or a Communist dictatorship.
Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy, the people have some say in the matter
through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.
Göring: Oh, that is all well and good, but, voice or no voice, the people can always be brought
to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being
attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It
works the same way in any country.
bania
Breedlove? Heading up an army? Can't make this stuff up!!!
Took Red Pill
"Berlin Alarmed by Aggressive NATO Stance on Ukraine." We all are!
chunga
Hmmm...Nudelman and Kagan aren't from Mars or Venus are they?
Urban Redneck
Frau Ferkel is just a muppet cocktease, and so is the "concern". It's nothing but political
cover for the political whores. If they were seriously alarmed, they would simply revoke General
Ripper's diplomatic credentials and issue an arrest warrant for the psychopath.
On a reporting trip to Saudi
Arabia seven years ago, I went to Idi Amin's house. I had heard that Mr. Amin, the former Ugandan
dictator who died last weekend at the age of 78, was living in Jidda, the Red Sea port, and I
wanted to see for myself. Was it possible that a man who, in the 1970's, had ordered the deaths of
300,000 of his countrymen, raped and robbed his nation into endless misery and admitted to having
eaten human flesh was whiling away his time as a guest of the Saudi government?
It was. There, in a spacious villa behind a white gate, Mr. Amin made his home with a half-dozen
of his 30 or so children. He was not there the day I rang (a son said he was out of town), but
locals said he could often be seen pushing his cart along the frozen food section of the
supermarket, being massaged at the health club, praying at the mosque. He had long ago abandoned
his British-style military uniform for the white robe of the Saudi man, but as an African
measuring 6-foot-3 and nearly 300 pounds, he did not exactly blend in.
A former Sudanese colonel who worked as a manager at the local supermarket said, "People greet him
and say, `Hello, Mr. President.' " Why? Wasn't he a savage dictator?
"Oh yes" he used to eat people," the manager replied, laughing. "But this is our nature. We
forget."
But what would prompt the Saudi government to play host to such a man?
The answer, when the question was posed to Saudi officials, was an excursion into the desert
habits of hospitality, and Mr. Amin's conversion to Islam. His support for the Arab boycott of
Israel in the 1970's certainly also endeared him to his hosts.
During the nearly quarter-century of his soft exile, no nation tried to bring Mr. Amin to justice.
A few years ago, after Spain's government went after Chile's former dictator, Augusto Pinochet,
Human Rights Watch did bring up Mr. Amin's case to the United Nations Commission on Human Rights,
but to no avail. Under international law, any nation, including Saudi Arabia, could have and
should have prosecuted Mr. Amin.
But, as Reed Brody, special counsel for prosecutions at Human Rights Watch, says, "If you kill one
person, you go to jail; if you kill 20, you go to an institution for the insane; if you kill
20,000, you get political asylum." Mr. Brody keeps a melancholy map on his wall of other tyrants
gone free: Alfredo Stroessner, dictator of Paraguay, lives in Brazil; Haiti's Raoúl Cedras is in
Panama; Mengistu Haile Mariam of Ethiopia is in Zimbabwe; Hissí¨ne Habré of Chad lives in Senegal.
Today there is the International Criminal Court, which can bring a future Amin to justice,
although the United States is among 100 countries that have shortsightedly declined to participate
in the court.
I was sorry not to have had a chance to talk to Mr. Amin
directly. But those who did speak with him suggest that I missed little. An Italian journalist,
Riccardo Orizio, asked him in 1999 whether he felt remorse. No, Mr. Amin replied, only nostalgia.
Six years earlier, a British writer, Tom Stacey, saw him. At one point, Mr. Amin pulled from his
pocket a paraphrase of Psalm 22 and commented: "Remember we are special to God. He sees a beauty
in us few see."
Harbanger
"The term "neoconservative" refers to those who made the ideological journey from the
anti-Stalinist LEFT to the camp of American conservatism."
-Straight from the definition for the morons that don't know how to do research..
I continue to believe that the US
goal in the Ukraine is to distract and bedevil Russia merely by expending a few billion zio-dollars,
and thousands of Ukrainian lives, both of which are truly dirt cheap in Washington's calculus.
This is to be followed by the USA's ultimately just walking away, leaving a broken Ukraine for its
neighbors, chiefly Russia, to reconstruct.
Every now and then, though, some US spokes-toady makes statements that imply that the USA actually
wants a major war... with Russia. I hope and pray that this is merely Grand Chessboard Theatre,
but I am starting to have doubts. For a taste of the motivational fare now offered to US
"conservatives", you might want to take a look at the recently posted anit-Russia piece posted at
National Review, which openly calls for regime change in Moscow. It's a well-written polemic which
makes some sense... provided that you accept that Washington and Brussels are citadels of freedom
and human rights, Russians are ignorant, drunken blockheads, and Putin is evil incarnate.
sunaJ
"I continue to believe that the US
goal in the Ukraine is to distract and bedevil Russia merely by expending a few billion zio-dollars,"
In your estimation is the second
part of this Kansas City Shuffle being Syria and pipelines to Europe, or are they also symptoms of
some greater neocon fear, ie. Russian oil dominance in a petrodollar world?
Jack Burton
Breedlove is talking his book. His glory and promotions would increase and his power would
expand the more he can talk the NATO into war. Breedlove will be secure in the command bunker, and
like the Iraq war command, be fully secure while his men faced possible death and mutilation.
The text book for this is Yugoslavia. Europe had brokered a few peace deals, but the USA stepped
in and undercut them all with lies and flase intelligence, leading to several bloody wars. Right
now Washington seeks the Yugoslavia solution, a long bloody war.
Ignatius
"According to Asarov, Nuland said that, were violence used against the protesters on Maidan
Square, information about the money he and his cronies had taken out of the country would be made
public."
Did Nuland also say that about Occupy to the Obummer administation?
Escrava Isaura
Ohh Boy.
The US military industrial complex doesn't care about European press, or America press, for
that matter. US military industrial complex doesn't' even care who the President is.
Do you think the US military complex cares if the US government bails out lots of big
lemons-banks, insurance, auto makers, airlines, and food stamps to the working poor? No, they
could care less, because US military industrial complex is immune to budget constraints and they
are the biggest supporters of failing industries and projects.
Do you think that the US military complex cares for what industries the analysts and brokers at
an investment firms such as JP Morgan, Goldman, or Rothschild's picks as winners for government
contracts or a stock market bubble? Hell no, because they are the biggest winners.
So, the Germans are stunned about NATO? Are you kidding me?
Germany and NATO are branches of the US military industrial complex.
johngaltfla
Obama is a Neocon?
Who'dathunkit!??!!?
In reality, the world is sick of this bullshit. I'm sick of it. Rand Paul's approach is 1000%
correct; quit meddling!
Germany is correct to object to this because if we get involved in the Ukraine with Poland then
Russia will be outside of Berlin with several brigades of tanks in days. The US nor NATO are ready
for a major multi-front conflict unless they use nukes.
Which wouldn't be all that bad because some of the US cities we would lose are a major part of the
economic drag and societal/political problems we have at this time....
Never mind. Fire away boys.
krage_man
The instutute of US presidency is shockingly weak.
Basically, very little can Obama do if all career burocrats continue doing what they always doing.
Obama is not able to get control of the goverment staff which demonstrate how weak leader he is
and how unimportant any political office change is for foregn policy.
Dems or Reps - no matter who is there will always be criminal actions on the world scine.
sunaJ
Germany needs to wake up NOW to the fact that this country is commanded by psychopathic,
warmongering neocons, mitigated only by a willfully cluless and gutless president. NATO will prove
a deathtrap for Germany.
max2205
Don't expect a lot of help from the old axis countries, Germany Italy Japan......neutered
Questan1913
Good point...but let's elaborate further: The US wrote the constitutions of Japan and Germany
after the end of WWll. It also continues to occupy, militarily, both countries with approximately
50,000 military personnel in each and a huge naval presence in Japan.
Neither conquered country has been able to recover a shred of its former sovereignty for 70
years! They are vassal states subject to the most ruthless hegemonic power since the Roman empire.
ebworthen
If Germany were really concerned about NATO they'd kick the U.S. Armed Forces out.
This is political banter; the Germans need Russian NatGas and are playing both sides.
They have guilt over the death of 20+ million Russians in WWII, but Russia is en export market -
and they don't want their Eastern flank open.
Just like Greece; they feel bad about WWII, but they want a downtrodden island to vacation on too.
And Neocons? Both the Left and the Right are war happy pumpers of the M.I.C. here in the U.S.A.
nope-1004
Dude.... it's US hegemony at risk here. Pipelines and what not. Read up, pull your head out of
the sand, and watch US foreign policy implode on itself. After all, WTF is the US meddling in
Europe for anyway? Why are they there? What does the Ukraine have that the US or Russia needs?
It's all about energy and how it flows to customers. The US has the most to lose, which is why
they created the coup to overthrow the previously elected government in Ukraine.
They are, without question, the most hypocritical government to ever grace God's green earth. They
say one thing publicly and do the opposite in practice. And it appears they've got you sucked in
too.
malek
Two points:
1. The headline to me seems to indicate the path for the usual whitewash towards the "Democrats":
currently a few US Neocons came to head the "Democratic" party like wolves in sheep clothing, but
overall the leftists still hold the moral highground!
2. It is curious German magazine Der Spiegel doesn't mention it's own role in this, posting a
headline STOP PUTIN NOW on it's frontpage after MH-17 had been shot down.
JustObserving
The Nobel Prize Winner and the Neocons have always wanted to put Russia in its place and the
destabilization of Ukraine was the starting point. It was payback for Putin protecting Assad and
granting asylum to Snowden. USA wants Russia on its knees and complete full spectrum domination
with no one to question US hegemony and infinite spying. Unfortunately Putin stands in the way and
he must be demonized and destroyed.
Victoria Nuland Lied to US Congress about Phantom Russian Hoards in Ukraine
On March 4, Nuland addressed House Foreign Affairs Committee members.
She called murdered US-funded, Boris Nemtsov a "freedom fighter, Russian patriot and friend."
She absurdly called Ukraine "central to our 25 year Transatlantic quest for a 'Europe whole, free
and at peace.' "
Fact: Washington wants Ukraine used as a dagger against Russia's heartland – with menacing US
bases on its borders threatening is sovereign independence.
Nuland called US planned and implements year ago Maidan violence using well-trained Nazi thugs
"peaceful protest(s) by ordinary Ukrainians."
"They braved frigid temperatures, brutal beatings and sniper bullets…Ukraine began to forge a new
nation…holding free and fair election…and undertaking deep and comprehensive economic and
political reforms."
Fact: US-deposed President Viktor Yanukovych's police showed remarkable restraint.
Fact: Washington-supported Nazi thugs bore full responsibility for beatings, sniper killings and
other violence.
Fact: Ukrainian parliamentary and presidential elections were farcical – with no legitimacy
whatever.
Fact: So-called economic reforms involve crushing hardships on already impoverished Ukrainians in
return for loan-shark-of-last-resort IMF blood money.
Fact: No responsible political reforms exist. None are planned. It bears repeating. Ukraine is a
US-installed fascist dictatorship.
The basis of neocon philosophy is a LIE, that if you don't have a real enemy just make shit up.
How then can one "debate" a neocon with anything other than a baseball bat?
Their starting point is that neocons will lie if they have to and probably also just for the fun
of it.
Psychopaths.
JustObserving
The Nobel Prize Winner has bombed 7 Muslim countries, destabilized Ukraine, attempted a coup in
Venezuela, lied about sarin use in Syria to almost start a war, assassinated US citizens without a
trial, regularly drones women and children and wedding parties and yet is the most admired man in
the world in a Gallup poll in 2014. I would cry at humanity's stupidity, cruelty and corruption
but I prefer to laugh. You love your lying war criminals then you will get lot more war.
Nuland's career has been one of ensuring that the underpinnings of the Cold War never completely
died out in Europe. Her State Department career began as the chief of staff to President Bill
Clinton's Deputy Secretary of State and close friend, Strobe Talbott. It was under Talbott that
Nuland helped completely fracture Yugoslavia and ensured that the U.S. slanted against the
interests of Russia's ally, Serbia.
markar
Angie needs to end her triangulating charade and choose sides. Keeping a foot in the Russian
door while appeasing her Neocon masters in the West won't work much longer. She knows Obama is a
spineless puppet who won't back her and Ukraine is a failed state run riot by neo Nazi thugs and
oligarchs.
What's it going to be Angie, an act of heroism or taking Germany down with the Western ship?
lesterbegood
Angie like Obama, Nuland, et al, is another political puppet/spokesperson for the power behind
the money.
Winston Churchill
Which means her puppet masters are changing horses mid race.
No honor amongst thieves and/or psychopaths.
HowdyDoody
I wonder what on earth the CIA/NSA has on her that keeps her putting the interests of the US
above her own country.
Wile-E-Coyote
Come on Germany tell the USA to fuck right off............................. won't happen.
css1971
35 US military bases in Germany say you are absolutely correct.
Son of Loki
Simply look at the quality of our State dept -- Nuland, etc -- The average IQ and emotional
intelligence there has to be at an all-time low.
Gone are the days when you had brillant statespeople in the state dept who were thoroughly
versed in history, politics, economics and debate.
yogibear
"Gone are the days when you had brillant statespeople in the state dept who were thorougly
versed in history, politics, economics and debate."
People are used to dumb and dumber DC. It matches the rest of the country.
Stumpy4516
The statespeople may have been more intelligent at one time but their actions (covert murders,
regime change, wars, etc.) have always been the same.
A CIA "psychological operations" manual prepared by a CIA contractor for the Nicaraguan Contra
rebels
noted the value of assassinating someone on your own side to create a "martyr" for the cause.
The manual received so much publicity from Associated Press, Washington Post and other media
that – during the 1984 presidential debate – President Reagan was
confronted with the following question on national television:
At this moment, we are confronted with the extraordinary story of a CIA guerrilla manual
for the anti-Sandinista contras whom we are backing, which advocates not only assassinations
of Sandinistas but the hiring of criminals to assassinate the guerrillas we are supporting
in order to create martyrs.
Dont forget the Kerry Committee in 1985 where Sen Kerry fawned over dictators who promised they
were not Communists - before they allied with communist Soviet Union.
Thanks for trying to stay on top of these kinds of stories, George Washington! More
and more, it is practically impossible for any individual to keep up ... I appreciate articles
that have organized a presentation of crucial information that one could review!
This revelation feels like nothing compared to the other shit that was in that manual, along
with all the training that was done at the School of the Americas at Ft. Bening, Georgia to carry
out what was in the manual down in Nicaraqua in the 80's.
OK, lets look at these alleged terrorists. What the hell is it they want anyways?
If their goal is to eliminate Israel as megalomaniac nuttyyahoo wants us to believe - THEN WHY
THE FUCK DO THEY ATTACK AND KILL EVERYBODY BUT ISRAELI'S????????
If it's global redistribution of wealth, then WHY DON"T THEY ATTACK THE ROTHSCHILDS, MEMBERS
OF THE BILDERBERGERS, DAVOS ATTENDEES, BANKSTERS IN GENERAL, etc.
Seriously, either they are the stupidest fucking people in the world, or they are playing someone
elses game for fucks sake.
If their goal is to eliminate Israel as megalomaniac nuttyyahoo wants us to believe - THEN
WHY THE FUCK DO THEY ATTACK AND KILL EVERYBODY BUT ISRAELI'S????????
If it's global redistribution of wealth, then WHY DON"T THEY ATTACK THE ROTHSCHILDS, MEMBERS
OF THE BILDERBERGERS, DAVOS ATTENDEES, BANKSTERS IN GENERAL, etc.
Seriously, either they are the stupidest fucking people in the world, or they are playing
someone elses game for fucks sake. ...... dexter_morgan
Possibly, and therefore quite probably, an active work in progress, d_m, and something to look
forward to in the near future as intelligence takes over from stupidity?
Yeah, GW can go live somewhere else and see if he can write stuff like this from all the GREAT
countries he likes to defend...like Russia, and see how far he gets.
Not only that, but his quotation isnt even a Question, it was a STATEMENT.
Was Jan. 6 the end of an era – or start of a dangerous new one?
.jpg)
Lyttenburgh says: November 23, 2016 at 08:02
Was Jan. 6 the end of an era – or start of a dangerous new one?
